text:
Tiergarten (Berlin)

Tiergarten (, literally Animal Garden, historically meaning, deer park or hunting game park ) is a locality within the borough of Mitte, in central Berlin (Germany). Notable for the great and homonymous urban park, before German reunification, it was a part of West Berlin. Until Berlin's 2001 administrative reform, Tiergarten was also the name of a borough (Bezirk), consisting of the current locality (Ortsteil) of Tiergarten (formerly called Tiergarten-Süd) plus Hansaviertel and Moabit. A new system of road and rail tunnels runs under the park towards Berlin's main station in nearby Moabit.

Historical notes
Once a hunting ground of the Electors of Brandenburg the Großer Tiergarten park of today was designed in the 1830s by landscape architect Peter Joseph Lenné. In the course of industrialization in the 19th century, a network of streets was laid out in the Hobrecht-Plan in an area that came to be known architecturally as the Wilhelmine Ring. In 1894 the Reichstag building by architect Paul Wallot opened as the seat of the German parliament. The lawn between the contemporary Haus der Kulturen der Welt (House of World Cultures) and the Reichstag building was the site of the Krolloper opera house, built in 1844, which served as parliament house after the Reichstag fire on 27 February 1933 and was demolished by air raids in 1943.

On 15 January 1919 the socialist Karl Liebknecht was shot by Freikorps soldiers within the park near the lake Neuer See. The corpse of Rosa Luxemburg, murdered on the same day, was found in the nearby Landwehrkanal on 1 June 1919.

The first Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (Institute for Sex Research) of Magnus Hirschfeld was situated at the former In den Zelten street, near the contemporary Haus der Kulturen der Welt, from 1919 until it was closed by the Nazis in 1933.

A site next to the Tiergarten park is the former location of a villa at Tiergartenstrasse 4 where more than 60 Nazi bureaucrats and doctors worked in secret under the "T4" program to organize the mass murder of sanatorium and psychiatric hospital patients deemed unworthy to live. The German national memorial to the people with disabilities systematically murdered by the Nazis was dedicated in 2014 in Berlin at that site. Although the villa was destroyed, a Stolperstein set in the pavement on Tiergartenstraße marks its location and historic significance.

After 1944, the park was largely deforested because it served as a source of firewood for the devastated city. In 1945, the Soviet Union built a war memorial along the Straße des 17. Juni, the Tiergarten's main east–west artery, near the Brandenburg Gate. The Tiergarten itself became part of the British sector.

Tiergarten today
The locality houses many parliamentary and governmental institutions, among others the Bundestag in the Reichstag building and the new German Chancellery. The residence of the German President, Schloss Bellevue and the Carillon are also located in the Tiergarten park. It contains several notable sculptures including the four-tiered Victory Column (Siegessäule), the Bismarck Memorial and several other memorials to prominent Prussian generals, all of which were located in the ceremonial park facing the Reichstag before they were moved to their present location by the Nazis. In addition, the tree-lined pedestrian avenues emanating from the Victory Column contain several ceremonial sculptures of Prussian aristocrats enacting an 18th-century hunt.

The Brandenburg Gate and the Potsdamer Platz are situated on the eastern rim of the locality, which itself was the former frontier between East and West Berlin. Nearby is the Kulturforum stretching from the Berliner Philharmonie, a 1963 concert hall by architect Hans Scharoun and home of the Berlin Philharmonic orchestra to the Neue Nationalgalerie built by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe in 1968. In between are the neoclassical Saint Matthew Church, built in 1845 by Friedrich August Stüler, the Gemäldegalerie as well as the new branch of the Berlin State Library (Staatsbibliothek).

The adjacent area between the park and the Landwehrkanal is home to Emil Fahrenkamp's 1932 Shell-Haus, numerous embassies and the Bendlerblock, where in 1944 Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg and the conspirators of the 20 July plot were shot by a firing squad. Today the building serves as second office of Germany's Federal Ministry of Defense; the headquarters of the Christian Democratic Party, the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and Friedrich Ebert Foundation academies as well as the Bauhaus Archive and the high schools Französisches Gymnasium and Canisius-Kolleg are located nearby. The adjacent western area at the border to Charlottenburg houses the Berlin Zoo.

The 1985 album Le Parc by Tangerine Dream contains a track titled Tiergarten. Rufus Wainwright also released a track titled Tiergarten as part of his 2007 album, Release the Stars.

Since 1987, the annual Berlin Marathon starts at Tiergarten near the Brandenburg Gate.

Between 1996 and 2003 and then in 2006, the Love Parade music festival took place at the Victory Column and Straße des 17. Juni. On 2 July 2005, the Live 8 concert, Berlin took place at the Victory Column.

On 24 July 2008, then-US presidential candidate Barack Obama spoke at the Victory Column in front of a crowd of over 200,000 people.

Großer Tiergarten
Covering 210 ha, the "Großer Tiergarten" is the largest urban park of Berlin.

title: Tiergarten (Berlin)


text:
List of barons in the peerages of Britain and Ireland

This is a list of the present and extant Barons (Lords of Parliament, in Scottish terms) in the Peerages of England, Scotland, Great Britain, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. Note that it does not include those extant baronies which have become merged (either through marriage or elevation) with higher peerage dignities and are today only seen as subsidiary titles. For a more complete list, which adds these "hidden" baronies as well as extinct, dormant, abeyant, and forfeit ones, see List of Baronies.

This page includes all life barons, including the Law Lords created under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876. However hereditary peers with the rank of viscount or higher holding also a life peerage are not included.

Order of precedence
The general order of precedence among barons is: However barons of Ireland created after the Union of 1801 yield precedence to earlier created barons of the United Kingdom. They are listed in italics, in their place in the order of precedence. Life peers take precedence with other barons of the United Kingdom; they are listed separately because the only hereditary baronies created since 1965 have been subsidiary titles: Prince Andrew, Duke of York, who holds the subsidiary title of Baron Killyleagh, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, who holds the subsidiary title of Baron Carrickfergus, and Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, who holds the subsidiary title of Baron Kilkeel.
 * 1) Barons of England
 * 2) Lords of Parliament of Scotland
 * 3) Barons of Great Britain
 * 4) Barons of Ireland
 * 5) Barons of the United Kingdom

Hereditary barons

 * Irish baronies created after 1801 yield precedence to older baronies of the United Kingdom.

Life barons
All baronies created since 1965 have either been life peerages or subsidiary baronies for peerages of higher rank, which do not appear in this list.

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


text:
List of viscounts in the peerages of Britain and Ireland

This is a list of the 110 present and extant Viscounts in the Peerages of England, Scotland, Great Britain, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. Note that it does not include extant viscountcies which have become merged (either through marriage or elevation) with higher peerages and are today in use only as subsidiary titles. For a more complete list, which adds these "hidden" viscounties as well as extinct, dormant, abeyant, and forfeit ones, see List of Viscountcies.

Order of precedence
The general order of precedence among Viscounts is:
 * 1) Viscounts in the Peerage of England
 * 2) Viscounts in the Peerage of Scotland
 * 3) Viscounts in the Peerage of Great Britain
 * 4) Viscounts in the Peerage of Ireland created before 1801
 * 5) Viscounts in the Peerage of the United Kingdom and Viscounts in the Peerage of Ireland created after 1801


text:
List of earls in the peerages of Britain and Ireland

This is a list of the 189 present earls in the Peerages of England, Scotland, Great Britain, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. It does not include extant earldoms which have become merged (either through marriage or elevation) with marquessates or dukedoms and are today only seen as subsidiary titles. For a list including these "hidden" earldoms as well as extinct, dormant, abeyant, and forfeit ones, see List of earldoms.

Order of precedence
The general order of precedence among earls is:
 * 1) Earls in the Peerage of England
 * 2) Earls in the Peerage of Scotland
 * 3) Earls in the Peerage of Great Britain
 * 4) Earls in the Peerage of Ireland created before 1801
 * 5) Earls in the Peerage of the United Kingdom and Earls in the Peerage of Ireland created after 1801

Earls in the Peerages of Britain and Ireland
Note: The precedence of the older Scottish earldoms is determined by the Decreet of Ranking of 1606, and not by seniority.


text:
List of marquesses in the peerages of Britain and Ireland

This is a list of the 34 present and extant marquesses in the peerages of the Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland, Kingdom of Great Britain, Kingdom of Ireland, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1922. It does not mention any Marquessates held as a subsidiary title of a Duke. For a more complete listing, which adds these "hidden" Marquessates as well as extant, extinct, dormant, abeyant, and forfeit ones, see List of marquessates in the peerages of Britain and Ireland.

