text:
Talk:Shinzon

Armament "vice-versa"
With regards to the Scimitar's armament of "over 50 disruptor banks and over 20 Photon Torpedo bays", what does "or vice-versa" mean? Was this unclear in the movie and/or book? Were there contradictions between references? -- Jeff Q 06:41, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I believe Worf's line was, "52 disruptor bank, 25 photon torpedo launchers," though I could be wrong on the latter of the two. And the former.
 * Regardless, Worf clearly states both numbers when the Scimitar decloaks in the film. - Hayter 13:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Tom Cruise
(Jude Law and Michael Shanks had also auditioned for the role).

First I've heard of it and I'm a pretty big geek. Is there a source to back this up or is it just standard fan guesswork? It's not uncommon before a Trek film begins filming for fans to circulate rumours that are completely false, and it's also been known for those rumours to be accepted as truth later on. That may have happened here. - Hayter 16:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Shinzon


text:
Vladimir Feltsman

Vladimir Oskarovich Feltsman (Владимир Оскарович Фельцман, Vladimir Oskarovič Feltsman (born 8 January 1952) is a Russian-American classical pianist of Lithuanian Jewish descent particularly noted for his devotion to the music of Johann Sebastian Bach and Frédéric Chopin.

Background
Vladimir Oskarovich Feltsman was born on January 8, 1952, in Moscow. His father, the composer Oscar Feltsman, was known in the Soviet Union for popular songs and musical comedies.

Vladimir Feltsman debuted with the Moscow Philharmonic at eleven (11) years of age. He studied at the Moscow Tchaikovsky, Moscow, and Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) Conservatories. In 1971, he won the Grand Prix at the Marguerite Long International Piano Competition in Paris, followed by tours in the former Soviet Union, Europe, and Japan, thus beginning his adult career.

Career
In 1979, because of his growing discontent with the official Soviet ideology and rigid governmental control of the arts, Feltsman applied for an exit visa from the Soviet Union. In response, he was immediately banned from performing in public. After eight years of struggle and virtual artistic exile, he was finally granted permission to leave the Soviet Union.

Arriving in the United States on August 18, 1987, Vladimir Feltsman found himself warmly greeted at the White House, where on September 27, 1987, he performed his very first concert in North America for U.S. President Ronald Reagan. On November 11, 1987, his performance at Carnegie Hall established him as a major pianist on the American scene. During his early years in the West, he was promoted as a Russian Romantic firebrand, yet his debut recital consisted of works by Schubert, Schumann and Messiaen. By the mid-1990s, he had devoted himself to Bach, offering expressively shaped and thoughtfully ornamented performances on a modern piano. Then he returned to the standard repertory — Haydn, Beethoven, Mussorgsky — in the big-toned, blockbuster-style that many had anticipated when he first arrived in the USA. He has been described by music critics as a master of reinventing himself.

Feltsman teaches at the Mannes College The New School for Music and the State University of New York New Paltz, where he is the founder and artistic director of the International Festival-Institute Piano Summer. Feltsman has turned to performances on the fortepiano; he has notably performed all of Mozart's piano sonatas on a fortepiano, as well as Beethoven's Emperor Concerto and Mozart's Concerto K595, No. 27. As his contribution to the Mozart anniversary year, he commissioned the keyboard builder Paul McNulty to construct a fortepiano modeled after an Anton Walter instrument from Mozart's time.

Personal
He married a woman named Anna in 1977, and they had a son, Daniel, circa 1983. He was allowed to travel outside the Soviet Union after his marriage, though his wife was not allowed to accompany him, held as a de facto hostage so he would return.

In 1995, Feltsman became a U.S. citizen.

He lives in upstate New York with his Korean wife, Haewon.

Works
Feltsman's discography includes six albums of clavier works of J.S. Bach, recordings of Beethoven's last five piano sonatas, solo piano works of Franz Schubert, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, Olivier Messiaen, and Valentyn Sylvestrov, as well as concerti by Bach, Frédéric Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Sergei Rachmaninov, and Sergei Prokofiev.

Awards

 * 1962: Debut, Moscow State Philharmonic
 * 1967: First Prize, Concertina International Competition (Prague)
 * 1971: Grand Prix, Marguerite Long Competition (Paris)

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

title: Vladimir Feltsman


text:
Down Periscope

Down Periscope is a 1996 American military comedy submarine film directed by David S. Ward, produced by Robert Lawrence, and starring Kelsey Grammer, Lauren Holly, and Rob Schneider along with Bruce Dern, Harry Dean Stanton, William H. Macy, and Rip Torn in supporting roles. Released by 20th Century Fox on March 1, 1996, the film focuses on Lieutenant Commander Thomas Dodge (played by Grammer), a capable (if somewhat unorthodox) U.S. Navy officer who fights to save his career after being saddled with a group of misfit seamen who have been brought together as the crew of his first command, USS Stingray, a rusty, obsolete World War II-era diesel submarine that is the focus of a special naval war game, supervised by a bitter rival (played by Dern) who is fighting to bury Dodge's career by any means necessary.

Plot
Lieutenant Commander Thomas Dodge, currently the executive officer of the Los Angeles-class submarine attack submarine USS Orlando under its commanding officer Commander Carl Knox, is being considered for a third time to captain a submarine. He has been previously rejected because of his unorthodox command methods that include a "brushing" incident with a Russian submarine near the port of Murmansk, Russia, and a genital tattoo reading "Welcome Aboard" that he acquired afterward while drunk on shore leave. If denied again, he will be dismissed from the Navy's submarine command program.

Rear Admiral Yancy Graham, who dislikes Dodge, opposes his promotion, but Vice Admiral Dean Winslow, Commander, Submarine Force Atlantic, who likes Dodge and his methods, selects him to participate in a war game to test the Navy's defenses against attack from diesel-powered submarines. As Russia has been selling off their diesel fleet to America's adversaries, Winslow orders him to restore the rusty World War II-era Balao-class submarine diesel-powered submarine USS Stingray, assigned to him by Graham, and use it to "invade" Charleston Harbor undetected, and if successful, to sink a dummy warship in Norfolk Harbor with two live torpedoes. Though initially reluctant to participate, Dodge offers Winslow a wager: if he successfully completes both tasks, Winslow will give him a nuclear submarine to command. Winslow agrees to consider it, subtly instructing Dodge to "think like a pirate" instead of following the conventional war-game rules.

Graham, boasting that he has never lost a war game and motivated by his own ambition to obtain a third star, handpicks "the crew from hell" for Stingray: hot-tempered, uptight Lieutenant Martin G. Pascal as the executive officer; crusty civilian naval contractor Howard as the Chief Engineer; rebellious Engineman 1st Class Brad Stepanak; ultra-sharp-eared Sonar Technician 2nd Class E.T. "Sonar" Lovacelli; compulsive gambler Seaman Stanley "Spots" Sylvesterson; former losing college basketball player Seaman Jefferson "Stoneball" Jackson; shock-prone (and shock-addled) Electrician's Mate Michael Nitro; and not-so-Culinary Specialist Second Class Buckman as Stingray's cook. Additionally, Graham assigns Lieutenant Emily Lake as Stingray's Diving Officer to see if women can successfully serve aboard submarines.

Using a storm off the Carolina coast as a diversion, Dodge and his crew offset their technological disadvantage by disguising the Stingray as a fishing trawler to infiltrate Charleston Harbor and set off signal flares. Upset at losing the first part of the war game and desperate to defeat Dodge, Graham halves the game's containment area without Winslow's authorization. Running into trouble on their first attempt at Norfolk Harbor, Dodge leaves the containment area and heads out to sea, breaking all contact with the Navy. Irate at this lapse in protocol, Pascal openly accuses him of hijacking his own boat and attempts to usurp him. Stingray's crew, weary of Pascal's berating and harassment, turn against him, and Dodge charges him with attempted mutiny. On deck, Lake witnesses Dodge and the crew, wearing makeshift buccaneer outfits and speaking like pirates, commit a mock execution by making a blindfolded Pascal walk the plank into the raised net of a waiting fishing trawler that will take him ashore.

During the Stingray's second attempt at Norfolk, Graham, hellbent on stopping Dodge, assumes command of the Orlando from Knox. Dodge employs an incredibly dangerous maneuver: passing Stingray between the huge propellers of a commercial supertanker to avoid sonar detection by the naval ships and aircraft protecting the approach to Norfolk. By the time Orlando eventually locates, pursues, and targets the Stingray, Dodge has fired two live torpedoes at 900 yd into a target ship anchored in Norfolk Harbor, thereby humiliating Graham and winning the war game.

