text:
Talk:Kliment Voroshilov tank

Old talk
Lots of info on this tank. I'll get back to working on this article when the weekend hits. Oberiko 01:31, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Question?
Why that russian tank on photo has Nazi sign on it ? :-O Wlcina (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not a "Nazi sign", but the swastika of Finland as it was captured by Finnish forces during the war with the Soviet Union and used against it's former owner. BP OMowe (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

KV-VI
Sorry for copying and pasting from another website (even though proper credit was given), but I want to know the historical validity of the KV-VI tank. Darth Sidious 04:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a joke
The KV-6 is a joke we came up with over a few beers; I know the author. DMorpheus 15:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

KV-4 & 5 were proposed
KV-4 and KV-5 were real projects, though. Both were twin-turreted, and to be armed with the F-39 107mm and 45mm guns. KV-4 (Obiekt 224) was to be 92 tonnes, with up to 130mm armour. KV-5 (Obiekt 225) would be 150 tonnes and up to 180mm armour. However, the evactuation of the Kirovskiy plant in August 1941 meant that they only remained paper-projects. (Sourced from Steven Zaloga's "KV-1 & 2 Heavy Tanks 1939-45") cougar1 (cougar1) 14:38, 22 February 2011 (EST)

KV-6 is not the joke, KV-VI is the joke. KV-6 really exist with an ATO-41 flamethrower. The different between KV-6 and KV-8 is KV-6 has a 76mm gun while KV-8 has a 45mm gun LolIamArnoob (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Per russian Wiki a KV-6 designation did not exist. There was a small number of KV-1 modified with a flamethrower instead of MG but that was called KV-1 with flamethrower. --Denniss (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Behemoth (text by Brian Fowler)
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, new facts have surfaced about the secret weapons developed by the Red Army during WWII. One of the most fascinating of these was the KV-VI Behemoth. In July 1941, Stalin learned of a single KV-II that had held off the entire 6th Panzer Division for more than a day. With the incredible success of this single tank, Stalin ordered a crash program for a land battleship based on the KV-II design. It was to have three turrets and be very heavily armed and armored and able to defend itself against all types of attack. The project was given to the joint team of Kotin/Barkov. When the designers complained to Stalin that the insistence on three turrets made the vehicle too long to have an acceptable turning radius, Stalin's answer was: "It doesn't need to turn, it will drive straight to Berlin." The final design became known as the KV-VI "Behemoth". The KV-VI was a multi-turreted tank using components of the KV-I and II, Bt-5, T-60, and T-38. The use of existing tank designs was necessary because of pressure from Stalin and the strains put on Soviet industry by the German invasion. Because of its massive weight, the tank was equipped with wading devices permitting it to traverse rivers up to 9 feet deep. The team also designed a removable observation tower that could be used to direct the fire of the howitzers and rockets while the tank was in a turret down position.

KV-VI Specifications

Crew: 15 men and one Commissar

Length: 51 feet, 4 inches

Height: 15 feet, 3 inches Width: 10 feet, 10 inches

Height/tower raised: 37 feet, 8 inches

Weight: 138 tons

Engine: 3 X V-2 at 600 horsepower each

Max Speed: 13 mph

Max Range: 98 miles road; 43 miles cross country

Armor: 160mm maximum; 7mm minimum

Armament: 2 X 152mm; 2 X 76.2mm; 1 X 45mm; 2 X 12.7mm DShK; 2 X 7.62mm Maxim; 14 X 7.62mm DT; 16 X BM-13 Rockets; 2 X Model 1933 Flamethrowers

Operational History

The first prototype was completed in December 1941 and was rushed into the defense of Moscow. In its first action during a dense winter fog, the rear turret accidentally fired into the center turret. The resulting explosion completely destroyed the vehicle. The second prototype was completed in January 1942, and was sent to the Leningrad front. This one had indicators installed to show whe another turret was in the line of fire. In its initial attack on the Germans, the tank broke in half when crossing a ravine. A spark ignited the leaking flamethrower fuel and the resulting explosion completely destroyed the vehicle. The third prototype, shown here, had a reinforced hull and was also sent to the Leningrad front in early 1942. It did manage to shoot down three German aircraft. In its first ground engagement, the KV-VI was firing on German positions when coincidentally all of the guns fired from the 3 O'Clock position a the same time. The tremendous recoil tipped the tank into a ditch and the severe jostling set off the 152mm ammunition, which completely destroyed the vehicle. After these failures, Stalin cancelled the project, and many of the design team members spent the rest of their lives in the Gulags of Sibera. The KV-VI was nicknamed "Stalin's Orchestra" by the few Germans that encountered it because of the variety of weapons it deployed.

References

Secret Soviet Armour of the Great Patriotic War Steven J. Zaloga; Arms and Armour Press, 1995 The Really Unknown War: A&E Presents: "Our Century"; Narrator: Burt Lancaster; Producer: Isaac Kleinerman

The Behemoths are Burning, Martin Cadin; Pinnacle Books, 1995

KV-VI in Action, Dan Egan and Paul Leray; Squadron/Signal Publications; Armor No. 41, 1996

Die Russischen Geheimnisseschwererpanzerkampfwagon, Walter J. Spielberger; Motobuch Verlag, 1996

Dreadful Din on the Eastern Front, Erich Maria Remarque Jr.; Podzun Verlag; 1951

Uhm..
"While the above makes an excellent story, worthy of the greatest examples of Soviet wartime propaganda (including the fascinating, but false story of the Stalingrad sniper duel between Zaitsev and the invented German "super-sniper" made famous in the movie Enemy at the Gates), the numbers just are not verifiable or believable."

I have no problem with the claim that the numbers are not believable but this sentence reads like a history text rather than an encyclopedia and is very POV. 121.44.96.164 06:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

-Sven Hassel's "Blitzfreeze" makes mention of 100-ton multi-turret 152mm armed Soviet tanks. It is a fiction, dramatized novel, but considering that Hassel is an Eastern Front veteran and that this book is quite old; i think there's something to it. 70.81.89.66 (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Nope, not really. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Krasnogvardeysk
Now, I'm not going to say that the Soviets don't lie. And before strategically placed propaganda, overclaiming (the honest mistake kind) on the tactical level is ubiquitous on all sides. But is there any particular source that contradicts the Soviet version? For example, the Soviet claims for Prokhorovka had the German loss records to contradict them. Is there a similar thing here?