They were a relatively late introduction to the British peerage, and on the evening of the Coronation of Queen Victoria in 1838, the Prime Minister Lord Melbourne explained to her why (from her journals): "'I spoke to Ld M. about the numbers of Peers present at the Coronation, & he said it was quite unprecedented. I observed that there were very few Viscounts, to which he replied 'There are very few Viscounts,' that they were an odd sort of title & not really English; that they came from Vice-Comites; that Dukes & Barons were the only real English titles; — that Marquises were likewise not English, & that people were mere made Marquises, when it was not wished that they should be made Dukes'."

Order of precedence
The general order of precedence among Marquesses is:
 * 1) Marquesses in the Peerage of England
 * 2) Marquesses in the Peerage of Scotland
 * 3) Marquesses in the Peerage of Great Britain
 * 4) Marquesses in the Peerage of Ireland created before 1801
 * 5) Marquesses in the Peerage of the United Kingdom and Marquesses in the Peerage of Ireland created after 1801


text:
List of dukes in the peerages of Britain and Ireland

This is a list of the 30 present dukes in the peerages of the Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scotland, Kingdom of Great Britain, Kingdom of Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 1927 and after. For a more complete historical listing, including extinct, dormant, abeyant, forfeit dukedoms in addition to these extant ones, see List of dukedoms in the peerages of Britain and Ireland.

History
In the Peerage of England, the title of duke was created 74 times (using 40 different titles: the rest were recreations). Three times a woman was created a duchess in her own right; Barbara Palmer, 1st Duchess of Cleveland, chief mistress of Charles II of England, Anne Scott, 1st Duchess of Buccleuch, wife of Charles II's eldest illegitimate son, the Duke of Monmouth, and Cecilia Underwood, Duchess of Inverness, wife of Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, whose marriage was in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and therefore she was not allowed to share her husband's rank. In addition, the Dukedom of Marlborough was once inherited by a woman, the 2nd Duchess of Marlborough, through a special remainder, as happened to the Dukedom of Hamilton when it was inherited by Anne Hamilton, 3rd Duchess of Hamilton and also the royal Dukedom of Fife, which was created for the Earl Fife by Queen Victoria, on the occasion of his marriage to Louise, Princess Royal, eldest daughter of the future King Edward VII. A second dukedom of Fife was created in 1900 that could pass through the female line, which was eventually inherited by Princess Alexandra, 2nd Duchess of Fife. Out of the 74 times, 37 titles are now extinct (including the two women's), 16 titles were forfeit or surrendered, 10 were merged with the Crown, and 11 are extant (see list below). The first, Cornwall, is a title that automatically goes to the heir apparent (if and only if he is also the eldest living son of the Sovereign). One of the duchies that was merged into the Crown, Lancaster, still provides income to the sovereign. All but three of the non-royal ducal titles which became extinct did so before the 20th century (the Duke of Leeds became extinct in 1964, the Duke of Newcastle in 1988, and the Duke of Portland in 1990). The last English dukedom to be forfeit became so in 1715. The last British dukedom to become extinct was the title of Duke of Portland in 1990.

The oldest six titles – created between 1337 and 1386 – were Duke of Cornwall (1337), Duke of Lancaster (1351), Duke of Clarence (1362), Duke of York (1385), Duke of Gloucester (1385), and Duke of Ireland (1386). The Duke of Ireland was a title used for only two years and is somewhat confusing since only a small portion of Ireland was really under the control of England in 1386; it is not to be confused with the dukedoms of the Peerage of Ireland. Clarence has not been used since 1478, when George (the brother of Edward IV) was executed for treason. (However Clarence has since been used as half of a double title, most recently until 1892 when Victoria's grandson (and son of the Prince of Wales), the Duke of Clarence and Avondale, died at the age of 28). The titles of Duke of York and the Duke of Gloucester have both become extinct more than once and been re-created as titles within the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Both titles are reserved for princes (and their descendants). The Duke of Lancaster has merged with the Crown and so is held by the monarch. Besides the dukedoms of Cornwall and Lancaster, the oldest extant title is that of Duke of Norfolk, dating from 1483 (the title was first created in 1397). The Duke of Norfolk is considered the premier duke of England. The premier duke of Scotland is the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon. The premier duke of Ireland is the Duke of Leinster.

Order of precedence
The general order of precedence among dukes is:
 * 1) Dukes in the Peerage of England, in order of creation
 * 2) Dukes in the Peerage of Scotland, in order of creation
 * 3) Dukes in the Peerage of Great Britain, in order of creation
 * 4) Dukes in the Peerage of Ireland created before 1801, in order of creation
 * 5) Dukes in the Peerage of the United Kingdom and dukes in the Peerage of Ireland created after 1801, in order of creation

Whilst the general order of precedence is set according to the age of the peerage, the sovereign's Grace may accord any peer higher precedence than his date of creation would warrant. The royal dukes are dukes of the United Kingdom, but rank higher in the order of precedence than the age of their titles warrants, due to their close relationship to the monarch. The Duke of Cornwall holds precedence above all dukes, royal and non-royal, and is the Duke of Rothesay, and of Cambridge.


text:
Talk:Unconventional warfare

Failing this, a secondary objective can be to emasculate the enemy before a conventional invasion. Is emasculate really the right word? I was about to link it (cause I didn't know what it meant), but decided against. You see, reading that article was a real kick in the nuts. Surely somebody can think of a word less... ballsy. Neftaly 23:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe that "emasculate" has remained in that place for almost six years. I am not a military expert, but I'm putting in "debilitate." Iconofiler (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't you have left it? No offense, but women aren't affected the same way as men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.28.151 (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Good work, Lir. When I first made the Aaron Bank article, I wasn't disappointed that there wasn't an article for unconventional warfare. (Yes, the link was red.) Wiwaxia 14:19, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Source for some of the information.
I was reading this article entry while doing some research and I found the last line to be very inriguing. "Prior to World War I, the use of military aircraft was often seen as unconventional, and criminal." Might the author of this document be able to provide any references as to where this information comes from? I would really like to track down the source of this information for a paper I'm currently writing as it would be a very useful piece of information to explore for my subject. Others might like to learn more about this as well. However I can't seem to track down any documents, articles or books so far that talk about this.

Thanks

"I have also heard that snipers were considered the same during the U.S. Civil War.

UW vs. insurgency vs. guerilla warfare
I personally regard the first as US doctrine for conducting an insurgency or fighting with guerilla tactics. If that is true for this article, then I wonder if this article is properly the expansion of the UW mission for United States Army Special Forces. Is that a reasonable assumption? We seem to have quite a few articles with very closely related topics. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Globalize Tag
Howard C. Berkowitz, the things you are adding to this article are very informative but they are from a United States perspective. When people in other countries use the term "Unconventional Warfare," they are not talking about "guerilla (sic) warfare conducted by United States Army Special Forces." Please add your additional information as a section of this article on use in the United States Army. The article that existed before had been edited by dozens of contributors and had reached a stable state of consensus. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Removed global tag. This has been discussed at the Military History Project, where it was agreed that insurgency and guerilla warfare are properly the global articles, just as foreign internal defense is the U.S. term for counterinsurgency. Before I started working on it, there was sufficiently little content here that I first recommended merging it into the global article, but MILHIST contributors, including people from all over the world, said that UW is regarded, in militaries worldwide, as US-specific.