After Dodge's crew returns to port, Winslow chastises Graham and denies his promotion for attempting to undermine Dodge's success. He then congratulates Dodge, informing him that he will now be given command of a new Seawolf-class submarine, along with a "proper crew" to man her. Dodge respectfully requests that his entire Stingray crew be transferred with him, to which Winslow agrees, also revealing that Stepanak is his son, despite having his mother's surname. After Dodge dismisses his crew to begin a well-earned shore leave, Lake casually asks him as both of them leave the dock, "What exactly is this tattoo I keep hearing about?".

Cast

 * Kelsey Grammer as Lieutenant Commander Thomas "Tom" Dodge, Commanding Officer, USS Stingray (formerly Executive Officer, USS Orlando)
 * Lauren Holly as Lieutenant Emily Lake, Diving Officer, USS Stingray
 * Rob Schneider as Lieutenant Martin G. "Marty" Pascal, Executive Officer, USS Stingray
 * Harry Dean Stanton as Howard, Stingray's Chief Engineer, a civilian contractor
 * Rip Torn as Vice Admiral Dean Winslow, Commander, Submarine Force Atlantic (COMSUBLANT)
 * Bruce Dern as Rear Admiral Yancy Graham, Blue Team leader of the war game
 * William H. Macy as Commander Carl Knox, Commanding Officer, USS Orlando
 * Ken Hudson Campbell as Culinary Specialist 2nd Class Buckman, Stingray's Cook
 * Toby Huss as Electrician's Mate Michael "Mike" Nitro, Electrician of USS Stingray
 * Duane Martin as Seaman Jefferson "Stoneball" Jackson, Planesman
 * Jonathan Penner as Seaman Stanley "Spots" Sylvesterson, Helmsman
 * Bradford Tatum as Engineman 1st Class Bradley "Brad" Stepanak, Stingray's leading engineman and Vice Admiral Winslow's son
 * Harland Williams as Sonar Technician 2nd Class E.T. 'Sonar" Lovacelli
 * Patton Oswalt as Stingray Radioman (film debut)

Production notes
The name of the film is a play on the title of the 1959 World War II drama Up Periscope and spoofs several titles in the submarine film subgenre, including the Cold War drama The Hunt for Red October.

Down Periscope began shooting on May 6, 1995, and finished on July 27.

USS Pampanito (SS-383), a Balao-class submarine from World War II, now a museum ship and memorial in San Francisco, played the part of USS Stingray. The nearby Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet stood in for Naval Station Norfolk.

The film makes use of both standard US Navy stock footage and scenes shot specifically for the film. The target ship that is torpedoed and sunk, ending the film's war game, is both naval stock footage of the USS Fletcher (DD-445) and a prop shooting miniature. Fletcher was one of the most decorated ships in US Navy history. Over the closing credits, a music video is shown of the Village People and the film's cast performing "In the Navy" aboard Stingray.

Release
Down Periscope had its US theatrical release on March 1, 1996. The film grossed $25,785,603 domestically and $37,553,752 worldwide. The film was released on home video five months later, on August 6, 1996.

Reception
On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a score of 11% from 35 reviews, with an average rating 4.1/10. The site's consensus states: "Down Periscope takes audiences on an aimless voyage for aquatic hijinks, proving there really aren't any effective sub-stitutes for a well-written script." On Metacritic, the film receive a score of 39 based on 18 reviews, indicating "generally unfavorable reviews".

Variety wrote, "The makers of Police Academy and Major League team up to take on the submarine corps [...] and the result is a testosterone comedy that’s crude fun, with a pinch of corn-pone morality. It’s good-natured, innocuous frivolity that should raise a few smiles..." However, Stephen Holden of The New York Times felt, "The tone of the acting, which is set by Mr. Grammer's blandly laid-back performance, is all wrong for a genre that demands over-the-top hamming". Holden also wrote that the film does manage to provide "a couple of amusing bits", but "The energy level of Down Periscope is so low that moments like these, which should flare hilariously, reach a wan flicker".

title: Down Periscope


text:
Feltsman

Feltsman is a surname. Notable people with the surname include:

 * Oscar Feltsman (1921–2013), Ukrainian-born Soviet/Russian composer
 * Vladimir Feltsman (born 1952), Russian-American classical pianist

title: Feltsman


text:
Bourgeois nationalism

In Marxist theory, bourgeois nationalism is the ideology of the ruling capitalist class which aims to overcome class antagonism between proletariat and bourgeoisie by appealing to national unity. It is seen as a distraction from engaging in class struggle and an attempt to impose interests of capitalists on the proletariat by constructing capitalist interests as "national interests". Internationally, it aims to create antagonism between workers of different nations and serves as a divide-and-conquer strategy. The bourgeois nationalism is contrasted with left-wing nationalism and proletarian internationalism.

Soviet Union
After the October Revolution, the Bolshevik government based its nationalities policy (korenization) on the principles of Marxism. According to these principles, all nations should disappear with time, and nationalism was considered a bourgeois ideology. By the mid-1930s these policies were replaced with more extreme assimilationist and Russification policies. The term was used indiscriminately to smear national groups opposed to Russian centralism.

In his Report on the 50th anniversary of the formation of the USSR, Leonid Brezhnev emphasized: "That is why Communists and all fighters for socialism believe that the main aspect of the national question is unification of the working people, regardless of their national origin, in the common battle against every type of oppression, and for a new social system which rules out exploitation of the working people."

In the Soviet Union throughout its existence, the term generally referred to Ukrainian, Estonian, Latvian, Armenian, Kazakh and other types of nationalism that were propagated by the Soviet Union's non-Russian minorities. The Soviet leadership saw their struggle for independence as a threat to the entire existence of the USSR's communist regime.

China
Bourgeois nationalism as a concept was discussed by China's president, Liu Shaoqi as follows: "The exploitation of wage labour, competition, the squeezing out, suppressing and swallowing of rivals among the capitalists themselves, the resorting to war and even world war, the utilisation of all means to secure a monopoly position in its own country and throughout the world - such is the inherent character of the profit-seeking bourgeoisie. This is the class basis of bourgeois nationalism and of all bourgeois ideologies. [...] The most vicious manifestations of the development of bourgeois nationalism include the enslavement of the colonial and semi-colonial countries by the imperialist powers, the First World War, the aggression of Hitler and Mussolini and the Japanese warlords during the Second World War, and the schemes for the enslavement of the whole world undertaken by the international imperialist camp, headed by American imperialism."

Jews and Zionism
In 1949, the Communist Party USA declared the Zionist movement to be a form of "Jewish bourgeois nationalism".

Writing for People's World, the leftist activist John Gilman referred to Jewish bourgeoisie nationalism as having multiple varieties, including Jewish assimilationism and Zionism.

title: Bourgeois nationalism


text: User:Seth Ilys/TestPage

title: User:Seth Ilys/TestPage


text:
Trekking peak

The term "Trekking Peak" is a commonly misunderstood colloquial term which may refer to a variety of types of peaks in the Himalayan Region. The term is most often associated with Group "B" NMA Climbing Peaks classified by the Nepal Mountaineering Association or easier. Some may use the term "Trekking Peak" to solely describe peaks requiring little to no technical climbing experience. Others may use the term to describe all mountains regulated by the Nepal Mountaineering Association including Group "A" NMA Expedition Peaks which may require considerable difficulties and technical climbing skill.

Because of the term's loose classification of peaks it can be misleading, encompassing peaks of significant varying difficulties. There is less general consensus for the use of the term in this context of Group "A" NMA Expedition Peaks.

Nepal
Fifteen peaks classified as Group "B" NMA Climbing Peaks are generally considered "trekking" peaks. These peaks do not exceed 7000 m in elevation and can be reasonably climbed from a base camp with the possible use of a high camp. To be climbed, these peaks typically require an amount of mountaineering experience and skills and the use of specialized mountaineering equipment, such as crampons and ice axes. The easiest routes to the summits of these mountains are all challenging enough to warrant a mountaineering difficulty grade by the International French Adjectival System. The Trekking Agencies Association of Nepal also calls several Group A peaks "trekking peaks" but these are considerably more difficult despite being lower than 7000 meters. The fees for Group A peaks are higher than Group B peaks as are others costs and the time required.