The basic reason for discounting the Soviet account, other than a general presumption of propaganda (which violates NPOV), is that the claimed kills represent >20% of the German tank force, and the loss of 20% of combat capacity will incapacitate the division. This position has to be justified.

 * How much of a unit )as a rule) has to be blown away for it to lose combat effectiveness had been a point of debate. For example (according to FM 100-61), the Soviets figure loss of function to be at over 50% (called "annihilation"). A 30% loss rate is considered to only temporarily disrupt the enemy. A 20-30% loss is painful. IIRC, the Americans have different norms, but that supports the point that this measure is very iffy.
 * Furthermore, such norms are only very generally applicable and the actual loss of function no doubt depends on how it is destroyed (as well as many other factors such as morale, initiative of the men...etc). 30% losses to every battalion has a different effect versus 3 out of 10 battalions totally annihilated (the other 7 unharmed). This is part of the echelonment concept - the front battalions might be nearly annihilated, but the aft battalions are nearly untouched and can continue the advance without hindrance. Thus justifying the conclusion based on similar norms is weak at best. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The part was added by a random ip, and since itself does not have any sources it was removed. Nohelp 06:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that it is added by a troll that serves no purpose but to spread disinformation on wikipedia. Tanksarethebest 12:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe he's genuinely motivated. He does have a point. The Soviets do exaggerate and 20% losses, while not crippling, ain't light on a division. But he needs to back it up, and w/ a stronger point, or it is OR + NPOV violation. Kazuaki Shimazaki 02:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The only ones who exggerated were the germans and they made it into an art, they also downplayed their own losses, a tank destroyed but later recovered and repaired was not counted as a lost in a battle but if they on the other hand damaged a tank then no matter what happened to it it was counted as a kill, this is just the resurection of german 1941 thinking were they could not believe that the untermenschen could build tanks better then their own. Also this has NO source and should be deleted. Anything added to wikipedia must have a source if not then it must be deleted this is just his own views with no sources to back it up what so ever. Tanksarethebest 10:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

 * But you're not biased but strictly neutral, heh? Both sides overclaimed but usually the russians were better in this role. Just for info: a destroyed tank is destroyed and could not be repaired. A disabled tank could be repaired, disabling means either not movable due to mechanical damage or tank hit and crew killed but not burned/exploded. --Denniss 12:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

 * And you are not biased, by useing the term "russians" it is plain to see that you are extremly biased since there were no "russians" only Soviets. The germans always in every battle downplayed their onw losses and over played the enemy losses the germans always down played their onw losses by a factor of 10 this had 2 reasons, one their racist egos could not handle the truth 2 the evacuation of soldiers in 1940 from France was in part due to that Hitler confused damaged tanks with destroyed tanks so to avoid this the germans started downplaying their own tanks, even if a tank was completely disabled and had to spend 3 months in a repair shop it was not counted at all or only sometimes as damaged. So the only loss of a german tank would be if it was completely destroyed and unable to recover but if it was only damaged or if had spent 1 year in a repair shop then it was NOT counted at all but if an enemy tank was damaged destroyed or sometimes even just hit it was still couted as a kill that is how the germans counted. The germans always down played their own sides losses and over played the other side this plus the neo neazies stories of the 1970s has given history a very biased view of what actually happened. Where the ss who survived the war were free to write any books they pleased and make up any numbers they saw fit. And the fact that is pro german re write has not one single source is just more proof of trying to resurect the neo nazi propaganda of the 70s. In wikipedia you must give a source anything else is personal oppinion Tanksarethebest 13:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with the need to source arguments. The rest of your confused piffle, however, is worthy of nothing more than outright scorn. --Agamemnon2 14:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I can bet all the tea in china that the random ips that put in this info can not give one source to support it, so lets wait for a few weeks and see what happenes I am certain that not one verifiable source in this specific case will be presented. Tanksarethebest 16:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, we've been playing this for a few weeks now, and I stand by what I said before. This may well be a case of Soviet propaganda, but no one has brought up hard evidence for such. General policy in this encylopedia seems to be to let claimants keep their claims unless there is evidence the claim is disproven (as can be seen in the fighter aces sections despite how air battles generally are overclaimed). Since there is no evidence, the reasoning is insufficient (not to mention technically OR), and it is clear that defenders of the section had time and chance to defend their statements (they clearly have enough time to revert), I'd support striking on Verifiability, NPOV and OR grounds. Kazuaki Shimazaki 13:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't doubt the overall story, but all (!) other internet sources (e.g. http://wio.ru/tank/ww2tank.htm) tell the story a bit different: Nowhere else are "5 well-disguised KV-1 tanks" mentioned. (So well disguised that only one other ever engaged the enemy, huh?) According to those other sources, Kolobanov has been the only tank asigned to that particular approach, with other KV-1's merely being "nearby" (guarding other roads / approaches). This renders most of the "fluff story" as questionable at best. Those other sources also state that 1) Kolobanov's KV-1 had its turret immobilized during the battle, forcing him out of his position because he had to aim with the whole tank; 2) he did not "run out of ammunition", but merely low on ammunition. On the technical side, there never was a long-barreled 3,7cm gun used on the Pz-III, and not to belittle the bravery of Kolobanov and his crew, but it should be mentioned in the opening paragraph of that section that none of the opposing tanks had a chance of penetrating the KV-1's armor even at point-blanc. Doing so also allows to make the section much shorter by focussing on those parts that are important with regards to the KV-1 as such, instead of singing the high praise of the Valiant Soviet Tank Commande.