 * If you want global perspective, go to insurgency, where I added a great deal of material written with a global perspective. Please source that UW is indeed a worldwide term, especially in non-NATO countries. Bluntly, after 40-some years of working in the field, I need to see evidence that the preferred terms worldwide are not "guerilla warfare", "revolutionary warfare", "protracted war", etc. -- as used, respectively, by Che Guevara (Cuba) and George Grivas (Greek Cypriot), Bernard Fall (France), or Mao Zedong (China).Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, but you will not be able to single handedly wipe out everything that dozens of other editors have worked on and have come to a consensus about. We would be happy to discuss your proposed changes and we would be happy to incorporate any additional verifiable information that you have. Wikipedia does not work well when one person tries to use heavy handed editing techniques. Let's talk about your proposed changes on the discussion page of the article you wish to change and come to a consensus. With a little spell checking and tightening, most of the information you are providing is good, but the information that dozens of other editors provided is good also. Please discuss your proposal before wiping out the entire article. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Let's see. I asked about the topic coverage, on this very talk page, on the 14th, after agreeing, in the Military History Project, to update the article. After no response in around a week, I brought it back to MILHIST, and was advised that this article should represent the US doctrine. Have you looked at insurgency?

 * You must forgive me that I do not find it extremely credible to be lectured by an anonymous IP about what has gone before. I don't see dozens of editors in the article history.

 * There is an extensive globalized article on insurgency, which seems, to me, to contain a considerably expanded version of what you claim was here. You seem to be making the argument, with no sourcing, that UW is a widely used global term. I disagree. I have absolutely no intention of turning this article into a duplicate of insurgency, with U.S. Army doctrine as a section. You say that you dislike what I am doing, but I hear no proposal from you other than "globalise" and make U.S. doctrine a section.

 * This article is under the Military History Project, where it was discussed that there is a great deal of duplication in the areas of insurgency, counter-insurgency, and individual national doctrines. If I review the article history, I find it had about 5000 characters before I started working on it, so I fail to see that "dozens" of editors did a great deal on it, that there was an extensive consensus, or that the article covered the topic well and was stable. I suggest you take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and see if there are other people there that saw a previous thorough and stable article under this heading.

 * Failing that, I suggest you take this to mediation or arbitration. I'm sorry, but I simply do not see any evidence, in the article history, of the extensive work you say existed. I would like to see evidence of that, or the experience of people working in MILHIST that are aware of such work. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I doubt you will find many editors outside of the U.S. Army who think unconventional warfare is the same as insurgency. It appears that we need some additional help in resolving this situation from neutral outside editors. I will submit a request for comment. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree completely that I will not find many editors outside the U.S. Army who think UW is the same as insurgency, and, if there are any in the U.S. Army, I hope they are passed over for their next promotion because they clearly have not read the U.S. Army doctrine that says they are not the same. I shall repeat, and again urge you to bring this up at the MILHIST talk page where it has been discussed. I said that UW is the US doctrine for the execution of insurgency, just as FID is the US doctrine for counterinsurgency. I never said UW=insurgency. You might, for example, discuss this observation with the New Zealander who made the specific suggestion of redirecting this article, and where people from many countries actively participate Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Clubs and projects are a great way to brainstorm ideas, but they do not take the place of the discussion page of the article. Before single handedly wiping out the entire definition that has slowly expanded over the past five years, it's a good idea to propose your idea on the talk page. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Request
Please help us resolve the following questions: Is the term Unconventional warfare a global term or one limited to specific operations of the US Army? Should the US Army information Hcberkowitz is providing for the article add to the existing global definition or replace it? --71.89.59.150 (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

 * This is not a fair statement of the discussion to date, as it completely ignores good-faith attempts to clarify the question on both the article talk page and the Military History Project page. MILHIST considers insurgency the global term. This anon user made no objection before I began adding more material than had been in the earlier article, in the interest of getting it out of start class. Please review the talk page and history of this article, as well as the MILHIST request for guidance and the insurgency global article. I have not said the term is "limited to the specific operations of the U.S. Army." I have said that UW is the U.S. doctrinal term for its particular approach to leading an insurgency. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

 * We obviously have a disagreement. I'm sure the common sense of Wikipedia editors will be able to sort it out in no time. I disagree that the global definition created consensually by dozens of editors should be wiped out and replaced with your claim that, in general use, Unconventional warfare means "guerilla warfare conducted by United States Army Special Forces." I think both the global definition and the U.S. Army definition should be present. I'll make my case and you make yours. I trust that the good editors of Wikipedia will find that the term Unconventional warfare is used by more that the United States Army. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I count seventy-nine different editors who helped build the definition of Unconventional warfare from November 2003 to April 2008. Without saying a word on the article's discussion page, Hcberkowitz single handedly came and wiped out all of their contributions, replacing it with his unique point of view that the term Unconventional warfare is not used outside of the United States military. Hcberkowitz's nation-centric POV claim seems absurd to me because Conventional warfare is a global term. If people talk about Conventional warfare outside of the U.S. army, what term are they supposed to use when they are talking about the opposite of conventional warfare?

"The general purpose of conventional warfare is to weaken or destroy the opponent's military force, thereby negating its ability to engage in conventional warfare. In forcing capitulation, however, one or both sides may eventually resort to unconventional warfare tactics." ~Wikipedia: Conventional warfare.

Does the definition of Conventional warfare make any sense if Unconventional warfare is owned exclusively by the U.S. army? --71.89.59.150 (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I propose that this version of the article be used that has all of Hcberkowitz's nation-centric US Army information as well as the global knowledge added by the seventy-nine other editors. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can do as you please under GFDL, but I totally reject that proposal. Under protest, I will suggest a compromise: moving all the US-specific material to a new article named something like "U.S. Army Special Forces Doctrine for Unconventional Warfare". I cannot put it into the framework you are proposing because I did not write it to fit with such a framework; I'd hardly write a subsection of an article whose major premise is something I find totally incorrect. I serve notice I will treat this as a temporary compromise and ask for more formal dispute resolution.

 * Further, see on this page,  yet you say:

 * Which is it? Did I not write what was at that link, or are you deliberately misquoting?

 * Further, I signed up, at the Military History Project, to improve this article from its start-class rating. If 79 authors spent several years on the article, is it not a bit strange that the relevant Project did not find it in a higher class, rather than listing it as needing improvement? On evaluating the existing article, I found it contradictory and fragmentary, and I asked for guidance at Military History.

 * So, only after MILHIST had the article on the list of start-class articles did I begin work on it. I did, in fact, ask on this page, and got no response. I asked for guidance at MILHIST, and had a respected editor, not from the U.S., suggest that the way to clarify some of the overlapping articles was to restrict the UW to the US doctrinal concept. The introduction to this article is very clear in the way it says the term is being used in a restricted manner.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not interested in the politics of the issue. I'm interested in creating a useful article for the user. Users may want to know the general definition of Unconventional warfare and/or they may want to know the specifics you have added regarding the U.S. Army. Both should be included. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please respect my intended use of the specifics I wrote. This is a matter of courtesy, not WP:OWN
I am interested in creating a useful article as well, but I disagree completely with the definitions in the text you restored, starting with the first two sentences:

Regretfully, I find the first sentence having no useful semantic content. It is rather like saying positive is the opposite of negative, without a context for either. The two most frequent uses of "conventional warfare" are warfare without nuclear weapons (or WMD if you prefer), and warfare between regular military units, typically combined arms. There is no single antonym of conventional warfare, which is why I reject this first sentence.

The second sentence appears to restrict unconventional warfare to warfare by irregular forces, when it is equally correct -- if, IMHO, useless -- to say unconventional warfare uses WMD against an organized military that only uses blast, bullets, and fire as humane means of causing the opponent to submit.

From a purely editorial and organizational standpoint, I did not write my contribution to be subordinate to the definitions you put into the lead. As a consequence, my text does not meet my own standards that say material should flow smoothly through an entire article. As long as your lead -- and I do consider it yours, since you apparently feel it's acceptable to dismiss "politics" when I offer a history of good faith effort to identify concerned editors -- is there, my material would have to be rewritten to have any chance of flowing, and I do not believe that can be done effectively. I ask you not to insert my material as a subset of yours, as it was not written with that context in mind and I believe doing so induces errors.