In Nepal there are numerous peaks that require no technical expertise to climb, which may also be considered trekking peaks. These peaks are not tracked by the Nepal Mountaineering Association. Many of these peaks see a substantial number of summits each year by hikers and trekkers in the region without the use of specialized equipment. The routes to the summits of these mountains may not be challenging enough to warrant a mountaineering difficulty grade by the International French Adjectival System.

India
The Indian Mountaineering Foundation defines trekking peaks as mountains that require technical mountaineering skills and equipment but are still climbable by "trekkers" who have some experience or obtain training. Climbers are not required to obtain permits from or pay royalties to the Indian Mountaineering Foundation. However, some peaks are located near the military line of control, meaning close to borders of neighboring countries and permission and permits may be required from local civil or army authorities for security reasons. Also, some peaks may be out of reach for foreign climbers.

The Indian Mountaineering Foundation has designated 3 trekking peaks in the Indian Himalayan Region.

title: Trekking peak


text:
Levitation (paranormal)

Levitation or transvection, in the paranormal or religious context, is the claimed ability to raise a human body or other object into the air by mystical means.

While believed in some religious and New Age communities to occur due to supernatural, miraculous, psychic, or "energetic" phenomena, there is no scientific evidence of levitation occurring. Alleged cases of levitation can usually be explained by deception and fraud, such as trickery, illusion, and hallucination.

Religious views
Various religions have claimed examples of levitation amongst their followers. This is generally used either as a demonstration of the validity or power of the religion, or as evidence of the holiness or adherence to the religion of the particular levitator.

Buddhism

 * It is recounted as one of the Miracles of Buddha that Gautama Buddha walked on water levitating (crossed legs) over a stream in order to convert a brahmin to Buddhism.
 * Yogi Milarepa, a Vajrayana Buddhist guru, was rumored to have possessed a range of additional abilities during levitation, such as the ability to walk, rest and sleep; however, such were deemed as occult powers.

Christianity

 * According to three gospels, Jesus walked on the water of Lake Galilee to meet his disciples who were in a boat.
 * Saint Mary of Egypt (c. 344), walked across the river Jordan according to her hagiographer, the hermit Zosimas of Palestine
 * Saint Bessarion of Egypt (died c. 466), is said to have walked across the waters of the river Nile
 * Francis of Assisi (c. 1182 – 1226), founder of the Franciscan Order, is recorded as having been "suspended above the earth, often to a height of three, and often to a height of four cubits". This is about 1.3 to(-).
 * Saint Catherine of Siena (1347–1380), a nun of the Third Order of Saint Dominic and Doctor of the Church, was said to have levitated while in prayer, and a priest claimed to have seen the Holy Communion's Eucharist wafer flying from his hand straight to Catherine's hand.
 * Teresa of Ávila (1515–1582), a Carmelite nun and Doctor of the Church, claimed to have levitated at a height of about a 1.5 ft for an extended period somewhat less than an hour, in a state of mystical rapture. She called the experience a "spiritual visitation".
 * Saint Martín de Porres (1579–1639), a lay brother of the Dominican Order, claimed psychic powers of bilocation, being able to pass through closed doors (teleportation), and levitation.
 * Joseph of Cupertino (1603–1663), a Franciscan Friar, reportedly levitated high in the air, for extended periods of more than an hour, on many occasions.
 * Alphonsus Liguori (1696–1787), when preaching at Foggia, was purportedly lifted before the eyes of the whole congregation several feet from the ground.
 * Girolamo Savonarola, sentenced to death, allegedly rose off the floor of his cell into midair and remained there for some time.
 * Seraphim of Sarov (1759–1833), Russian Orthodox saint, allegedly had a gift to levitate over the ground for some time, witnessed by many educated people of his time, including the emperor Alexander I of Russia.
 * Mariam Baouardy (مريم بواردي; or "Mary of Jesus Crucified", 1846–1878), a Discalced Carmelite nun of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, experienced frequent ecstasies. She was purportedly seen levitating more than once by others: for example, in the garden of the monastery during times of private prayer, when living in the Carmelite monastery at Pau, in France.

 * "Demonic" levitation in Christianity
 * Simon Magus is recorded in the Acts of Peter as levitating above the Forum in Rome in order to prove himself to be a god. The apostle Peter intervenes, causing Magus to drop from the sky, breaking his legs "in three parts".
 * Clara Germana Cele, a young South African girl, in 1906 reportedly levitated in a rigid position. The effect was apparently only reversed by the application of Holy water, leading to belief that it was caused by demonic possession.
 * Magdalena de la Cruz (1487–1560), a Franciscan nun of Cordova, Spain.
 * Margaret Rule, a young Boston girl in the 1690s who was believed to be harassed by evil forces shortly after the Salem Witchcraft Trials, reportedly levitated from her bed in the presence of a number of witnesses.

Gnosticism

 * Simon Magus, a Gnostic who claimed to be an incarnation of God (as conceived by the Gnostics), reportedly had the ability to levitate, along with many other magical powers.
 * Mani, founder of Manichaeism, was reputed to be able to levitate.

Hellenism

 * It was believed in Hellenism (the pagan religion of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome) on the testimony of Philostratus that upon his death, Apollonius of Tyana underwent heavenly assumption by levitating into Elysium.

Hinduism

 * In Hinduism, it is believed that some Hindu mystics and gurus who have achieved certain spiritual powers (called siddhis) are able to levitate. In Sanskrit, the power of levitation is called laghiman ('lightness') or dardura-siddhi (the 'frog power'). Yogananda's book Autobiography of a Yogi has accounts of Hindu Yogis who levitated in the course of their meditation.
 * Yogi Subbayah Pullavar was reported to have levitated into the air for four minutes in front of a crowd of 150 witnesses on June 6, 1936. He was seen suspended horizontally several feet above the ground, in a trance, lightly resting his hand on top of a cloth-covered stick. Pullavar's arms and legs could not be bent from their locked position once on the ground. The illusion was created by a simple method in which the person seen to levitate is supported by a cantilevered platform held up by an iron rod camouflaged in some way.

Levitation by mediums

Many mediums have claimed to have levitated during séances, especially in the 19th century in Britain and America. Many have been shown to be frauds, using wires and stage magic tricks. Daniel Dunglas Home, a prolific and well-documented levitator of himself and other objects, was said by spiritualists to levitate outside a window. Skeptics have disputed such claims. The researchers Joseph McCabe and Trevor H. Hall exposed the "levitation" of Home as nothing more than him moving across a connecting ledge between two iron balconies.

The magician Joseph Rinn gave a full account of fraudulent behavior observed in a séance of Eusapia Palladino and explained how her levitation trick had been performed. Milbourne Christopher summarized the exposure:

 * "Joseph F. Rinn and Warner C. Pyne, clad in black coveralls, had crawled into the dining room of Columbia professor Herbert G. Lord's house while a Palladino seance was in progress. Positioning themselves under the table, they saw the medium's foot strike a table leg to produce raps. As the table tilted to the right, due to pressure of her right hand on the surface, they saw her put her left foot under the left table leg. Pressing down on the tabletop with her left hand and up with her left foot under the table leg to form a clamp, she lifted her foot and "levitated" the table from the floor."

The levitation trick of the medium Jack Webber was exposed by the magician Julien Proskauer. According to Proskauer he would use a telescopic reaching rod attached to a trumpet to levitate objects in the séance room. The physicist Edmund Edward Fournier d'Albe investigated the medium Kathleen Goligher at many sittings and concluded that no paranormal phenomena such as levitation had occurred with Goligher and stated he had found evidence of fraud. D'Albe had claimed the ectoplasm substance in the photographs of Goligher from her séances were made from muslin.

In photography
A person photographed while bouncing may appear to be levitating. This optical illusion is used by religious groups and by spiritualist mediums, claiming that their meditation techniques allow them to levitate in the air. Usually telltale signs can be found in the photography indicating that the subject was in the act of bouncing, like blurry body parts, a flailing scarf, hair being suspended in the air, etc.