 * All that being said, I am generally opposed to such lengthy "hero stories" in the scope of Wikipedia articles on vehicles, aircraft etc. - either the person / battle in question qualifies for an individual article (which could be linked from the vehicle page), or it isn't really important enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Compare Tiger I and Battle of Villers-Bocage for a better example. DevSolar 16:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely 8th Panzer Division lost no Pz IIIs on that day because it had none, it was one of those divisions which had Pz 38(t)s in place of Pz IIIs. According to the operational status report for the 8th Panzer Division on 10 Sept. 1941 it had suffered from the beginning of the Operation Barbarossa 36 tanks as total loss, of which 20 were Pz 38(t)s and 6 Pz IVs and the number of repairable tanks was 33, of which 20 were Pz 38(t)s and 7 Pz IVs [Jentz: Panzer Truppen Vol 1 p. 206] According to the unit history, Werner Haupt: Die 8. Panzer-Division im Zweiten Weltkrieg, the division had 150 tanks on the 28 July 1941 [p.165], out of 223 with which it had begun the Operation Barbarossa. Nothing special on 14 August, but "erbitterten Widerstand...Erst in den Abendstunden zog sich der Gegner zurück." On 15 August "Die Kämpfe waren an diesem 15. August sehr hart und kosteten die Division ca. 200 Mann an Gefallen und Verwundeten." On 19 August a small recon patrol was ambushed and and lost its 2 tanks, the Panzer III was hit and the Panzer IV got stuck in a swamp [p. 168]. Heavy fighting continued and on some days human losses are mentioned, when they were extraordinary heavy. On 9 September division's Panzerregiment 8 lost 18 tanks, 4 to enemy fire and the rest because of engine and track damage in swamps. This happened South of Wyriza. [p. 172 ] So I would say that the German tank losses on 14 August were most probably significantly lower than mentioned in the text.VaidaXX (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Definition of tank
I first reverted the addition about "Equally important, it was the Soviet definition of "tank" in the 1930's, ..." because it lacks a reference, and is not a theory I've ever seen referred to in any publication. It also suffers from grammatical and spelling errors, but it's the lack of references which makes it a non-starter.

We can't call it an "excellent explanation" unless there's some evidence that it comes from one or more reliable, verifiable sources. —Michael Z. 2007-05-01 13:49 Z

 * As well as being unreferenced, it is irrelevant to the article and simply incorrect. That's three strikes. DMorpheus 15:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Raseiniaj
Description of Raseiniaj episode is completly wrong
 * 1. It is not known if the tank was KV-1 or KV-2 (there are some photos of damaged KV-2, but there is no evidence it is a Raseiniaj KV)
 * 2. There is no evidence that the tank run out of ammunition
 * 3. All the crew were killed. There is a witness who took part in burying them. There is also a monument on the their grave now. Some research was made into subject in last years.

I had already tried to edit this section once (KV-1 or KV-2, killed crew), but unknown reason my edit was reverted. Serg3d2 15:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right. There's a research on it in one website, but only Lithuanian. 217.117.19.70 (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

KV-1 and SMK
Just wondering, where did this tidbit of info come from:

When the Soviets entered the Winter War, the SMK, KV and a third design, the T-100, were sent to be tested in combat conditions. The heavy armour of the KV proved highly resistent to Finnish anti-tank weapons, making it more effective than the other designs. It was soon put into production, both as the original 76-mm-armed KV-1 Heavy Tank and the 152 mm howitzer-mounting assault gun, the KV-2 Heavy Artillery Tank.

Was that info in the book KV-1 & 2 Heavy Tanks 1939–1945?

--MacroDaemon 20:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

 * No.--MWAK (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The KV-4
http://himg.qihoo.com/qhimg/comic/0_0/10/01/d5/1001d53qc7b5b.a5ddc6.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.156.230 (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

info box tank numbers
"about 5,219"

Seems a little too specific to be "about", is there a source supporting 5,219 tanks being built? If so the word "about" should really be removed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Zaloga gives 4,749, which includes the KV-1, KV-2, and KV-1S plus prototypes and specialized variants such as the U-1 versions, KV-9, KV-8 flamethrower, etc. DMorpheus (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Zaloga ref via google books:, if that's helpful. Hohum (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Title "Kliment Voroshilov tank" change to "KV tank"?
I've seen very few references to the KV line of tanks being spelled out. I think the far most common name is just "KV" (in English, of course -- but this is the en.Wikipedia). Thoughts? --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

 * KV is naturally the more common, just like UN and NATO instead of United Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The title should always be the full name though. BP OMowe (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Is there a MOS or some other guideline for this? We don't always use the full name: NASA, RAID, Laser, etc.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 * The one big problem with the present name is that the present inter-wiki scheme does not recorgnise that ru:КВ-1, ru:КВ-2, ru:КВ-85, ru: КВ-1К, etc. are the Russian language articles about this family of tanks. Apart from that, redirects from the various abbreviations are sufficient:
 * USA is a redirect.
 * UK is a redirect.
 * EU is a redirect.
 * MLRS is a redirect - though rather surprisingly to multiple rocket launcher instead of M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System.
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 * My question still stands. What guideline (not opinion) covers when to use full names over common names?  In this case, KV is well-known in military circles, but the full name is nearly unknown, so much less helpful.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

IS-3 in WW2
The IS-3 was finished too late to see action in WW2 against the Germans and there are only rumors that it seen action against the Japanese in China. I think that the part under 'Soviet heavies in WW2'should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.241.235 (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibly implicit forward reference
In the fourth paragraph of #Development history, it is stated that "One of the main competing designs was the SMK, which in its final form had two turrets, mounting the same combination of 76.2 mm and 45 mm weapons." Since, to this point, there has been no mention of a 45 mm weapon, secondary or otherwise, to what tank is this "same combination" referring?

Graham.Fountain | Talk 17:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is referring to the T-35, which is indeed mentioned at the very beginning of section "Development History". Cheers Irondome (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have clarified the sentence. Well spotted. Irondome (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Krasnogvardeysk copyright issue
The section on Krasnogvardeysk appears to be more or less word for word the same as the account on page 7-8 of Soviet Heavy Tanks: World War 2 Album, by Ray Merriam. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oddly, that section has been there in much the same form since at least 2013, and the book is copyright 2015. ( Hohum  @ ) 13:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Does Ray Merriam's book give references for this story? Graham.Fountain | Talk 09:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Hello, I'm fairly new here. The battle of Krasnogvardeysk always caught my attention. So I decided to have a closer look and to rewrite the section. Progress on my sandbox, feedback/improvements welcome. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kawinksy/sandbox Regards Kawinksy (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your version refers to a "strongly fortified position". What were the fortifications? How were the fortifications relevant to the engagement?
 * Advise not using the plural form "KV-1s" as it can be misinterpreted by readers as meaning the S version of the KV-1.
 * Advise not using opinionated words and phrases like "puny" and "bloody nose". They convey no real meaning. The German tank guns were of the standard of their time.  The KV was a useful heavy tank in part because its armour provided good protection against such guns.
 * The correct abbreviation is "PaK" not "Pak".
 * By "1941-vintage KV-1s", I assume you mean KV-1 (model 1941). It would be clearer to say the latter.
 * The word "barrage" has a specific military meaning. You are misusing the word to describe something else.
 * "there was little doubt that General Erich Brandenberger took another bloody nose in the ‘shoot ‘n scoot’ ambush tactics against well-prepared Soviets." This appears to be saying that the Germans were using shoot and scoot tactics against the Soviet Army, and that such tactics did not work very well. Did you really mean that?  It would have been much more useful if the account gave cited examples of people using such tactics, and only gave commentary if the commentary was in the sources.
 * There need to be more citations for specific facts.
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It appears this battle was entirely edited out of the KV wiki page. Some of it remains in Zinoviy_Kolobanov's page, where it's less likely to be found (the KV tanks themselves are more notable than this tanker). Why was the link deleted from this page? The andf (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