So far, I have suggested bringing the article controversy to the Military History Project, which rated the article as needing work. I reluctantly suggested moving all of my content to a new article with a title clearly indicating that it is restricted to the U.S. doctrine of implementing its definition of UW. There's nothing US-centric about saying that the doctrines of a major military power can be complex enough to need their own article. Were I writing on Soviet nuclear strategy, the works of Marshal Malinovsky would be a necessary part, but not necessarily the concepts of Henry Kissinger or Herman Kahn. British and U.S. strategic bombing doctrine in the Second World War were radically different, and cannot be discussed, in detail, in a single article of reasonable length for Wikipedia.

These are two options, both of which you seem to be ignoring, persisting in asking me to alter my contribution so it fits into what you feel was a stable article, although perhaps 20 percent the size of what I added. I see no way to make my material work under the assumptions you describe, and ask that you do not, as a matter of Wikiquette, not to use it in a manner that I, as its author, do not believe it will work. This seems to be a complete impasse. You did not attempt to reach any consensus on the question to be presented as an RfC.

In other words, I see no way in which we will reach agreement. Do you have any alternatives?

If you wanted to check for globalisation of insurgency, I would welcome such review, but I am not willing to rewrite the material here to fit with definitions with which I do not agree.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Luckily you don't have to. Most of it is very useful information that we will retain when we make the U.S. Army definition of Unconventional warfare a subset of the global definition of Unconventional warfare. Thank you for the time and effort you have spent in contributing this useful information. The donation of your intellect to this project gives you exactly zero right to delete relevant data provided by other editors, but it makes the world a better place. I am hereby officially entering one ZS Time Dollar in your name to the Torrent Thanks Network and I encourage other Wikipedia TTN members to do the same. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Cut and paste moves
Hi there IP editor. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming an article is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. -- B figura (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

 * What article name are you accusing me of pasting information into? --71.89.59.150 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Trying yet other good faith suggestions
I hope you might agree that defining "unconventional warfare" as the opposite of "conventional warfare" simply gives a circular definition. In U.S. doctrinal publications on special forces operations, the term "UW" is used more widely than "unconventional warfare", since "unconventional warfare" can describe two radically different situations: large-scale engagements between regular, often armored, armies; and wars not involving armies at all but making extensive use of "unconventional" nuclear weapons.

The second paragraph then goes into more vague definition, including such terms as blockade, the latter being a specific diplomatic term that is usually considered an act of war (see, for example, the Third Geneva Convention and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Emasculation is mentioned, which, taken literally, would fall under torture, and taken figuratively, has no substantive meaning. Comparing nuclear weapons and white phosphorus in the same sentence also makes little sense.

I am willing to suggest a disambiguation page for "unconventional warfare" that points to articles including:
 * A global term for insurgency
 * Usually when written UW, the U.S. special operations doctrine for conducting an insurgency
 * Nuclear war in contrasted to war without nuclear weapons

It might also have counterinsurgency as a global term, and foreign internal defense (FID) as the U.S. special operations doctrine for counterinsurgency.

I will, however, not accept the two sections starting this article as having any relationship to the U.S definition of UW.

Is that acceptable to you? Again, I suggest you raise these arguments at the Military History Project, which might establish these are not my unique definitions. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A disambiguation page is the best idea. UW as defined by the US DOD is not UW as opposed to conventional warfare. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Endorse the proposal for a disambiguation page as well. -- B figura (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Reject on grounds that the function of this resource is to convey relevant information to the user in the easiest manner possible. UW, as used in the U.S. Army, is a subset of Unconventional warfare because it fits neatly inside of that global definition. If Mr. Berkowitz failed to format his article as a subset of the broader definition, the proper course of action would be to reformat his article, not redefine the term. However, complaints about having to reformat are part of a smokescreen. Mr. Berkowitz conveys his root concern when he says, "I will, however, not accept the two sections starting this article as having any relationship to the U.S definition of UW."

 * Mr. Berkowitz apparently perceives the information he deleted as creating a pejorative connotation for this term. As such, he wants to suppress it or at least disassociate that information from the pride he obviously feels in his work with the U.S. Army.

 * Creating disassociations and suppressing information in this way is what makes a language weak and a society stupid. When we hear the term "groupthink" associated with Wikipedia, this is exactly what people mean. Wikipedia is accused of making so many compromises to keep from hurting anyone's feelings that its terms become watered down and impotent.

 * The Wikipedia definition of Unconventional warfare as of the time of this writing is a perfect example. It claims that unconventional warfare has two meanings, so using the term without clarifying the context is pointless. If we followed this definition, the term by itself would mean nothing. Without a term, the simple concept that used to be associated with Unconventional warfare no longer has a means of conveyance in our language. How do I efficiently convey the concept of war for the purpose of coercion rather than physical reduction of military forces without the term "unconventional warfare?"

 * Without a term for a concept, our society becomes that much more stupid and pliable. Maybe that's where the U.S. Army wants us to be, but its not where I choose to be. The term "unconventional warfare" has a specific meaning and that meaning is not exclusively defined by the United States military. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 * First of all, repeated statements that imply the suggestions posed make language or society "weak and stupid" are probably uncivil, and are certainly unproductive. Second, I think there's some sort of misunderstanding going on here. The article, as it currently stands, is largely about the US definition of unconventional warfare, which has a specific and precise meaning. However, when generically used, unconventional warfare refers to pretty much anything other than a standard conventional battle between armed forces. The solution posed would solve the issues you raise by giving the general definition at unconventional warfare, while linking to more specific meanings such as Unconventional warfare (U.S. Military Doctrine), thus eliminating any potential for confusion. Do you have a specific objection to this proposal? No one is arguing that there isn't a generic definition for unconventional warfare, merely that this article isn't about that definition. I fail how to see creating a more generalized article that links to specific definitions harms Wikipedia. This isn't about redefining the term 'unconventional warefare', it's about recognizing that this article isn't about that term, and moving it to the correct title. -- B figura (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Perhaps Reject is too strong of a word. It came up as the antonym of Endorse, so I used it. Please allow me to clarify. I consent to the wisdom of the group on the matter of a disambiguation page, but I do not prefer its creation because I believe that UW fits neatly into the definition of Unconventional warfare and that creating disambiguation pages merely for political reasons is counterproductive to the purpose of this project. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 * By UW, do you mean the US Military version? If so, I'd agree that it is of course a subset of the more general definition. My rational for splitting it into a separate article has to do with two things. First, clarity: I think most readers looking for information on unconventional warfare would be confused if they arrived at an article primarily concerned with US Military policy. (Since I don't think that the US version is the most common usage of the term). Second, the USMil version is comprehensive enough that if we tried to go for an all-in-one solution, by placing more general information into the article, we'd have an overlong article. I agree that political concerns shouldn't force the creation of a disambiguation page (if they did, that would be akin to forking). Hope that explains my views. Best, -- B figura (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Unconventional warfare is religious, compromising, propagandistic, and a means of primitive ideologues, while conventional warfare is a means of survival. First, this is true because of religious perspectives as being the first use. Religion in Catholicism is old, yet not as old as primitive Christianity. While to the human mind Christianity is still young and Catholicism is old. Just look at the decline of the Roman Empire, the Turkish settlements at Giza or the most popularized one of all, the Civil War. Turkish Christianity, or what one calls christian life is only able to sustain itself by means of archaic spiritualism and not be a part of the physical world. Grecian Catholicism survived all of these conflicts while its orthodox Christianity did not. Christianity only thrives in complete isolation or being one with god, not in superficial nature but in the end Catholicism wins because nature wins. Christianity belongs with these ufo aliens everyone talks about and sees. Basically, the conclusion I came to is that it is way too advanced and never really came to practice in the physical world of men in union with technology or nature without dying out completely, being not proven, or returning to whence it came. The precipitous of Catholicism comes from Christianity nonetheless with the Chaldeans, Muslims and Jews to the Asian Christians, Egyptians and Arabians and can be dangerous though in reality none defer. The danger being difference in growth of a civilization. Humanity being too primitive like nature is to god, or a humble christian. Christianity still incurs the wrath of the same faith for humanity at least. --Murriemir (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Draft of potential disambiguation page
I thought I'd draw up a draft disambiguation page based upon Howard's suggestions in my userspace at User:Bfigura/DraftDisambig. Feel free to make whatever changes you feel are appropriate. Best, -- B figura (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 * When one term is a subset of another, a disambiguation page is not indicated. See Terrorism for example. Optimal size constraints indicated that State terrorism should have its own main article, but it is still listed for convenience purposes for the user as a section of the main Terrorism article with a brief overview. If we choose to include this level of detail about the U.S. Army definition of UW instead of referring users to the U.S. Army site for detailed information, there may be an argument for a separate Wikipedia entry, but it should be according to standard Wikipedia protocol. When one term is a subset of another term, it is shown as a subset, not as a disambiguation. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 * My issue with this is that in this case, unconventional warfare has several disparate meanings. (See the disambig draft page). While I agree that to some extent, chemical, biological, nuclear, or guerilla warfare are all forms of unconventional warfare, I'd argue that they're distinct enough to stretch the meaning of being a "subset". As a result, I'd be concerned that the resulting article placed at unconventional warfare would be a somewhat unwieldy article that attempts to summarize many different meanings of the term. However, if you want to draw up such a page, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea. (I just think a disambiguation page would be a simpler and easier solution). -- B figura (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Language terms don't need to convey meaning?