Literature

 * Incidents in my Life autobiography by Daniel Dunglas Home
 * Mr. Vertigo novel by Paul Auster

Film

 * The Exorcist (1973), directed by William Friedkin
 * Ghostbusters (1984), directed by Ivan Reitman
 * The Boy Who Could Fly (1986), directed by Nick Castle
 * Candyman film series directed by Bernard Rose (1992); Bill Condon (1995); Turi Meyer (1999); Nia DaCosta (2021)

TV shows

 * Stranger Things, season 4 (2022)

title: Levitation (paranormal)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetbuster

The article talks about a unit in the game. Though the game is no doubt famous, the unit does not have any consequence in the real world. Furthermore, any description of any unit exclusive to the game should be done in the game manual, not in an encyclopedia. __earth 07:13, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Rename and Merge. May not be /directly/ related to the real world, but it sure is interesting, and it will have relation to future nuclear weapons. - Peter Perlsø 10:06, 2004 May 14 (UTC)

 * Delete: useless pseudoinformation. Another one for the fan sites. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:04, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: the game might be a valid entry, but a game unit is not... jaredwf 14:40, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete and merge . Redirect and merge!  Unsuitable subject but - 10 out of 10 for writing a full article though. --bodnotbod 15:17, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * You mean redirect and merge? --Ben Brockert 02:21, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Gah! --bodnotbod 09:24, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have many poorly-written sites related to video games with less significance than this one, and it seems like it would be difficult to merge it with the main article. Rhymeless 16:43, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * "There are a lot of useless articles" isn't an argument for including another one. With all due respect, Wile E. Heresiarch 17:12, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Also no offence, but who says they're useless? I've written papers and reports concerning video games, and there are university-level courses in marketing and design, as well as several computers courses, that focus partially or entirely on games. Personally I think that articles relating to details on video games should be under scrutiny, of course; but one shouldn't judge it simply on the criteria of "is this information useful or notable to me?", but "could this be useful to someone?" And yes, if someone was doing a report on the game, it seems like Planetbuster would be quite useful in their research. Rhymeless 17:28, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Just a thought: If individual units/weapons from games get their own entries - prepare for an onslaught of disambiguity headings at the tops of articles like infantry, power plant, jeep, cavalry... I'm not much of a gamer, but the list of articles effected would, surely, be quite ludicrous.  I feel this should be considered.  For that reason I would strongly encourage keeping such info within the games article.  Surely the lovely auto-TOC and Heading Hierarchy was created for just such lengthy offerings?  --bodnotbod 20:43, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * In reply to Rhymeless -- the purpose of video games is to be a complete waste of time. I don't have a problem with that. However, that's not consistent with the purpose of WP. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:23, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Whenever I find myself describing Wikipedia to my friends, they always think it's a waste of time too. But that's not the point. Your same statement could be made for nearly anything consistent with pop culture; most television programs and motion pictures could also be considered a waste of time, do you consider articles about them to be counter-productive to WP as well? Rhymeless 01:04, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. On the one hand, I like to see an article or set of articles become a complete reference on a subject, and info on the Planetbuster is needed if we're to ever reach that goal for Alpha Centauri. On the other hand, the article, while maybe appearing well written and solid to someone who hasn't played the game, is actually highly speculative and a large portion is just a narrative of a particular scenario that could conceivably occur after the use of Planetbusters. Accuracy would require this to be much more generalized. Perhaps if the article was greatly condensed (without losing any of the real information), it could be neatly merged with Alpha Centauri. We decided to merge the article on the Mauler, the weapon from Perfect Dark, not too long ago. Everyking 18:03, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * It should at least be renamed to indicate that it refers to a game. RickK 19:44, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, or merge if that's the consensus. Jgm 21:32, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * If Wiki is going to permit separate articles for all those ridiculous StarCraft units (Refinery (StarCraft), it's going to have to allow them for all game units. This discussion has gone on too long, in my estimation. bodnotbod, your dark vision is already reality. While I do not vote to delete the information in this article (and did not suggest deleting any of the thirtysome StarCraft articles), I emphatically recommend merging it into a parent article. If I wrote an article on Wheel (Lego), how long would it be before it was merged into Lego? Yet is it only my assumption that Lego wheels are far better known than StarCraft refineries? End this nonsense. Denni 01:16, 2004 May 10 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Denni. I couldn't agree more. Meelar 01:27, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * IMO, all of these types of articles should be merged with the parent article. Denni's example is a perfect reason why.  So, merge and redirect. - Lucky 6.9 04:05, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Though I've suggested the article to be deleted initially, now I believe it should be merged with it parent article. __earth 04:40, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote from delete to merge. jaredwf 05:44, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge. Burgundavia 20:17, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge or, alternatively, shorten to a couple of paragraphs on the concept rather than endless game implementation specifics. It's quite entertaining info, a mishmash of Gaia theory and nuclear war, but just far too long. -- EuroTom 21:50, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Jean-Jacques Pelletier

Untitled
It would be very welcome if someone could provide translations of titles. Please provide them in parentheses: don't delete the original French titles! -- Jmabel 07:11, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jean-Jacques Pelletier


text:
Nepal Mountaineering Association

The Nepal Mountaineering Association (NMA) is the national mountaineering association of Nepal. The NMA was founded in 1973 with the goals of promoting mountaineering activities in the Himalaya, providing safety awareness and mountaineering skills to Nepalese mountaineers and creating awareness of the beauty of the Himalayas both nationally and in international communities. The NMA is an active member of the UIAA since 1975.

The NMA was also responsible for administering climbing permits for 27 mountains with altitudes between 5,800 metres and 6,600 metres categorised as trekking peaks, while permits for all other mountains open for climbing in Nepal (approximately 300 peaks) are issued by the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation (MoTCA). In October 2015 the Government of Nepal announced that responsibility for the trekking peaks would be transferred from NMA to MoTCA.

title: Nepal Mountaineering Association


text:
NMA

NMA may refer to:
 * National Management Association, American association for teaching leadership in business management
 * National mapping agency, organisation that produces topographic maps and geographic information of a country
 * National Meat Association, a meat processors trade group, now part of the North American Meat Institute
 * National Medical Association, professional group for African-American physicians
 * National Mining Association, American trade organization for the mining industry
 * National Motorists Association, an American activist organization opposed to excessive traffic laws and enforcement
 * National Movie Awards, annual British film awards from 2007 to 2011
 * National Museum of Australia, museum in Acton, NCT, Australia
 * Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit (Netherlands Competition Authority), former Dutch regulatory agency
 * Nepal Medical Association, medical doctor's association in Nepal
 * Nepal Mountaineering Association, the national mountaineering association of Nepal
 * Network management application, a program for management of a computer network
 * Neue Mozart-Ausgabe, second complete edition of the works of Mozart
 * New Media Age, British new media magazine
 * New Midsize Airplane, a Boeing project to develop a new airliner for delivery in the 2020s.
 * New Model Army (band), English rock band
 * News Media Alliance, a trade group for the news industry in the US and Canada
 * Next Media Animation, former name of Next Animation Studio, Taiwanese company producing animated political satire
 * Nigerian Medical Association, professional group for Nigerian doctors and dentists
 * Nollywood Movies Awards, annual film awards in Nigeria (since 2016, Nolly Awards)
 * Norwegian Maritime Authority, The Norwegian Maritime Authority is a government agency responsible for life, health, working conditions and the environment for Norwegian registered ships.
 * Namangan Airport IATA code

title: NMA


text:
NetBurst

The NetBurst microarchitecture, called P68 inside Intel, was the successor to the P6 microarchitecture in the x86 family of central processing units (CPUs) made by Intel. The first CPU to use this architecture was the Willamette-core Pentium 4, released on November 20, 2000 and the first of the Pentium 4 CPUs; all subsequent Pentium 4 and Pentium D variants have also been based on NetBurst. In mid-2001, Intel released the Foster core, which was also based on NetBurst, thus switching the Xeon CPUs to the new architecture as well. Pentium 4-based Celeron CPUs also use the NetBurst architecture.

NetBurst was replaced with the Core microarchitecture based on P6, released in July 2006.

Technology
The NetBurst microarchitecture includes features such as Hyper-threading, Hyper Pipelined Technology, Rapid Execution Engine, Execution Trace Cache, and replay system which all were introduced for the first time in this particular microarchitecture, and some never appeared again afterwards.

Hyper-threading
Hyper-threading is Intel's proprietary simultaneous multithreading (SMT) implementation used to improve parallelization of computations (doing multiple tasks at once) performed on x86 processors. Intel introduced it with NetBurst processors in 2002. Later Intel reintroduced it in the Nehalem microarchitecture after its absence in the Core 2.