KV-1S Photo?
The photo just added is very interesting. It looks to me like a KV-1S turret on a standard KV-1 hull. Note the rear deck does not slope downwards as on a true KV-1S. I'm glad to see a photo of the KV-1S in place of a second KV-2 photo, but I am wondering exactly what this vehicle is. Odd? Could it be a museum-constructed example? DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Variants
The variants section is a mix of actual variants and derivatives, plus a bunch of prototypes and other insignificant 'variants' and uncited content. I suggest we rework it. Actual, production variants should be separate from derivative vehicles such as the SU-152, and prototypes may not belong here at all. If we include them they should be clearly labeled as such. The German beutepanzer KV with the 75mm KwK is not a 'variant' and probably only one existed. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Revisited June 8-9

I have twice deleted an inaccurate illustration showing KV variants in profile. Some versions such as the KV 'big turret' were both undue weight and wrongly labeled. The KV-2 was missing entirely. The cast-turret Model 41 was missing. There are many good illustrations in this article already; we don't need an inaccurate one in the mix. DMorpheus2 (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Which KV 'big turret' are you referring to, the KV-85 or the KV-2? Not specific

 * Also, the KV-2 is actually present in the file if you inspect it again (middle row, on the right), I suggest you look again https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KV_Tank_Variants.jpg

 * Again for the last time, there is no Wikipedia policy or manual of style which requires ALL variants to be depicted at once (only a select few for comparison). I do not understand why you keep bringing up similar points. The Model 1941 is depicted with the RHA armor instead of cast armor, which you have gotten correct, but there is no reason to necessitate the requirement for BOTH to be in as they already function similarly. In this case, I am wondering whether to add the entire IS-series of Tanks as they come within the similar family line into the same illustration (which would take up too much space and cause more issues than it solves)

 * The depictions of each vehicle are referenced from the photograph (not primary illustrations) both on this page and on other web sources, so unless Photographs are considered inaccurate (which I highly doubt), then there is not enough justifiable reason to remove it. Unless I have missed something, if something is considered inaccurate, don't simply say 'its inaccurate' and then leave without giving proper elaboration. It would be no different then a religious person claiming the existence of a god then walking away from the conversation without providing any evidence (i.e it is counter productive).

 * There is indeed plenty of photographs available of the Tanks on this page, but all of them fall into the category of function where their primary purpose is to only display/depict. The profile comparison illustration has more weight as they not only depict/display, but also compare (therefore, serving more than one purpose). Similar illustrations which are not photographs could include cross-sections of a particular vehicle displaying positions of the weapon, crew compartments, fuel tanks and ammunition storage etc, but would that be removed as it is 'undue weight' as photographs only serving a single purpose are already present? Again, you are reverting for arbitrary or extremely insignificant reasons.

 * Each tank model is actually properly labelled in accordance to what the subsection 'Further Developements' and 'Models' are written as. If you consider that naming convention for each tank model list already present in the page as 'inaccurate' I suggest you change it. Maybe it may have been an oversight of the eye, I suggest you inspect again. NotLessOrEqual(talk)

 * With respect, you do not know enough about KV variants to create an accurate illustration (and this is the same problem you had on the M4 and T34 pages). The problem is much less severe here because KV production was vastly less diverse than M4 or T34 production, but it's still there.
 * It makes no sense in this (or the other) article(s) to show a comparative illustration and not show the most important variants. I honestly cannot see any purpose served otherwise.
 * The KV 'Big Turret' is the one you had labeled 'KV-2'. This is the initial pre-production variant with the 152mm howitzer. Only about 20 or so were made, and it's questionable whether they were ever designated 'KV-2' (sources vary). However, about 250 or so production KV-2s were made, with the vertically-fronted turret. And there is no picture of that tank, which is the major 152mm variant with over 90% of the production run. So your illustration is either wrong (ungenerously) or undue weight (generously).
 * I may be mistaken but I believe the cast-turret Model 41s were more common than the welded-turret ones, again, creating an undue weight problem.
 * There were at least two different cast turrets (lightweight and heavy); neither are shown.
 * There were at least two different welded turrets; only the earlier one is shown.
 * I am not suggesting that every single variant must be shown. I am suggesting that to have any value, and to avoid undue weight problems, the *most common* variants need to be shown. I believe that, otherwise, the illustration is misleading...and that's before considering the accuracy problems. And that's why I reverted it.
 * Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You reverted grammar correction
Moved from User talk:Toddy1

Hi, I think you may have made an error when you reverted my edit to the KV tank page: I changed "known to have to been" to "known to have to be", as the passive infinitive.

This is because "to been" is not any form of correct English, well not one that I am aware of. Whereas, the passive infinitive "to be" is correctly used when the person taking the action is unknown or unspecified, as in on medicine "to be taken twice a day", etc. So, in this case the person shifting the gears is not specified.

Anyway, if you still think that "known to have to be shifted" is a change in meaning, do you think it would be better in the perfect past tense "known to have been" – I'm not sure I know what you're thinking "known to have to been shifted" means.

It might be beet if you answer on the KV talk page, as I watch that.

Regards and Merry Christmas

Graham

Graham.Fountain | Talk 10:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

 * I agree that there are grammar problems, but your change introduced a significant change in meaning:
 * "was known to have to be shifted with a hammer" - this means that it was known that to shift it, you always had to use a hammer
 * "was known to have to been shifted with a hammer" - this means that sometimes a hammer was used to shift it.