 * A disambiguation page is a failure state for a language. It means that the term no longer holds any meaning by itself. It means that we can never use the term again without also applying a context to differentiate the concept we mean from the other concepts that use the same term. We should never strive to create a circumstance where we weaken the language, but only use it if nothing else will work to resolve a conflict.

 * Unless you want to expand the conflict, the issue in this case only involves whether or not UW as used in the US Army is a subset of the global UW definition. If there is any way to make that the case, for the sake of strengthening our language, I think we should strive for it. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, but regardless of your personal views, disambiguation pages are permitted by policy. Whether or not disambiguation is a "good thing" for language in general is simply not a relevant issue here. To quote from the policy page: "When an article title could refer to several things, a disambiguation page is needed. When the title usually means one thing but also has other meanings, add disambiguation links to the primary topic's article." I've argued (and others have agreed) that there isn't a simple, fixed definition of unconventional warfare (other than the non-definition of: warfare that is a conflict between conventional armies with conventional weapons). Unless you have some evidence of the existence of a widely agreed upon definition, policy seems to suggest that disambig pages are the way to go -- B figura (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. You are asserting that what is good for the language is irrelevant to a definitional resource. Correct? --71.89.59.150 (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not quite. I'm arguing that the only "goodness" relevant here is that defined by our policies and our manual of style. However, this is something of a moot point as I've G7'd the page in question. -- B figura (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

 * It sounds to me like the two of you are in agreement. The English language terms of Wikipedia, the most used definition resource on the planet, don't need to convey information. Wikipedia policies and Manual of Style weren't created to guide us in strengthening the language; they are collectively an end unto themselves. --Preston Wescott Sr. (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly!. My point was that a meta-discussion of whether disambig pages are "good" for language isn't relevant to whether or not we should use them on wikipedia. (That should be governed by WP:DISAMBIG). Although at times I would have to agree that we do verge on instruction creep. -- B figura (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see Disambiguation:

User:Bfigura/DraftDisambig is not a disambiguation page, it is a definition of unconventional warfare. --— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  00:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, moot point, but I'm not sure if that's supposed to be good or bad. -- B figura (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Difference between Conventional and Unconventional Warfare
In conventional warfare, you physically smash your enemy, thereby reducing his physical ability to smash you. In unconventional warfare, you try to convince your enemy that even though he has the ability to smash you, it would not be in his best interests.

There are two distinct concepts conveyed with two distinct terms, the way language is supposed to be. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 * You have not sourced these definitions, other than anonymously giving your opinion of the way "language is supposed to be". Let us look at Wikipedia's definition of conventional warfare:

 * In other words, it is unconventional warfare if nuclear weapons are used. Are you suggesting that nuclear weapons do not physically smash?

 * Again, three non-anonymous authors have offered compromise positions, yet you have offered no apparent alternative. No other editors, of the 73 you claim to have come to a stable definition of a 5K or so article, have objected to the proposal placed on this page, a proposal you deny was made.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I thought it was safe to say that having distinct concepts and terms is the way language is supposed to be, but if you disagree, that is your prerogative. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I think you're misreading Howard's comment. Everyone agrees that there is a difference between conventional warfare and unconventional warfare. (At least, I think they do). The issue is that there isn't a simple, succinct, definition of unconventional warfare, other than an exclusionary one. Ie, conventional warfare is an armed conflict between armies using guns, planes, tanks, etc. Unconventional warfare could describe chemical/nuclear/biological warfare, guerilla warfare, psychological warfare, etc. Essentially, the only short definition is a negative one, ie, war not fought through conventional means. Conventional and unconventional warfare are clearly different concepts and terms, the issue is that one of them is rather poorly defined. (Hence the desire for some sort of disambiguation page / or general article to take the reader to the more specific term of interest). -- B figura (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I see what you mean about it being poorly defined. That was an extremely poor definition of Unconventional warfare, almost as poor as the definition currently sitting in the article space. For an excellent definition of Unconventional warfare, we have to go back to April 4 or, to a lesser extent, any time before that.

 * The definition had a good start in November of 2003. Seventy three different editors steadily improved the article over the following four and half years, and then Mr. Berkowitz came and wiped out everything the previous editors had built for what I believe are political reasons. Now, as you say, the term is poorly defined. I agree. The solution is to revert it back to where it was not poorly defined and let Mr. Berkowitz add his relevant information without destroying the excellent article created by consensus (not compromise) of the other seventy three editors. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 * After looking at the April 4 version, I do agree that it is a good general definition. I'd ask that you refrain from characterizing the edits of others as destructive though. (The current version is a fine article, it just needs to be moved to a better name). However, this raises a new issue that I don't quite now how to solve. I.e., how do we move the current version to a new, more accurate name, and bring back the old version as a general definition. (I know it can be done, but I'm not sure what the proper way of doing it is, since we have to preserve contributions along the way). -- B figura (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I will remove all my content from this article, and move it to a new article with a name agreed to by the Military History Project. I object strenuously to having any of my content kept in this article with the old definition, not due to WP:OWN, but because my material makes quite different assumptions on basic definitions. Will you, anonymous editor, agree not to include any of the material I remove? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I can't make contracts on behalf of anyone who will potentially edit this page. I'm sure that editors in the future will want to link the definitions and provide a summary of what you added in the main article. This is the same issue that went on for months over State Terrorism in the main Terrorism article. On behalf of all the users of this resource, I appreciate what you added, but once you add information to Wikipedia, it belongs to the community. It can't be used to create contracts limiting links and summaries. The only thing that matters to the users and most editors is that this resource is as easy to use and as informative as possible. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read what I actually wrote. I did not ask you to make contracts on behalf of anyone else. I asked you to make an agreement, much as you ask me to trust you that a strong article previously existed. Do you have the integrity to make an agreement limited only to yourself?

 * I have removed the material that so offends you. I am removing it because I found you completely unwilling to compromise with any other current editor, and I do not need the aggravation of continuing to argue about this. Again: are you, as an individual, willing to make an agreement for yourself, or should I restore the material and have us continue to restate incompatible definitions? I will not adapt my material to the definitions that were on the article before I asked, on April 14, if anyone was working on it, because I totally disagree with them. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 * The material you added did not offend me. I don't want you to remove it. In fact, I would like to thank you for adding it. It is very informative. I will not agree, however, to refrain from trying to make Wikipedia the best resource possible. This project is about information, not politics. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should I not remove it?
You can certainly put it back, and, if necessary, we can get resolution of what may become a revert war. You claim that the project is "about information, not politics", but you accuse me of undefined political motives.

It is my considered opinion that what I wrote is conceptually incompatible with the definitions that were in the article, and that there is no way to rewrite that material such that it will not introduce errors if the earlier introduction is treated as axiomatic, unambiguous, and unchangeable. My intention to improve Wikipedia is at the heart of why I removed the material, citing a conceptual disconnect with what was previously there.

I have asked you, repeatedly, to see if insurgency met your concerns, but you never responded to any of those attempts. After a time, when an editor repeatedly ignores suggestions, I begin, indeed, to doubt good faith.