Quad-Pumped Front-Side Bus
The Northwood and Willamette cores feature an external Front Side Bus (FSB) that runs at 100 MHz which transfers four bits per clock cycle, thus having an effective speed of 400 MHz. Later revisions of the Northwood core, along with the Prescott core (and derivatives) have an effective 800 MHz front-side bus (200 MHz quad pumped).

Hyper-Pipelined Technology
The Wilamette and Northwood cores contain a 20-stage instruction pipeline. This is a significant increase in the number of stages compared to the Pentium III, which had only 10 stages in its pipeline. The Prescott core increased the length of the pipeline to 31 stages. A drawback of longer pipelines is the increase in the number of stages that need to be traced back in the event that the branch misprediction, increasing the penalty of said misprediction. To address this issue, Intel devised the Rapid Execution Engine and has invested a great deal into its branch prediction technology, which Intel claims reduces branch mispredictions by 33% over Pentium III. In reality, the longer pipeline resulted in reduced efficiency through a lower number of instructions per clock (IPC) executed as high enough clock speeds were not able to be reached to offset lost performance due to larger than expected increase in power consumption and heat.

Rapid Execution Engine
With this technology, the two arithmetic logic units (ALUs) in the core of the CPU are double-pumped, meaning that they actually operate at twice the core clock frequency. For example, in a 3.8 GHz processor, the ALUs will effectively be operating at 7.6 GHz. The reason behind this is to generally make up for the low IPC count; additionally this considerably enhances the integer performance of the CPU. Intel also replaced the high-speed barrel shifter with a shift/rotate execution unit that operates at the same frequency as the CPU core. The downside is that certain instructions are now much slower (relatively and absolutely) than before, making optimization for multiple target CPUs difficult. An example is shift and rotate operations, which suffer from the lack of a barrel shifter which was present on every x86 CPU beginning with the i386, including the main competitor processor, Athlon.

Execution Trace Cache
Within the L1 cache of the CPU, Intel incorporated its Execution Trace Cache. It stores decoded micro-operations, so that when executing a new instruction, instead of fetching and decoding the instruction again, the CPU directly accesses the decoded micro-ops from the trace cache, thereby saving considerable time. Moreover, the micro-ops are cached in their predicted path of execution, which means that when instructions are fetched by the CPU from the cache, they are already present in the correct order of execution. Intel later introduced a similar but simpler concept with Sandy Bridge called micro-operation cache (UOP cache).

Replay system
The replay system is a subsystem within the Intel Pentium 4 processor to catch operations that have been mistakenly sent for execution by the processor's scheduler. Operations caught by the replay system are then re-executed in a loop until the conditions necessary for their proper execution have been fulfilled.

Branch prediction hints
The Intel NetBurst architecture allows branch prediction hints to be inserted into the code to tell whether the static prediction should be taken or not taken, while this feature was abandoned in later Intel processors. According to Intel, NetBurst's branch prediction algorithm is 33% better than the one in P6.

Scaling-up issues
Despite these enhancements, the NetBurst architecture created obstacles for engineers trying to scale up its performance. With this microarchitecture, Intel planned to attain clock speeds of 10 GHz, but because of rising clock speeds, Intel faced increasing problems with keeping power dissipation within acceptable limits. Intel reached a speed barrier of 3.8 GHz in November 2004 but encountered problems trying to achieve even that. Intel abandoned NetBurst in 2006 after the heat problems became unacceptable and then developed the Core microarchitecture, inspired by the P6 Core of the Pentium Pro to the Tualatin Pentium III-S, and most directly the Pentium M.

Revisions
Intel replaced the original Willamette core with a redesigned version of the NetBurst microarchitecture called Northwood in January 2002. The Northwood design combined an increased cache size, a smaller 130 nm fabrication process, and Hyper-threading (although initially all models but the 3.06 GHz model had this feature disabled) to produce a more modern, higher-performing version of the NetBurst microarchitecture.

In February 2004, Intel introduced Prescott, a more radical revision of the microarchitecture. The Prescott core was produced on a 90 nm process, and included several major design changes, including the addition of an even larger cache (from 512 KB in the Northwood to 1 MB, and 2 MB in Prescott 2M), a much deeper instruction pipeline (31 stages as compared to 20 in the Northwood), a heavily improved branch predictor, the introduction of the SSE3 instructions, and later, the implementation of Intel Extended Memory 64 Technology (EM64T), Intel's branding for their compatible implementation of the x86-64 64-bit version of the x86 microarchitecture (as with hyper-threading, all Prescott chips branded Pentium 4 HT have hardware to support this feature, but it was initially only enabled on the high-end Xeon processors, before being officially introduced in processors with the Pentium trademark). Power consumption and heat dissipation also became major issues with Prescott, which quickly became the hottest-running, and most power-hungry, of Intel's single-core x86 and x86-64 processors. Power and heat concerns prevented Intel from releasing a Prescott clocked above 3.8 GHz, along with a mobile version of the core clocked above 3.46 GHz.

Intel also released a dual-core processor based on the NetBurst microarchitecture branded Pentium D. The first Pentium D core was codenamed Smithfield, which is actually two Prescott cores in a single die, and later Presler, which consists of two Cedar Mill cores on two separate dies (Cedar Mill being the 65 nm die-shrink of Prescott).

Successor
Intel had Netburst-based successors in development called Tejas and Jayhawk with between 40 and 50 pipeline stages, but ultimately decided to replace NetBurst with the Core microarchitecture, released in July 2006; these successors were more directly derived from the Pentium Pro (P6 microarchitecture). August 8, 2008 marked the end of Intel NetBurst-based processors. The reason for NetBurst's abandonment was the severe heat problems caused by high clock speeds. While some Core- and Nehalem-based processors have higher TDPs, most processors are multi-core, so each core gives off a fraction of the maximum TDP, and the highest-clocked Core-based single-core processors give off a maximum of 27 W of heat. The fastest-clocked desktop Pentium 4 processors (single-core) had TDPs of 115 W, compared to 88 W for the fastest clocked mobile versions. Although, with the introduction of new steppings, TDPs for some models were eventually lowered.

The Nehalem microarchitecture, the successor to the Core microarchitecture, was supposed to be an evolution of NetBurst according to Intel roadmaps dating back to 2000. Nehalem reimplements certain features of NetBurst, including the Hyper-Threading technology first introduced in the 3.06 GHz Northwood core, and L3 cache, first implemented on a consumer processor in the Gallatin core used in the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition.

NetBurst-based chips

 * Celeron (NetBurst)
 * Celeron D
 * Pentium 4
 * Pentium 4 Extreme Edition
 * Pentium D
 * Pentium Extreme Edition
 * Xeon, from 2001 through 2006

title: NetBurst


text:
Talk:Leonid Brezhnev

"Most powerful country in the world"
Nowhere else on Wikipedia is such a claim about the USSR made or substantiated. If such a claim is not made authoritatively on the USSR page, it is surely not appropriate here.

The most that can be said is that certain histories make such claims, maybe. Moreover, this biography of Brezhnev is not the venue to have this debate. The status of the USSR's "powerfulness" (which WP almost certainly shouldn't be making authoritative claims about at all, as any claim will be highly debated by tons of valid sources) is something that absolutely requires consensus, and should not be decided in a low traffic article about a single soviet leader.