 * Perhaps the best way to resolve this is to look at the original source, which was ''Armor, July-August 1998, page 24. This says:
 * "A KV-1 Model 1941 sent to the US in 1942 for evaluation was found to be using a 20-year-old American Holt (Caterpillar) transmission design. This transmission was the main stumbling block of the KV-1, and there was some truth to rumors of Soviet drivers having to shift gears with a hand sledge."
 * I think the best solution is to use a direct quotation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

 * I agree that the quote is probably the best solution; though I don't agree that "was known to have to been shifted" implies any more occasionality, as I don't accept it as a valid gramatical construct. Perhaps "was known to have been shifted" might have more implication of that, and is a legitimate construct, but never ever "to been" - it's both the past tense and infinitve of the verb at the same time, and there just ain't no such animal.Graham.Fountain | Talk 20:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

KV-2 in popular culture
Would it be appropriate to mention the Kv-2 has appeared in video games such as World of Tanks and War Thunder, and show such as Girls Und Panzer? Or is that unnecessary? ShrimpAnimation (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it is a trivial mention of the kind parodied in a 2008 xkcd cartoon. The World of Tanks video game has depictions of almost all tanks.  Most computer games that depict tanks of the Russian front in World War II include the KV-2. The Girls und Panzer television series depicts many different types of World War II tanks.  See MOS:POPCULT.--  Toddy1 (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Section "Models"
"KV-2 (334) – [...] Those captured and used by the German Army were known as (Sturm)Panzerkampfwagen KV-II 754(r)."

I honestly doubt that. Why would the German Army use parentheses? Can someone please provide a source for this? 91.10.33.81 (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looked into two older Spielberger/Scheibert books and both only mention Panzerkampfwagen. --Denniss (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

KV and other heavy Soviet tanks compared
There is a table in the article under the heading Kliment Voroshilov tank. The source for this table is:

The IP editor's objection is that he/she believes that some of the data in the table are wrong. He/she has made edit summaries such as: The table in the article is as follows:
 * Less fuel tank than KV-85 and same weight but better op. range? How?
 * T-34 had 1.9liter consumption/km on road. And the heavier KV1 has only 1.7 liter/km? 600/335=1.79. That is a little bit unreal. SOURCE:CIA-RDP81-01044R000100070001-4 Report. If u need it I can upload it somewhere.

Above are the results of some checking I have done using another book. These suggest that the IP editor has a point.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

 * I also looked at The Tanks of Operation Barbarossa: Soviet versus German Armour on the Eastern Front, by Boris Kavalerchik. This gives the following for the KV1 Model 1941:
 * Combat weight 47.0 tonnes (page 249)
 * Ammunition 111 rds 76.2mm (page 256)
 * Road speed 34 kph (page 249)
 * Road range 225 km (page 249)
 * Cross country range 180 km (page 249)
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

 * The table in the old Zaloga book has multiple issues - 975l fuel is wrong as it accounts for external tanks that were not always carried. The given ranges do not match the weight differences of the KV versions, especially notable for 40/41 (too high) and 1S/85 (too low given the 975l and lower weight on 1S), only 42 and KV2 look ok. --Denniss (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

T-150 split
Can the T-150 redirect page be a independent page? DerpGunKV2 (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kliment Voroshilov tank


text:
Communion of saints

The communion of saints (Latin: commūniō sānctōrum, Ancient Greek: κοινωνίᾱ τῶν Ἁγῐ́ων, koinōníā tôn Hagíōn), when referred to persons, is the spiritual union of the members of the Christian Church, living and the dead, but excluding the damned. They are all part of a single "mystical body", with Christ as the head, in which each member contributes to the good of all and shares in the welfare of all.

The earliest known use of this term to refer to the belief in a mystical bond uniting both the living and the dead in a confirmed hope and love is by Saint Nicetas of Remesiana (c. 335–414); the term has since then played a central role in formulations of the Christian creed. Belief in the communion of saints is affirmed in the Apostles' Creed.

The word "sanctorum" in the phrase "communio sanctorum" can also be understood as referring not to holy persons, but to holy things, namely the blessings that the holy persons share with each other, including their faith, the sacraments and the other spiritual graces and gifts they have as Christians.

History
The concept of the communion of saints is linked with Paul's teaching, as in and, that in Christ Christians form a single body.

The New Testament word ἅγιος (hagios) translated into English as "saint" can refer to Christians, who, whatever their personal sanctity as individuals, are called holy because they are consecrated to God and Christ. This usage of the word "saints" is found some fifty times in the New Testament.

The Heidelberg Catechism, citing, and , asserts that all members of Christ have communion with him, and are recipients of all his gifts. And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "'Since all the faithful form one body, the good of each is communicated to the others.... We must therefore believe that there exists a communion of goods in the Church. But the most important member is Christ, since he is the head.... Therefore, the riches of Christ are communicated to all the members, through the sacraments.' 'As this Church is governed by one and the same Spirit, all the goods she has received necessarily become a common fund.'"

The persons who are linked in this communion include those who have died and whom pictures as a cloud of witnesses encompassing Christians on earth. In the same chapter, says Christians on earth "have come to Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect."

Roman Catholic Church
In Catholic terminology, the communion of saints exists in the three states of the Church, the Churches Militant, Penitent, and Triumphant. The Church Militant (Ecclesia militans) consisting of those alive on earth; the Church Penitent (Ecclesia poenitens) consisting of those undergoing purification in purgatory in preparation for heaven; and the Church Triumphant (Ecclesia triumphans) consisting of those already in heaven. The damned are not a part of the communion of saints.

Christians belonging to the Roman Catholic Church ask the intercession of saints in heaven, whose prayers are seen as helping their fellow Christians on earth (cf. ).

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"946 What is the Church if not the assembly of all the saints? The communion of saints is the Church.

957 Communion with the saints. 'It is not merely by the title of example that we cherish the memory of those in heaven; we seek, rather, that by this devotion to the exercise of fraternal charity the union of the whole Church in the Spirit may be strengthened. Exactly as Christian communion among our fellow pilgrims brings us closer to Christ, so our communion with the saints joins us to Christ, from whom as from its fountain and head issues all grace, and the life of the People of God itself'"

Lutheran Churches
Martin Luther defined the phrase thus:

"'The communion of saints.' This is of one piece with the preceding ['the holy catholic church']. Formerly it was not in the creed. When you hear the word 'church,' understand that it means group [Haufe], as we say in German, the Wittenberg group or congregation [Gemeine], that is, an holy, Christian group, assembly, or, in German, the holy, common church, and it is a word that should not be called 'communion' [Gemeinschaft], but rather 'a congregation' eine Gemeine. Someone wanted to explain the first term, 'catholic church' [and added the words] communio sanctorum, which in German means a congregation of saints, that is, a congregation made up only of saints. 'Christian church' and 'congregation of saints' are one and the same thing."