You are avoiding a very specific question I asked, which should be answerable with a yes or no, rather than evasions. You never discussed the substance of what I actually wrote, which really makes me wonder how you could consider it informative. You did, however, misquote me directly, such as not giving notice of intending to change.

The Wikipedia policy for such matters is bold, revert, discuss. You never entered into substantive discussion of anything I wrote, other than to complain about its being less globalised and that it did not agree with your prior, unsourced definitions. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I understand that your feelings are hurt, and I care about that, but my first priority is to the article. When a user looks up "unconventional warfare," he should see information about unconventional warfare. That information should help him better convey what he means when he uses the term. All of this behind the scenes editorial politicking is for one purpose: delivering the most relevant information on a term to the user in the easiest to use and most concise format possible. I understand that you would like the entire article to be your army information, but others have added relevant information as well. The US Army definition isn't incompatible with the global definition, it just presents its concepts in the best light possible. Propaganda is important for troop morale, but it is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I thought we could end this, but apparently not. In no way am I trying to present U.S. doctrine as good, bad, or indifferent. With other editors, I wrote a very extensive globalised article at insurgency. Personally, I regard some U.S. doctrines as asinine, but I am not an authoritative source for that.

 * It is relevant, however, to have information on the specific doctrines, perhaps in different historic periods, on the doctrines of different countries. Let me change the subject from insurgency to counter-insurgency, and observe the range of national doctrines and variable results. For example, Roger Triquier, a French military officer who led the GCMA in Indochina in the early fifties, wrote a major doctrinal book, Modern Warfare. As a more senior officer in Algeria, he was a key staff planner.  Trinquier believed in the controlled use of torture, which has been repudiated by interrogation specialists from many countries. Nevertheless, without knowing about Trinquier's writing, one cannot understand the French counterguerilla activities in Algeria.

 * Other French experts, even at the time, disagreed bitterly with Trinquier. We have the historical evidence that it was not effective, although the Bush Administration apparently has not noticed.

 * Other editors and myself have every intention of developing articles on national doctrines, but I do not see any of those compatible with the definitions in your preferred version. These examples include the two most often regarded as successful counterguerillas, the Phillipines under Magsaysay and Malaya (now Malaysia) under Thompson. Magsaysay's doctrine does have many aspects useful else, while Thompson really faced a very different situation.

 * The American Revolution was a successful insurgency, while the Confederate States of America failed. Lenin and Mao succeeded, while Guevara and Guzman did not. While Lenin and Mao both were Marxists, their national doctrine for insurgency was radically different. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 * It appears that you are primarily concerned with detailed content while I am primarily concerned with providing one concept for every term and one term for every concept. Both concerns are required for a good definitional resource. Millions of people use Wikipedia to research detailed content, but the most used function of this resource is to define words. Wikipedia has become the standard definition resource of the English language. The strength of our communication and ability to communally form ideas relies on our ability to not only provide detailed data, but to also provide an efficient way for people to convey that data.

 * When someone is talking about the type of warfare where a win requires the other side to acquiesce, they need a term for that concept. Destroying someone's military capability is different. The enemy doesn't have to acquiesce if you've blown them back to the Stone Age.

 * When you send in UW teams, you are not trying to achieve a conventional victory by destroying the enemy's military capability. The victory you are trying to achieve with UW teams is unconventional; you are trying to get the enemy to surrender or to come over to your way of thinking even though it still has the physical capability to hurt you. This is the larger context that your army definition fits so neatly inside.

 * We can achieve both the detailed information you want and the strong English language I want without compromise because these things are not at odds with each other. As long as the common denominator is concern for what the Wikipedia user would find most useful, we're on the same team. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 * No, my feelings are not hurt. I simply concluded that your approach is incompatible with mine, and I can spend my time more usefully in producing Wikipedia articles that fit my understanding of its purpose. Apparently, the best approach for me is to continue to improve globalised articles such as insurgency, and, once the Military History Project agrees on the best term for the multiple national doctrines, creating new articles for that. Your comment about "my army" is gratuitous at best, since I just used ten national doctrinal examples above, and the U.S. military in that list was the American Revolution.

 * We seem to have utterly different concepts of how and why one fights guerilla warfare, and the relationship of special operations forces to conventional large-scale forces. I disagree that the primary purpose of Wikipedia is to have a "strong English language". "Providing one concept for every term and one term for every concept" is, to me, completely unrealistic, speaking from a linguistic standpoint. Real-world languages are not context-free, they overload symbols (i.e., words) with multiple meanings, and the ambiguity thereof often adds useful flexibility. You say that your goal is efficient conveyance of information, yet you say you want unambiguous terms. Unfortunately, the most efficient conveyance is often with very high context language, as between physicians. Context-free languages have a role in computational linguistics, but not in human communications.

 * Ironically, unconventional warfare, in the existing definition that was circular, but then encompassed guerilla warfare, blockades, countervalue civilian devastation attacks, emasculation, and white phosphorus is so ambiguous that the only way, in my opinion, is to narrow it to a very specific definition, rather than the broad one you seem to endorse. It is merely coincidental that the U.S. Army chose to call guerilla warfare UW; many believe that the term guerilla warfare was entirely appropriate and unambiguous. Nevertheless, since the US has chosen to use UW, I find there is a reason to explain what is meant by it. This has nothing to do with propaganda; there are quite a number of questionable things, in terms of resource use, being done with U.S. special operations forces.

 * So, I am trying to establish some sense of completion. We don't have to be enemies, but I'm afraid that our concepts are so different that I see no opportunity for reaching any consensus. You have made unsupported allegations that I have political motives and that I am trying to be US-centric; that latter is especially ironic given that while your article now has no inline citations, the only reference you give is to an unspecified U.S. Department of Defense source, which, without checking the exact language, looks like JP1-02. The JP3-05 and FM31 series are likely to be a good deal more precise. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 * As a psychologist, I've been watching this conversation with some interest. I find it gratifying to see that a resolution can be reached as long as one of the parties remains focused on the issue and refrains from personal attacks. --Preston Wescott Sr. (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Split
I've split Howard's excellent contributions to Unconventional warfare (U.S. Department of Defense doctrine) and placed the appropriate links per WP:SUMMARY. There seemed to be consensus that this material would be a good article in its own right, so I've placed it at what is hopefully a more precise name. -- B figura (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

International conventions
Opening paragraph contains line: "This is typically done to avoid escalation into conventional warfare as well as international conventions."

Apologies, but I don't understand how this should be read, or quite what the final reference to international conventions is trying to say. Does it mean "This is done to avoid international conventions"? Or does it mean "This is done (because of) international conventions"? In either case, I don't really understand what is being said.

As I say, it's really very unclear. Can someone who grasps the thrust of it perhaps look at re-writing for greater clarity? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:F8C8:7D23:4D83:ACC2 (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Unconventional warfare


text:
Value distribution theory of holomorphic functions

In mathematics, the value distribution theory of holomorphic functions is a division of mathematical analysis. The purpose of the theory is to provide quantitative measures of the number of times a function f(z) assumes a value a, as z grows in size, refining the Picard theorem on behaviour close to an essential singularity. The theory exists for analytic functions (and meromorphic functions) of one complex variable z, or of several complex variables.

In the case of one variable, the term Nevanlinna theory, after Rolf Nevanlinna, is also common. The now-classical theory received renewed interest when Paul Vojta suggested some analogies to the problem of integral solutions to Diophantine equations. These turned out to involve some close parallels and to lead to fresh points of view on the Mordell conjecture and related questions.

Heres a funny picture https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSkOORlv2LULfkfmmsCcYJs131mOcPNyFTAwwiOy5_84XOtBjwlI9cBYYw&s


text:
John Sewell

John Sewell (born December 8, 1940) is a Canadian politician and lawyer who served as the 58th mayor of Toronto from 1978 to 1980.

Background
Born and raised in the Beach neighbourhood, in Toronto, Sewell attended Malvern Collegiate Institute and the University of Toronto, graduating with an English Literature degree in 1961. He earned a law degree from the University of Toronto Law School in 1964 and was called to the bar in 1966.