Nickelpro (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't get to remove reliably sourced content based on your likeness. See WP:JDL.
 * Also see WP:OSE. It is not necessary for this content to be posted elsehwere before getting any entry here.
 * The information about being the most powerful country at one time is using reliable sources. Nobody disputes this fact. You have already seen the sources and they verify the information. Rivals like Anwar Sadat had also noted that "Russia has now become the world's strongest military power. It is more advanced than the United States in strategic weapons." You can now read these sources to understand how the USSR under Brezhnev got there:

 * You can add this information on other articles but your claim that this information is "unsubstantiated" or it should be removed because it is not on some other article is not making any sense. Capitals00 (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This isn't a deletion discussion and isn't about personal opinions, WP:OSE and WP:JDL are irrelevant.
 * None of those sources outright support your claim, they suggest elements that may support your claim, but none of them demonstrate a consensus that the USSR was unequivocally considered "more powerful" than the US either by said historians or by US officials.
 * Moreover, the claim is facially ridiculous and obviously violates WP:NPOV.
 * A more factual, less subjective, claim would be better suited, "Under Brezhnec the Soviet Union's military budget increased eightfold, supporting the largest arsenal of ICBMs and conventional forces then assembled" or something to that effect. That is directly supported by your sources
 * If you insist on sticking to the subjective claim I recommend we WP:3O this.
 * Nickelpro (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There are two sources on the article with one source clearly saying: "Leonid Brezhnev was the builder of militarily the most powerful country of the world that USSR is today - a fact that even its adversary, the United States of America acknowledges."
 * The sources I have provided above simply tells how USSR became the "military superpower" and that how it militarily surpassed the United States. I provided them because you were disputing this information as some kind of disinformation. All of these sources are from historians and experts. Now if you really want to hear from the "US officials" then should this book from Marshall Brement should be enough for you. He notes: "By 1975, the cumulative effect of Soviet gains and US weakening lead many Western observers to argue that the Soviet Union had actually surpassed the United States as the world's strongest military power." Capitals00 (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * See the wording Brememnt uses, "Western observers argue". The same wording should be used here. So again, something to the effect of:
 * "Under Brezhnev the Soviet Union's military budget increased eightfold, supporting the largest arsenal of ICBMs and conventional forces then assembled. This build up led some observers – including Western ones – to argue that by the mid 1970s the USSR had surpassed the United States as the world's strongest military power."
 * This avoids stating opinions as facts and provides context to the statement of "most powerful".
 * Nickelpro (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * More appropriate wording as per the above sources: "Under Brezhnev the Soviet Union's military budget increased eightfold, resulting in the possession of the largest number of ICBMs, nuclear warheads, aircrafts, tanks, conventional forces and more military assets. This build up led numerous observers – including Western ones – to argue that by the mid 1970s the USSR had surpassed the United States as the world's strongest military power."
 * That's for the paragraph in the section. What about the lead? "and by the 1970s he made Soviet Union the most powerful country" is the current sentence which can be changed to "and by the 1970s, numerous observers argued the Soviet Union had surpassed the United States to become the world's strongest military power." Capitals00 (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nickelpro (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * More appropriate wording as per the above sources: "Under Brezhnev the Soviet Union's military budget increased eightfold, resulting in the possession of the largest number of ICBMs, nuclear warheads, aircrafts, tanks, conventional forces and more military assets. This build up led numerous observers – including Western ones – to argue that by the mid 1970s the USSR had surpassed the United States as the world's strongest military power."
 * That's for the paragraph in the section. What about the lead? "and by the 1970s he made Soviet Union the most powerful country" is the current sentence which can be changed to "and by the 1970s, numerous observers argued the Soviet Union had surpassed the United States to become the world's strongest military power." Capitals00 (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Military power and military endeavours
This discussion thread hardly sounds like proof of consensus in support of your position. I revised the article in accordance with Nickelpro's recommendation. You should content yourself with this or obtain an appropriate consensus via Rfc.Emiya1980 (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You haven't revised anything according to this discussion but only restored your entirely unhelpful edits. You are not even reading the edit summaries made in response to your edits.
 * You were already told not to add tags on lead because this article's lead is rid of sources but you did it again. Why don't you just read this section where sources have been provided?
 * Your rampant falsification that all military endeavours of Brezhnev caused decline in economy since he was alive cannot be retained. You are doing it against the long-standing wording which holds that it was only the Soviet-Afghan war that happened to be costly and that too after Brezhnev died.
 * Nobody is going to open RfC only because you reject the reliably sourced content. Capitals00 (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Anybody else want to try reasoning with this guy? (See Brezhnev article's revision history for reference). Emiya1980 (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are required to take responsibility of your own edits instead of demanding others to advocate your problematic edits. Capitals00 (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You've already made clear there is nothing I can say to make you compromise your position whatsoever even though I myself have tried to accommodate you. Only soliciting the opinions of third parties can resolve this impasse.Emiya1980 (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You haven't made any argument for supporting your edits in the first place. Why do you have to canvass others on your 2nd edit to this discussion? It is clearly because you are yourself unsure about your edits. Capitals00 (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * From the opening of WP:CAN, notification in order to achieve wider consensus is perfectly acceptable.
 * You have a very sympathetic view towards the article subject and the USSR, and have achieved zero consensus that such a view should be presented in Wikipedia's voice.
 * But I'm a small-time WP:GNOME, and zero interest in the vitriol of this argument. I support the style of presentation we hashed out above: present claims about subjective judgments on Brezhnev's tenure in the voice of the sources making those claims, not in Wikipedia's voice. Any process beyond talk page is beyond me though, so if that compromise is unacceptable, it's on others to escalate.
 * Nickelpro (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Speaking as an outsider, and an admin that noticed what looks like an edit war, I would say to that you already have a compromise above that is supported by the sources (according to all of you), ie: the "...including Western ones – to argue that by the mid 1970s the USSR had surpassed the United States...".  You can start an RFC is you feel it should be an absolute statement, paraphrasing, "the USSR surpassed" in Wikipedia's voice, but the odds are very much against you getting such an absolute statement in Wikipedia's voice, since there isn't a consensus in the sources that it is an absolute truth. It is also very likely impossible to prove anyway, so the claims are compelling, but they aren't definitive, so worth mentioning in their own voice, not Wikipedia's.  Regardless, the edit warring needs to stop.  I could be wrong, it seems that Capital00 is the one that wants the changes from the status quo (and a read of the discussion says there is definitely not a consensus for his ideas at this time), so just reading a page off of WP:BRD, the burden is on the one wanting the change from the status quo, to first build that consensus before reinserting the contentious changes.  Call it an unofficial 3rd opinion, outsider opinion, or just an admin who is concerned he will have to full protect and start blocking multiple people for edit warring if things continue to go downhill, whatever works for you.  Both sides need to just hammer it out and find a compromise that multiple reliable sources agree on, or that presents the arguments from the two perspectives.   Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I had already agreed to attribute this information to what "numerous observers argued" as the lead currently states. I have no problem with that. You can also read the first paragraph of Leonid Brezhnev where this information has been detailed and nothing has been written in wikivoice. Capitals00 (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Capitals00 Answer me this: Why are you so vehemently opposed to including citations to support your claims in the lede?Emiya1980 (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you find citations anywhere on the lead? You can't because this article has been designed that way. There is no need of sources on lead when the information has been already sourced on the section. Capitals00 (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Rfc on Citations regarding Soviet Military strength.
This Rfc comes to resolve an ongoing dispute over whether citations should be included in the lede to support the claim that "numerous observers argued the Soviet Union had surpassed the United States to become the world's strongest military power." Should citations be included in the lede to support this claim? Emiya1980 (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No. As long as material is referenced in the body of the article, citations in the lead section are superfluous. That is the style I generally prefer, and, per WP:LEAD, is entirely valid. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I almost interjected in the above section with exactly the same thing. They are allowed, but not preferred.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 * No - text adequately sourced in the main body does not require citations in lead.--Staberinde (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No - (coming from WP:RFC/A) Per exactly what has been said above. The lead does not require citations which are provided in the body of the article. Fieari (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Suggestion the word "numerous" can be misleading. A solution can be "some observers". O.maximov (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

 * No - (coming from WP:RFC/A) Citations are not required in the lede. Nemov (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No. It's not even like this is a controversial statement. Per MOS:LEADCITE leaving the phrase uncited is a valid option, and I don't see why this phrase has been singled out. There are many claims that are made in Wikivoice which I feel would be far better candidates for citations. Cessaune   [ talk ]   20:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No — I agree with the comments already made in support of this position, but I will add that the inclusion of citations can be justified if the content is likely to be scrutinised by readers because it is controversial. I do not think this is the case here, however, as most of what is written in the lead could be perceived with the same level of caution. Yue 🌙 18:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No because the lead does not need sources if its information has been properly sourced on the article body. I would also add that this particular information is accurately described and sourced on the article body. I don't see any issue here. Dympies (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No Agreed. If cited in the body, why add a superfluous citation in the lead?Coalcity58 (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion
To save valuable editor time this RFC should be closed or withdrawn. I'd close it as WP:SNOW and a clear case of MOS:LEADCITE, but since I voted I won't close it. , are you willing to withdraw? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Nemov Yes. Emiya1980 (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Lead is missing key info
Notwithstanding the ongoing discussion above, the current lead is missing key information on Brezhnev's career and leadership. I propose that elements of this revision be added (Special:Permalink/1224486535): it adds detail on his various positions after the war, when he was rising up the ranks in the party, and as the body describes, highlights that he was sponsored by Khrushchev from even before the war and was a long-time loyalist before ousting him. Mentions of SALT I, the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia, and the Brezhnev Doctrine are also crucial. — Goszei (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * His political and militarily career was very broad, thus it would not make sense to point out these particular military endeavours on lead. Capitals00 (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Compared to what is already featured in the lede, I think Brezhnev's relationship with Khrushchev is a piece of relatively trivial information which is best left for the article's body to expound on. With regards to the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia and the ensuing Brezhnev Doctrine, the lede already mentions that Brezhnev strengthened the Soviet Union's dominion over Eastern Europe and pursued a policy of widespread military interventionism abroad. With that being said, I have no problem with you squeezing in mention of SALT I as a part of detente as long as it doesn't come at the expense of content which is already present.Emiya1980 (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