Lutheranism affirms that the Church Militant and Church Triumphant share a common goal and thus do pray for one another. The Book of Concord, the official compendium of Lutheran doctrine teaches:

"... we know that the ancients speak of prayer for the dead, which we do not prohibit; but we disapprove of the application ex opere operato of the Lord's Supper on behalf of the dead." By the expression ex opere operato, he meant the belief that the performance of the rite would of itself benefit the dead.

The largest Lutheran denomination in the United States, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, "remembers the faithful departed in the Prayers of the People every Sunday, including those who have recently died and those commemorated on the church calendar of saints". In Funeral rites of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, "deceased are prayed for" using "commendations: 'keep our sister/brother ... in the company of all your saints. And at the last ... raise her/him up to share with all the faithful the endless joy and peace won through the glorious resurrection of Christ our Lord.'" The response for these prayers for the dead in this Lutheran liturgy is the prayer of Eternal Rest: "rest eternal grant him/her, O Lord; and let light perpetual shine upon him/her".

Methodist Churches
In Methodist theology, the communion of saints refers to the Church Militant and Church Triumphant. The Rev. Katie Shockley explains the communion of saints in the context of the Methodist sacrament of the Eucharist: "When we gather in worship, we praise God with believers we cannot see. When we celebrate Holy Communion, we feast with past, present and future disciples of Christ. We experience the communion of saints, the community of believers –– living and dead. This faith community stretches beyond space and time. We commune with Christians around the world, believers who came before us, and believers who will come after us. We believe that the church is the communion of saints, and as a believer, you belong to the communion of saints."

The communion of saints is celebrated in Methodism during Allhallowtide, especially on All Saints' Day.

Methodist theology affirms the "duty to observe, to pray for the Faithful Departed". John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, "taught the propriety of Praying for the Dead, practised it himself, provided Forms that others might." It affirms that the 'saints in paradise' have full access to occurrences on earth.

Anglican Communion
The Anglican Communion holds that baptized Christians "are ‘knit together’ with them ‘in one communion and fellowship in the mystical body of [Christ]’." The Church of Ireland teaches that: "Christ’s church includes the blessed dead along with those still on earth. We worship God ‘with angels and archangels and with all the company of heaven’ (Eucharistic Prayer, BCP 2004), with ‘The glorious company of apostles… the noble fellowship of prophets… the white–robed army of martyrs’ (Te Deum). In addition we observe saints’ days when we thank God for their holy lives and pray that we may follow their examples." In Anglican liturgy, "worship is addressed to God alone" and the Anglican Communion "does not pray to the saints but with the saints". However, Anglicans pray for (the dead), because we still hold them in our love, and because we trust that in God's presence those who have chosen to serve him will grow in his love, until they see him as he is."

Reformed Churches
The Westminster Confession, which articulates the Reformed faith, teaches that the communion of saints includes those united to Christ–both the living and the dead.

Greek Orthodox Church
In Greek Orthodoxy, "the Church is also a communion of saints, an assembly of angels and men, of the Heaven and of the earth ... divided into what is known as the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant".

The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America teaches that "Through the work of the Holy Trinity all Christians could be called saints; especially in the early Church as long as they were baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, they received the Seal of the Spirit in chrismation and frequently participated in the Eucharist."

Theologians classify six categories of saints within Eastern Orthodoxy: "#The Apostles, who were the first ones to spread the message of the Incarnation of the Word of God and of salvation through Christ.
 * 1) The Prophets, because they predicted and prophesied the coming of the Messiah.
 * 2) The Martyrs, for sacrificing their lives and fearlessly confessing Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.
 * 3) The Fathers and Hierarchs of the Church, who excelled in explaining and in defending, by word and deed, the Christian faith.
 * 4) The Monastics, who lived in the desert and dedicated themselves to spiritual exercise (askesis), reaching, as far as possible, perfection in Christ.
 * 5) The Just, those who lived in the world, leading exemplary lives as clergy or laity with their families, becoming examples for imitation in society."

Armenian Orthodox Church
The Armenian Orthodox Church understands the communion of saints to have a twofold sense: "first, of the union of members of the Church with the Head Christ; and, secondly, of the mutual help and support of these same members in obtaining enjoying, and preserving the common good things or graces of the Church."

Comparison of views
Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and Orthodox churches practice praying for the dead (as they interpret ). Reformed Churches do not pray for the dead. The Anglican tradition has been ambivalent about prayers for the dead historically, sometimes embracing and other times rejecting the practice.

With regard to the various views held about the communion of saints, the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1908 wrote:

"Sporadic errors against special points of the communion of saints are pointed out by the Synod of Gangra (Mansi, II, 1103), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (P.G., XXXIII, 1116), St. Epiphanius (ibid., XLII, 504), Asteritis Amasensis (ibid., XL, 332), and St. Jerome (P.L., XXIII, 362). From the forty-second proposition condemned, and the twenty-ninth question asked, by Martin V at Constance (Denzinger, nos. 518 and 573), we also know that Wyclif and Hus had gone far towards denying the dogma itself. But the communion of saints became a direct issue only at the time of the Reformation. The Lutheran churches, although commonly adopting the Apostles' Creed, still in their original confessions, either pass over in silence the communion of saints or explain it as the Church's 'union with Jesus Christ in the one true faith' (Luther's Small Catechism), or as 'the congregation of saints and true believers' (Augsburg Confession, ibid., III, 12), carefully excluding, if not the memory, at least the invocation of the saints, because Scripture 'propoundeth unto us one Christ, the Mediator, Propitiatory, High-Priest, and Intercessor' (ibid., III, 26). The Reformed churches generally maintain the Lutheran identification of the communion of saints with the body of believers but do not limit its meaning to that body. Calvin (Inst. chret., IV, 1, 3) insists that the phrase of the Creed is more than a definition of the Church; it conveys the meaning of such a fellowship that whatever benefits God bestows upon the believers should mutually communicate to one another. That view is followed in the Heidelberg Catechism, emphasized in the Gallican Confession, wherein communion is made to mean the efforts of believers to mutually strengthen themselves in the fear of God. Both the Scotch and Second Helvetic Confessions bring together the Militant and the Triumphant Church, but whereas the former is silent on the signification of the fact, the latter says that they hold communion with each other: 'nihilominus habent illae inter sese communionem, vel conjunctionem'.