Early political career
Sewell became active in city politics in 1966 when he joined the residents of the Trefann Court Urban Renewal Area in the fight against the expropriation and levelling of the working-class and poor neighbourhood. Sewell was also involved in opposing the building of the Spadina Expressway in the late 1960s and early 1970s. He was first elected to Toronto City Council in 1969 as alderman for Ward 7, a predominantly working-class area including St. Jamestown, Regent Park, Don Vale, and Cabbagetown. He also initiated the founding of a community-owned newspaper, Seven News, seen as an alternative to Toronto's corporate-owned daily papers.

Sewell became the leader of city council's reform wing, and was elected Mayor of Toronto in 1978.

Election
In the 1978 election, the right-wing vote was split between two mayoral candidates, David Paul Smith and Tony O'Donohue. Sewell won the election with less than 50 percent of the vote: Sewell won 71,305 votes, to O'Donohue's 62,173 and Smith's 45,071.

Tenure
Sewell was portrayed as a radical in the media, and was dubbed "Mayor Blue Jeans" by the Toronto Sun because denim, which Sewell wore to city council meetings as an alderman, was still considered an identifier of the counterculture. As an environmentalist famous for riding his bicycle to council, he opposed the development of banking and convention centres in the central business district that would become the hallmark of the mayors who followed. Sewell also established himself as a leading critic of the Toronto Police by demanding greater accountability to the public. He was a leading defender of gay rights and endorsed the activist George Hislop's 1980 candidacy for city council while it was rare for public figures to express support for gay rights.

In the 1980 election, after two years of controversy, pro-development Conservatives and Liberals encouraged and united behind the candidacy of Art Eggleton who was presented as the establishment candidate. Although Sewell maintained the support of many Red Tories, reform Liberals, and New Democrats and won more votes and a larger share of the vote than in 1978, he lost the mayor's office to Eggleton.

Later life
Sewell subsequently returned to city council as an alderman in a by-election, to replace Ward 6 alderman Dan Heap who had been elected to parliament, and won re-election in 1982. He retired from municipal politics in 1984 to accept a job as a columnist at The Globe and Mail. He subsequently moved to Now Magazine and then wrote a regular column in Toronto's eye weekly from 1999 to 2005. He has written a number of books and articles on Toronto urban issues.

Sewell served as chair of the Toronto public housing authority from 1986 to 1988 and is an acknowledged urban affairs expert. He has served as chair of the Royal Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario from 1991 to 1993. Sewell was an advisor to the city council of East London, South Africa from 1994 to 1999 and as advisor on the re-establishment of local government in Malawi in 2000. Sewell also taught law, politics, and social science at York University from 1989 to 1991.

In the late 1990s, Sewell founded the group Citizens for Local Democracy to fight the plans of the provincial Mike Harris government to abolish Metropolitan Toronto and amalgamate its constituent parts into a new City of Toronto "megacity."

In the 1999 Ontario provincial election, Sewell ran as an independent candidate in the riding of Toronto Centre—Rosedale, challenging Progressive Conservative cabinet minister Al Leach to protest the megacity. His entry into the race was controversial, with many activists accusing him of splitting the left-wing vote with the New Democratic Party (NDP). Sewell was also criticized for remaining in the race after Leach, whom he had personally targeted as the minister responsible for amalgamation, had withdrawn from the contest. The riding was ultimately won by the Liberal George Smitherman. Sewell finished third, behind the Conservative Durhane Wong-Rieger.

In 2005, Sewell was made a member of the Order of Canada.

On June 26, 2006, Sewell announced that he would seek election in Ward 21 and run against Joe Mihevc in Toronto's 2006 municipal election. Sewell said that he was motivated to run because of the construction of a streetcar right-of-way along St. Clair Avenue, which was supported by Mihevc. He also stated that he was disappointed at the record of Mayor David Miller. Sewell said, "Living in a megacity demands more citizen participation and community consultation, not less." His candidacy received much publicity in the local media, but he was defeated by Mihevc, who received 8096 votes, compared to Sewell's 3326.

Sewell, a former resident of Riverdale, resides in Ward 21 and has his law office on Beverley Street. He is active in the Toronto Police Accountability Coalition. In November 2008, Sewell was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. He received chemotherapy, and as of November 2009, the cancer is in remission.

Election results
1976 Toronto municipal election - Ward 7 (Regent Park and Riverdale)
 * John Sewell (incumbent) - 8,786
 * Janet Howard (incumbent) - 6,460
 * Gary Stamm - 4,419
 * Ronald Taylor - 770
 * Charles Rolfe - 767

1974 Toronto municipal election - Ward 7 (Regent Park and Riverdale)
 * John Sewell (incumbent) - 6,233
 * Janet Howard - 4,248
 * Gary Stamm - 3,813
 * Andy Marinakis - 603
 * Peggy Reinhardt - 454
 * John Bizzell - 289
 * Stanley Carrier - 388
 * Kate Alderdice - 329
 * Steve Necheff - 257
 * Sandra Fox - 248
 * Armand Siksna - 212

1972 Toronto municipal election - Ward 7 (Regent Park and Riverdale)
 * Karl Jaffary (incumbent, reform) - 10,572
 * John Sewell (incumbent, reform) - 9,952
 * Richard Kirkup - 4,969
 * Samuel Rotenberg - 3,212
 * Karl Van Harten - 448
 * Charles Rolfe - 422

1969 Toronto municipal election - Ward 7 (Regent Park and Riverdale)
 * Karl Jaffary (NDP) - 5,433
 * John Sewell - 5,054
 * Oscar Sigsworth (incumbent) - 3,093
 * Michael Doran - 2,554
 * Sam Rotenburg - 2,515
 * Douglas Loney (Liberal) - 1,379
 * Richard Fidler (League for Socialist Action) - 418
 * Charles Rolfe - 324
 * Steve Necheff - 270

Works

 * Inside City Hall: The year of the opposition (1971) A.M. Hakkert. ISBN 0-88866-507-5
 * Up Against City Hall (1972) James Lorimer and Company. ISBN 0-88862-021-7
 * Rowland Travel Guide to Toronto (with Charlotte Sykes) (1985) Rowland & Jacob. ISBN 0-921430-00-0
 * Police: Urban Policing in Canada (1986) James Lorimer and Company. ISBN 0-88862-744-0
 * The shape of the city: Toronto struggles with modern planning (1993) University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-7409-X
 * Houses and Homes: Housing for Canadians (1994) James Lorimer and Company. ISBN 1-55028-437-1
 * Redeveloping public housing projects (1999) Caledon Institute of Social Policy. ISBN 1-894159-67-5
 * Doors Open Toronto, Illuminating the City's Great Spaces (2002) Random House. ISBN 0-676-97498-8
 * Mackenzie, a political biography of William Lyon Mackenzie (2002) James Lorimer and Company. ISBN 1-55028-767-2
 * A New City Agenda (2004) Zephyr Press. ISBN 0-9734112-2-8
 * The Shape of the Suburbs: Understanding Toronto's Sprawl (2009) University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-9587-9
 * How We Changed Toronto (2015) Lorimer. ISBN 978-1459409408

title: John Sewell


text:
User talk:Florian cramer

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them; *How to edit a page *How to write a great article *Naming conventions *Manual of Style If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Alexandros 14:22, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:Florian cramer


text:
Talk:Allied campaign in Norway

Untitled
Polish soldiers fought in Battle of Narvik, we were taught in schools. But it seems in English there wer etwo battles of Narvik, both of which were naval. So, what the battle in which Poles did fought is called in English?!?!