No Strains on Soviet Economy During Brezhnev's Lifetime?
Capitals00 insists on having the lede's third paragraph reflect that the Soviet Union's high military spending under Brezhnev did not strain the Soviet economy until after Brezhnev's death. However, in the section entitled "Economic stagnation until 1982", the article explicitly states "Beginning around 1975, economic growth began to decline at least in part due to the regime's sustained prioritization of heavy industry and military spending over consumer goods." In light of this information, shouldn't the lede's third paragraph reflect that "Brezhnev's preoccupation with strengthening the armed forces as well as supporting Moscow's allies abroad badly strained the Soviet economy during the later years of his rule and long after his death" instead?Emiya1980 (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Emiya1980 (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Emiya1980 (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Era of Stagnation" was a term coined by Gorbachev. The section says that it started due to "ignoring changes occurring in Western societies; increased authoritarianism in Soviet society; the invasion of Afghanistan; the bureaucracy's transformation into an undynamic gerontocracy; lack of economic reform; pervasive political corruption, and other structural problems within the country".
 * The part you are pointing only says that it "began to decline at least in part due to the regime's sustained prioritization of heavy industry and military spending". We cannot single out what appears to be "in part" on lead. The section continues "stagnation of the Soviet economy was fueled even further by the Soviet Union's ever-widening technological gap with the West."
 * There is no reason to relate these things with the outright economic decline that started only after the death of Brezhnev. Capitals00 (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I recommend reading the scholarly studies. There is easy access to "Structural Analysis of the Economic Decline and Collapse of the Soviet Union," a 2016 paper by Numa Mazat published in the Proceedings of the 43rd Brazilian Economics Meeting. it is online here and lists many other studies Here are some quotes: from the abstract: "After a long period of sustained fast growth of output, the USSR began experiencing in the Mid-1970s an economic stagnation." page 3: "From 1975 to 1984, Soviet economic growth slowed down markedly, leading to a period of relative economic stagnation in the USSR. The average per Capita GDP growth was less than 1% during this period."  Page 5:  "By the 1970s Soviet leadership identified the problem already and tried to move to a regime of intensive accumulation, with minimization of the costs and increase of ‘efficiency’ (Hewett, 1988; CIA, 1986). But, the attempt to change the composition of the investment and to raise the productivity into improving the ‘efficiency’ failed. This failure was due to the inability to change the attitude toward retirement and replacement of the installed fixed capital, the difficulty in the incorporation of technological innovation in civilian industry, the militarization of the economy, the deterioration of the ‘discipline’ of Soviet workers and the high cost of the industrialization in Siberia." Rjensen (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. As you said, it notes that the "average per Capita GDP growth was less than 1% during this period," the economic growth slowed from 1975 - 1984 but there was still some increase. This is obviously not the same as the economic downfall that started years after the death of Brezhnev. Capitals00 (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Saying that Brezhnev's military policies badly strained the economy does not require proof that the Soviet economy went into complete free-fall under his leadership. The fact that the the mid-to-late 1970s saw diminishing returns in Soviet economic growth as well as a significant widening of the Soviet technological gap with the West shows that Brezhnev's policies were already having a detrimental impact on the country well before his death. Therefore, there should be at least some mention in the lede how Brezhnev's spending on the armed forces and support for military interventionism abroad negatively effected the Soviet economy during his lifetime.Emiya1980 (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are some sources corroborating the detrimental impact Brezhnev's military policies had on the Soviet economy.Emiya1980 (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * •"[In the early 1980s,] Brezhnev still believed he could resuscitate detente in Europe and abhorred the prospect of invasion of Poland. In addition, he and other Soviet leaders were deterred by the economic dimensions of the Polish crisis. Fighting with the Poles would be disastrous enough, but equally calamitous would be the economic costs of invasion and occupation. Chernyaev commented in his journal in August 1981:'Brezhnev's approach is the only wise approach. We simply cannot afford to keep Poland as our economic dependent.' Indeed, the Kremlin did not have the surplus resources to pay for its rapidly expanding commitments. By the 1980s, the Soviet Union assisted or maintained sixty-nine Soviet satellites and clients around the world. Beginning in the second half of the 1960s, over a quarter of the Soviet GDP was spent every year on financing the military buildup. The regime routinely filled holes in the budget by borrowing from people's savings, selling vodka, and secretly amassing a budget deficit. Another crucial source of revenue was the export of oil and gas: from 1971 to 1980, the Soviet Union increased its oil and gas production sevenfold and eightfold, respectively, a rate matched by the ever-increasing Soviet deliveries of heavily subsidized oil and gas to Warsaw Pact countries. After 1974, when world prices of oil quadrupled, Moscow was forced to double the price of Soviet oil delivered to its Warsaw Pact allies, compensating them through ten-year, low-interest loans. Soviet economic interests demanded reductions of such generous aid to Central European regimes, but the interests of the 'socialist empire' and bloc commitments dictated instead further increases in this aid."
 * •"Russians now call the Brezhnev years 'the period of stagnation.' The description is misleading. Brezhnev did a lot worse than simply leave the economy in neutral. He saw salvation in raw military force. So Brezhnev conducted the biggest arms buildup in the history of the world. Under him, the U.S.S.R. grew from a junior member of the nuclear club, forced into a shameful backdown in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, to the world's most heavily armed superpower, at parity with or ahead of the United States in key nuclear and conventional weapons.[¶] The cost to Moscow was a military procurement program spiraling crazily out of control. Some 30 percent of GNP went to defense, robbing funds that should have gone into farms and consumer goods, roads, housing, schools, and health care to name but a few needy areas. In the end, he did more damage to the Soviet system than the dissidents he jailed. [¶] Workers outside the privileged defense sector were underpaid, with little prospect of improved living standards in their lifetimes. Not surprisingly, they underproduced. Absenteeism and alcohol ran rampant. Cynical Soviet workers soon coined this description of their bargain with the state: 'We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.' It was a formula for disaster. Sure enough, Brezhnev's legacy was just that—a collapsing Third World economy, with nuclear missiles that no sane leader could fire"
 * •"Even official statistics accept that defense spending in the USSR rose 40 per cent between 1965 and 1970, and annual increases continued thereafter at rates which never fell below 2 per cent in real terms. As a percentage of GDP, military spending rose by approximately 3 percent over the period rising to at least 15 percent of GDP by the time of Brezhnev's death in 1982. Despite the constrains such levels of spending placed on the civilian economy, it appeared to be a price the Soviet leadership felt was worth paying."
 * •"...an inexorable decline set in, as the annual growth rate slipped to 3.7 percent between 1971 and 1975 and then to 2.7 percent between 1976 and 1980. Innovation lagged; much of the Soviet Union's equipment was obsolete. Also, the Soviet Union did not produce many of the finished industrial goods that in Japan, Western Europe, and the United States formed the basis for increased productivity and a far higher standard of living than Soviet citizens knew. Even when the Soviet planners committed additional resources to producing consumer goods, as in the Ninth Five-Year Plan covering 1971—1975, a variety of complications and the continued investment priority enjoyed by heavy industry and the military derailed their intentions."
 * •"From the point of view of Communist rulers, the Brezhnev era was in many ways successful. This was the period when the USSR achieved a rough parity with the United States – by the early 1970s – as a military power, although the basis of its 'superpower' status depended very heavily on the disproportionately large resources it devoted to military expenditure. Although no economic superpower, the Soviet Union contained some of the world's richest mineral deposits. It was, however, a sign of the weakness of the economy that Soviet exports depended so heavily on the sale of natural resources, especially oil and gas. Yet what was termed the 'oil crisis' in Western Europe – the sharp rise in price of 1973 – turned out to be an energy bonanza for the Soviet Union. The Brezhnev leadership's ability to keep various elites content owed much to the sale at advantageous prices of its natural resources. Keeping them satisfied was, however, harder at the end of the Brezhnev era than earlier. The rate of economic growth was in long-term decline and in Brezhnev's last years had virtually ground to a halt."
 * Sources
 * What are your thoughts on this issue?Emiya1980 (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have enough expertise on this, but from what I read it looks like Brezhnev's military buildup was to a certain extent offset by his policy of détente with the West (in contrast to his predecessors and current Putin's sabre-rattling). It's probably one of the reasons some favor the description of civilian stagnation rather than Napoleonic military initiatives. Brandmeistertalk  18:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Brandmeister, what sources are you basing this on?Emiya1980 (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:V. It is wrong to say; "Brezhnev's military policies badly strained the economy does not require proof that the Soviet economy went into complete free-fall under his leadership".
 * Your sources agree that the growth of the USSR economy slowed during the last years of Brezhnev and the economic decline started only years after this death. This confirms that the lead is not inaccurate. Capitals00 (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Capitals00 What part of the sources I cited gave you that conclusion? Did you utterly overlook (if not outright ignore) all references to how Brezhnev's regime ran a budget deficit while depriving the consumer sector and other sectors of the economy of badly needed funds in order to fuel the Soviet military-industrial complex? According to Zubok, the Soviet budget was so short on cash in the early 1980s that Moscow was reluctant to militarily intervene against Solidarity in Poland for fear of the costs. Even if such actions did not cause the Soviet economy to collapse immediately, they nonetheless served to undermine its performance throughout Brezhnev's leadership. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Rjensen Which position are you in favor of?Emiya1980 (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @,,, and . For purposes of this discussion, how would you characterize the effect of Brezhnev's policies on the Soviet economy during his lifetime?Emiya1980 (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I spent time in USSR in 1980s as a visiting professor at Moscow State University--the economic conditions were bad and getting worse --and the psychology that "we are soon catching up with the West" had collapsed as the professors I knew realized that that dream was dead. Likewise the satellites esp Poland and East Germany realized that western Europe was booming rich and they were sinking economically dragged down by USSR stagnation. Academics blamed Brezhnev (and his two bedridden successors) for the failures. Academics desperately hoped that Gorbachev would save the USSR, somehow. So I would say that the Russian elite considered Brezhnev a failure in economic terms. I also visited Georgia (part of USSR) where the mood was even more pessimistic. Rjensen (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your sources agree that the growth of the USSR economy slowed during the last years of Brezhnev and the economic decline started only years after this death. This confirms that the lead is not inaccurate. Capitals00 (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Capitals00 What part of the sources I cited gave you that conclusion? Did you utterly overlook (if not outright ignore) all references to how Brezhnev's regime ran a budget deficit while depriving the consumer sector and other sectors of the economy of badly needed funds in order to fuel the Soviet military-industrial complex? According to Zubok, the Soviet budget was so short on cash in the early 1980s that Moscow was reluctant to militarily intervene against Solidarity in Poland for fear of the costs. Even if such actions did not cause the Soviet economy to collapse immediately, they nonetheless served to undermine its performance throughout Brezhnev's leadership. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Rjensen Which position are you in favor of?Emiya1980 (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @,,, and . For purposes of this discussion, how would you characterize the effect of Brezhnev's policies on the Soviet economy during his lifetime?Emiya1980 (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I spent time in USSR in 1980s as a visiting professor at Moscow State University--the economic conditions were bad and getting worse --and the psychology that "we are soon catching up with the West" had collapsed as the professors I knew realized that that dream was dead. Likewise the satellites esp Poland and East Germany realized that western Europe was booming rich and they were sinking economically dragged down by USSR stagnation. Academics blamed Brezhnev (and his two bedridden successors) for the failures. Academics desperately hoped that Gorbachev would save the USSR, somehow. So I would say that the Russian elite considered Brezhnev a failure in economic terms. I also visited Georgia (part of USSR) where the mood was even more pessimistic. Rjensen (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