The double and often conflicting influence of Luther and Calvin, with a lingering memory of Catholic orthodoxy, is felt in the Anglican Confessions. On this point the Thirty-nine Articles are decidedly Lutheran, rejecting as they do 'the Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints', because they see in it 'a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God'. On the other hand, the Westminster Confession, while ignoring the Suffering and the Triumphant Church, goes beyond the Calvinistic view and falls little short of the Catholic doctrine with regard to the faithful on earth, who, it says, 'being united to one another in love, have communion in each other's gifts and graces'. In the United States, the Methodist Articles of Religion, 1784, as well as the Reformed Episcopal Articles of Religion, 1875, follow the teachings of the Thirty-nine Articles, whereas the teaching of the Westminster Confession is adopted in the Philadelphia Baptist Confession, 1688, and in the Confession of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, 1829. Protestant theologians, just as Protestant confessions, waver between the Lutheran and the Calvinistic view."

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

title: Communion of saints


text:
Talk:Hikaru Nakamura

Untitled
Which year is "this year"? Joyous 01:32, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Can we name some of the unorthodox openings he commonly uses? I'm curious.--Sonjaaa 06:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's about time his photograph was updated, he is 26 years old now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.179.125 (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 06:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Also - can't a better photograph be found? He looks very young in the present one; it's not accurate as he is now 22. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.232.162 (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Biological father
Whatever happened to his biological dad? Validbluew40 (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

nakamura x rybka shuld be there
nakamura is among very few grandmasters who have won against chess engines or chess machines. rybka was crushed by nakamura this should be mensioned in this interseting article on nakamura .his strategic and alzebric math calculations also should be added to enwide the information abour naka the great. keep going naka. keep going wikipedia. [[user|user]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.192.28 (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

nakamura is among very few grandmasters who have won against chess engines or chess machines

Nonsense. -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Favorite piece
The sentence about his favorite piece was added by 71.58.124.75 October 22, 2006. This was the first of only three edits by the user and at least one of the others was vandalism. Therefore I'm removing the sentence because of WP:BLP, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 05:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Kasparov's assessment of Nakamura's 2011 Wijk aan Zee result
"Fischer never won a tournament ahead of the world champion. He was second in Santa Monica. Of course there were far fewer such events back then, and Fischer had several great tournament results like Stockholm 62, but it's interesting. Reuben Fine only equaled Keres on points at AVRO in 38. Then you have Marshall at Cambridge Springs in 1904 ahead of Lasker, though Tarrasch wasn't there. So unless you include Capablanca as an American player, I think you can go back to Pillsbury at Hastings 1895 for an American tournament victory on par with Nakamura's!"

So Kasparov didn't say it was better than any of Fischer's wins (as the article incorrectly claims), he said that no American had won a tournament outright ahead of a World Champion since Marshall. He didn't say it was necessarily better than (say) the 1962 Interzonal, just that they weren't "on par". Also, IMHO, Kasparov's comments do not belong in the lead. I'll tidy this up if I get the time. Also, hopefully, other people will comment on Nakamura's win to give it more balance. (Great as the result was). Adpete (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Kasparov: "I think you can go back to Pillsbury at Hastings 1895 for an American tournament victory on par with Nakamura's!" That's pretty clear that Kasparov believes that Nakamura's tournament result was the best by an American since the 1895 event -- more than 100 years ago. The article as it stands is correct, since that quote (which you cited, btw) is clearly in the hyperlinked reference. Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

 * As Adepte says it's still an example of WP:SYNTH, although perhaps fairly mild. There's no grounds for the article to say it's better than any of Fischer's results unless the quote says that pretty directly.  (In fact the quote seems to hedge on that, saying only "it's interesting", rather than "Nakamura's result puts Fischer to shame".)  If the quote says best tournament win by an American in over 100 years then that's what the article should say.  The reader can draw her own inferences, it isn't our job to do that by putting words in Kasparov's mouth. Quale (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I guess my problem is it's all a bit Kasparov-and-Fischer-centric. I'd rather the lead just said that he won ahead of the top 4 in the world (since that's a fact, not anyone's opinion), and Kasparov was quoted in full in the body of the article, so people can make up their mind exactly what Kasparov said. I'm also not too happy about saying his live rating is 9 points below Fischer's peak, unless we can find a source saying that's notable. (Personally I think it's not notable, given ratings inflation). Adpete (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I've tidied it up (it was rather out of control with a blow by blow description of the Wijk tournament) and put the full Kasparov quote in. I'm still not terribly happy with a simplification of Kasparov quote in the lead, but I've left the lead untouched for now. Adpete (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Unacceptable to delete detail (it was streamlined as it was). The importance of such a tournament deserves the same amount of detail a tennis player would receive on wiki for winning a Grand Slam. Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Precise Kasparov quote included in appropriate section, which is supposed to be more detailed than the introductory sentences of the article. Given the historical significance of this tournament, for comparison's sake, the details regarding the strength of the field are essential for optimal context Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 * In 5 years, who will freaking care what the score was after 12 rounds or whether he played a Kings Indian. Plus you deleted all my links and inserted WP:OR. It's destructive editors like you which drive me from Wikipedia. Adpete (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed -- this level of detail is unwarranted. What we're seeing here is an example of WP:RECENT and perhaps WP:OWN by User:Shotcallerballerballer.  Let's establish some consensus on what to include.  I support the previous changes made by Adpete.  — Myasuda (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Poker
Should Nakamura's poker interest be mentioned?75.173.83.184 (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Head-to-head record versus top players
This section really needs a global update. If it was even completely correct as of August 2011, it has only been selectively updated since then - e.g. adding his win against Anand in London but not his loss against Carlsen. 174.29.108.183 (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO this section is unncessary and too much work to maintain. What are the flags for anyway? Doesn't seem consistent with MOS:FLAG. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio
This article takes much text verbatim from http://hikarunakamura.com/about-hikaru/. Bongo  matic  22:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that website takes text verbatim from this wiki page...look to see which originated first!! Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The page claims a copyright. Bongo  matic  07:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If that page is violating Creative Commons license, it can be listed at CC-BY-SA Compliance. See Mirrors and forks for more information. — Myasuda (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Mother's Maiden Name
The article claims Hikaru was born to a Carolyn Weeramantry. Carolyn later marries a Sunil Weeramantry. Is this a strange coincidence or an error in giving Hikaru's mother's maiden name? --Abenr (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I haven't found a source mentioning her birth surname, so I just provided this information. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I have changed it to Merrow Nakamura (as she was named when she married Weeramantry). Weeramantry is obviously incorrect.--Batmacumba (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