Indeed, this needs some clarification. In most history books I read, the term Battle of Narvik is used as a synonym to franco-polish land operations in the area, not their naval support. Halibutt 11:12, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Also, the very title seems a little misleading. I'm moving the page to Allied campaign in Norway.Halibutt 18:01, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I believe that this and Operation Weserübung should be merged. Otherwise we have two article covering essentially the same action. DJ Clayworth 14:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, since they are two separately planned operations, that happened to coincide, that's only natural, isn't it? To merge those two articles would be bad standard, and make references to the different operations a lot harder - and in the end, we would stand there with several articles again and people would have problem to know where to put what. See Operation Barbarossa and the Eastern Front (WWII) for a recent illustration of that problem. --Johan Magnus 21:52, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Indeed. I remove the merge-banner now. --Ruhrjung 07:02, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)

title: Talk:Allied campaign in Norway


text:
Shut the box

Shut the box (also called ACKPOT, batten down the hatches or trick-track ) is a game of dice for one or more players, commonly played in a group of two to four for stakes. Traditionally, a counting box is used with tiles numbered 1 to 9 where each can be covered with a hinged or sliding mechanism, though the game can be played with only a pair of dice, pen, and paper. Variations exist where the box has 10 or 12 tiles.

History

Unconfirmed histories of the game suggest a variety of origins, including 12th century Normandy (northern France) as well as the mid 20th century Channel Islands (Jersey and Guernsey), which one source credits to a man known as 'Chalky' Towbridge. A 1967 edition of Brewing Review describes the game as being native to the Channel Islands, and records it being played in Manchester pubs in the mid-1960s.

Taylor in "Pub Games" from 1976 mentions a claim that the game dates back to at least Napoleonic times. He reports a revival in the United Kingdom in "the last fifteen years or so", that is from the 1960s. Canada Dry distributed them to many pubs as a publicity novelty "some years" prior to 1976.

Shut the box is the basis of the American television quiz show High Rollers, which ran from 1974 to 1976 and 1978 to 1980 on NBC with Alex Trebek as the host. The show resurfaced from 1987 to 1988, this time hosted by Wink Martindale.

Versions of the game have also been played in Barotseland (Zambia, central Africa).

Rules
At the start of the game all levers or tiles are "open" (cleared, up), showing the numerals 1 to 9.

During the game, each player plays in turn. A player begins their turn by throwing or rolling the die or dice into the box. If the player does not have 7, 8, or 9 still available, they may choose to either roll one die or the standard two. Otherwise, the player must roll both dice. After throwing, the player adds up (or subtracts) the pips (dots) on the dice and then "shuts" (closes, covers) one of any combination of open numbers that sums to the total number of dots showing on the dice. For example, if the total number of dots is 8, the player may choose any of the following sets of numbers (as long as all of the numbers in the set are available to be covered):
 * 8
 * 7, 1
 * 6, 2
 * 5, 3
 * 5, 2, 1
 * 4, 3, 1

The player then rolls the dice again, aiming to shut more numbers. The player continues throwing the dice and shutting numbers until reaching a point at which, given the results produced by the dice, the player cannot shut any more numbers. At that point, the player scores the sum of the numbers that are still uncovered. For example, if the numbers 2, 3, and 5 are still open when the player throws a one, the player's score is 10 (2 + 3 + 5 = 10). Play then passes to the next player.

After every player has taken a turn, the player with the lowest score wins.

If a player succeeds in closing all of the numbers, that player is said to have "Shut the Box" – the player wins immediately and the game is over.

Traditional pub play
In English pubs, shut the box is traditionally played as a gambling game. Each player deposits an agreed amount of money into a pool at the beginning of the game, and the winner of the game collects the money in pool at the end of the game and in some cases the box as well.

Variants
Shut the box is a traditional game, and there are many local and traditional variations in the rules. In addition, due to the game's growing popularity, many variations of the game have developed in recent years.

Popular variants are:
 * Golf – A player's score is the sum of the numbers remaining uncovered at the end of their turn. The player with the lowest score wins.
 * Missionary – A player's score is how many of the tiles remain uncovered at the end of the player's turn. For example, a player scores 3 if, at the end of their turn, 3 tiles remain open. The player with the lowest score wins.
 * Canoga – A gambling variant produced by the Pacific Game Company; the company also produced a 12-tile variant, Canoga XII. (Canoga can also be played using a regular game set using chips.)
 * Chips are divided evenly among all players.
 * Players decide on an ante to place in the kitty (a half-round pocket on the playing field).
 * Players roll to see who goes first; play then rotates clockwise.
 * Players play a traditional round, scoring as described in "Golf" above, resulting in a winner and loser(s).
 * Each loser pays their difference in score to the winner. For example, if the lowest (winning) score is 11, and a losing score is 15, the loser pays 4 to the winner. The winner is paid by each loser.
 * Bonus payout: if the winner "clears the board" (scores 0 or "shuts the box"), the payout is as above but doubled, and the winner takes the kitty.
 * If there are tied winners, total payout is either split between or among the winners or multiplied for each winner, depending on how the players agree to do this before starting the game.

The following are examples of known variations in play, setup, and scoring:

It is also possible to play extended versions in which each game is a "round" of a longer game. Examples of such versions include:
 * 2 to go – Standard game, the numbers 1 to 9 start up. On the first roll, the number 2 must be one of the ones dropped. Any player who rolls a 4 on their first roll loses immediately.
 * 3 to go – The same as "2 to go" but the number 3 must be dropped instead.
 * 3 down extreme – Numbers 1–3 are pre-dropped, leaving numbers 4–9 up.
 * Lucky number 7 – The only number up is 7, and the first person to roll a 7 wins.
 * Unlucky number 7 – A standard game, when a 7 is rolled, the game stops.
 * Against all odds – All odd numbers are up and evens down.
 * Even Stevens – All even numbers are up and odds down.
 * Full house – 12 numbers are up.
 * The 300 – 2 boxes and 4 dice are used, with the second box representing numbers 13–24 (24 + 23 + 22 + ... + 2 + 1 = 300); in the absence of a second box, cards or dominoes can be used to represent tiles 13–24. A Double 12 Dominoes set can also be used with four dice for this variant and other domino sets can be used by themselves to, in the case of the Double 18 set, provide for the use of six dice by themselves without the counting box.
 * Thai style (Jackpot) – Always roll two dice, but only cover one tile matching one of the dice or their sum. For example, if the dice show a 2 and a 3 you may cover one of 2, 3, or 5. The best strategy is to use the combined score for a high tile (7,8,9), if possible, otherwise choose the lowest tile. The success rate for this strategy is 7.9855%.
 * Digital – A player's score at the end of the turn is the number obtained by reading the up digits as a decimal number from left to right. For example, if 1, 2, and 5 are left up the score is 125. This is also known as "Say what you see", a reference to Roy Walker's catch phrase from the TV game show Catchphrase.
 * 2012 – All 12 are up, but use a 20-sided die rather than the pair of 6 dice: 20-sided die playing 12 numbers.
 * Tournament – Rounds are played with the Golf scoring method until a player reaches or exceeds a grand total of 100 points, at which time the player with the lowest point total is declared to be the winner. At the end of each round, each player's score for the round is added to the player's total score. When a player's score reaches 45, the player must drop out of the game. The last player remaining wins the game.
 * Simplified variant for younger players – Needs at least a 2 player box. During the game, each player plays in turn. After rolling both dice, the player adds up the dots on the dice and then shuts the tile for either the total number of dots, or one or both of the numbers on the dice. For example, if the player rolled a 6 and a 2, they may close either the 8 tile, or both the 6 tile and the 2 tile, or just the 6 tile, or just the 2 tile (as long as the numbers are available to be covered). The player then rolls the dice again, aiming to shut more numbers. The player continues throwing the dice and shutting numbers. The first player to shut all the tiles wins.

Dominoes can also be used for the tiles – this also provides the option of using up to six dice if a Double 18 domino set is used. A deck of cards can also be used as tiles, and if so desired a complete conventional Western deck with the jokers (54 cards) can provide for the use of up to nine dice.

Played without dice

 * Domino Non-Dice Variants – A non-dice variant of the game can be played with the dominoes from either Western or Chinese sets ranging from 1 and 1 to 6 and 6 pips being used and most effectively put into a small bag for drawing, and the double blank being included along with blank and 1, with the former being either a free turn of sorts as it adds to zero or ending the turn, and the latter effectively ending the turn if the 1 tile has already been used.
 * Card Non-Dice Variants – Another variant using cards dealt from one or more decks using the A, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (sometimes along with the 7, 8, 9, and 10), and two face cards agreed upon for the equivalent of dice rolls adding up to 11 and 12 pips

title: Shut the box