 * " strengthening the armed forces as well as supporting Moscow's allies abroad" ... "during the later years of his rule" is a correct statement easily sourced. By the way, the article must be expanded wit a section about  "supporting Moscow's allies abroad" 20 billion Africas's debt to USSR written off by Russia. - Altenmann >talk 06:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What are your thoughts on the issue? Emiya1980 (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Capitals00 is trying to argue an extremely pedantic phrasing. His point, if I might sum up, seems to be that a decline in growth to the point of stagnation (which is strongly supported by your sources), does not count as "badly straining" the Soviet economy because there is not outright economic decline.
 * However such a conclusion is not justified either in colloquial language or by any of the random WP:WL going on (I have no idea what WP:V has to do with the appropriateness of word "strain"). It is correct and appropriate to describe an economy driven from growth into stagnation as "strained", or with similar negative verbiage.
 * I'm unsure on what exactly is being debated with regards to the status quo of the lead section. If anything I believe it is still weirdly sympathetic to Brezhnev in a way not broadly supported by non-propagandist commentaries, but I have no specific suggestions for things to fix. If there is a specific paragraph or phrase under contention up for change I'm happy to 3rd-opinion on it. If the question is whether the "strained" language should be changed to something more neutral, I'm opposed.
 * Nickelpro (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Capitals00 It seems we have yet to obtain a decisive consensus in favor of either position. Do you have any objection to an Rfc?Emiya1980 (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Rfc about Soviet Economy under Brezhnev
A dispute has arisen over whether the final sentence of the lede's third paragraph should reflect that Brezhnev's policies badly strained the Soviet economy (A) "in later years following his death " or (B) "during the later years of his rule and long after his death". Based on the evidence presented in the body of the article, which of the aforementioned interpretations is acceptable for the article's lede? Emiya1980 (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Y was inclined to say B, because the CIA says so: read the part starting with "CIA reported that...". . Of course, much is to be added on the issue, E.g., from here, p.13: "By engaging Moscow in a prohibitively expensive arms race <..snip..> the United States forced the Soviet Union into a competition, which exhausted their economic capacity". Feel free to add my find to the article (or I shall do this later myself).... but...:
 * None The lede must be a summary of the article, and the article poorly addresses the issue. I am surprized why people are wasting time her instead of expanding the article to make this discussion moot. Therefore as of now the whole sentence must be deleted for now. - Altenmann >talk 00:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Emiya1980 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Remove that whole sentence "However, these endeavors, particularly the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, proved to be highly costly and badly strained the Soviet economy in later years following Brezhnev's death." It does not concern the actual biography of Brezhnev but apparent mishandling by his successors. It is WP:UNDUE for the lead as Altenmann puts. Capitals00 (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

 * B in spirit, but I agree with the above that it is irrelevant what happened after his death and "following his death" or "and long after his death" should be removed. Brezhnev's policies during his tenure cratered Soviet economic growth and drove the USSR into a period of stagnation. That is undisputed, and it is sufficient to leave it at that in the lede. Nickelpro (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

 * B. As the lede currently reads, one is left with the impression that Brezhnev's policies were not to blame for the economic stagnation which occurred during and after his rule; an interpretation simply not supported by most historians on the subject. However, while I would prefer to have the lede rewritten to reflect this, I think just striking the sentence in question altogether is a reasonable alternative.Emiya1980 (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * None I agree with the editors above that the sentence as a whole is problematic because it reflects the performance of his successors, thus it is not relevant for the lead. Dympies (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * None I also agree with removing that sentence from the lead paragraph. It would be more appropriate under a section discussing his policies.Coalcity58 (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * B, although there is nothing wrong with "A". This is a question of his legacy and therefore completely appropriate in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Probably none, but B might also be acceptable. The sentence as it currently reads is somewhat reductive even for the lead: it suggests that military spending and foreign interventionism was the sole or proximate cause of the alleged economic stagnation, when there were a number of causes. Also, since the USSR ceased to exist roughly a decade after Brezhnev died, it's a bit of an odd fit to say that his policies strained the Soviet economy "long after" his death. WillowCity  (talk)  18:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Leonid Brezhnev