2816 rating
The lead and infobox report that Nakamura's top rating was 2816. That's not supported in the body of the article where it should mention how he achieved this in the 2015: 2800 rating and Grand Prix 2nd place section. At present that section ends with "It also propelled his rating to a career high of 2814, and he was at number 4 in the July 2015 world rankings." The 2814 rating is correct for July 2015 but he then got to 2816 and #2 in the world in October 2015. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose it could be argued that 2814 was a career high at the time. That said, in general I think there's far too much "ratings geekery" in the article. I removed one of the more egregious examples but this modern obsession with ratings is not a trend wikipedia should encourage. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hikaru Nakamura. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930232407/http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/twic637.html to http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/twic637.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Hikaru Nakamura. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006074152/http://chessvine.com/archives/64-GM-Hikaru-Nakamura-wins-the-Finet-Chess960-Open-Mainz.html to http://chessvine.com/archives/64-GM-Hikaru-Nakamura-wins-the-Finet-Chess960-Open-Mainz.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002231313/http://www.hikarunakamura.com/naka/main/Blog/tabid/57/EntryId/96/BN-Bank-Blitz-Recap.aspx to http://www.hikarunakamura.com/naka/main/Blog/tabid/57/EntryId/96/BN-Bank-Blitz-Recap.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318190117/http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/events/world-team-championship-2010/nakamura-brilliancy-beats-gelfand to http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/events/world-team-championship-2010/nakamura-brilliancy-beats-gelfand
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012175138/http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/events/73rd-tata-steel-chess-tournament-2011/nakamura-half-point-lead-over-anand-could-have-been-more to http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/events/73rd-tata-steel-chess-tournament-2011/nakamura-half-point-lead-over-anand-could-have-been-more
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012175431/http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/events/73rd-tata-steel-chess-tournament-2011/nakamura-wins-tata-steel-tournament-in-wijk-aan-zee to http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/events/73rd-tata-steel-chess-tournament-2011/nakamura-wins-tata-steel-tournament-in-wijk-aan-zee
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012223154/http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/events/39th-dortmund-chess-meeting-2011 to http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/events/39th-dortmund-chess-meeting-2011
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111103140902/http://www.hikarunakamura.com/naka/main/Blog/tabid/57/EntryId/126/More-News.aspx to http://www.hikarunakamura.com/naka/main/Blog/tabid/57/EntryId/126/More-News.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121005064223/http://results.chessolympiadistanbul.com/tnr77681.aspx?art=20&lan=1&flag=30&snr=5 to http://results.chessolympiadistanbul.com/tnr77681.aspx?art=20&lan=1&flag=30&snr=5
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131027125610/http://euro2013.chessdom.com/results/pairings-r5-open/ to http://euro2013.chessdom.com/results/pairings-r5-open/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140922195359/http://www.zurich-cc.com/reports.html to http://www.zurich-cc.com/reports.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111217181021/http://whychess.org/node/759 to http://whychess.org/node/759
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100831040445/http://chess.liverating.org/toplist.php?pid=2016192&compact=1 to http://chess.liverating.org/toplist.php?pid=2016192&compact=1

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Japanese Name
Aren't Japanese names typically written with the surname first? Shouldn't it be translated to Nakamura Hikaru in italics? See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinsaku_Uesugi 185.31.142.251 (talk) 07:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think in Japanese they treat him as a foreigner and write his name in katakana as "ヒカル・ナカムラ", rather than in kanji as "中村 光". See ヒカル・ナカムラ. Compare with the Japanese manga artist with the same name: Hikaru Nakamura (artist) and 中村光_(漫画家). MaxBrowne (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

In the game given at the Notable Games section, a double tilde is twice used. This is not explained at Algebraic notation (chess). What does it mean? Widsith (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Pogchamps
I think some reference to his participation as coach and commentator in the pogchamps tournament should be mentioned Santiqwerty (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Header
Him winning the Chess960 championship in 2009 and subsequently losing it to Carlsen in 2018, as well as his currently #1 position in the Blitz ratings should be mentioned in the lead, especially since the rapid and blitz positions mentioned in the article are over 5 years old now.

Maybe rapid and blitz rankings should be added to the infobox for chess players that are notably active in those categories? Jonas1015119 (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Thanks for the suggestion, . Whenever you believe an article can be improved, please feel free to make the needed changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit link at the top of a page or section. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—another person will likely find and correct any quickly and kindly let you know what they were. If you're not sure how to make a certain edit, feel free to ask me any questions here or on my talk page. Alternatively, you can check out how to edit a page, referencing for newcomers, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. Thanks again for you're diligence to improving Wikipedia and make information more freely available! —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Singing with Team SoloMid
Hikaru Nakamura signed with the professional esports organisation known as Team SoloMid as part of their chess division. He is listed as being part of their chess main roster on TSM's official website here. Perhaps this should be added to Hikaru's chess career or somewhere on this page? Mixsmirai (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for the comment. This information is currently present in the article under the section Internet activity. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Birth Name
Confirmed on a stream today his first name is Christopher, though a better source may be needed. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Better source needed indeed, particularly if this stream is not publicly archived (sources must be published). — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Would his chessgames.com profile be a reliable source for the name? Volteer1 (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be surprised, but it's possible. How is the chessgames.com profile written? If it's by the site's community or it's automatically scraped from some such source then it's a hard no. If it's written by professionals and there's a corrections process then maybe. — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it does appear that chessgames.com biographies are user generated. Volteer1 (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, worth a suggestion and we've learned something about the site for next time. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the stream was publicly archived, only for subs. Maybe if he ends up putting it in a Youtube video. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Should the sentence about Obama be removed?
When I was reading the article, I misread this sentence thinking that it meant that Nakamura played Obama:

“Before the 2020 United States presidential election, he challenged President Barack Obama to a game of chess to raise funds for the presidential nominee Joe Biden’s victory fund and ActBlue.[119]”

I wonder is that Nakamura just challenged Obama notable enough to be in the article. I’m a new editor so I have no idea what wikipedia conventions are, I just found it a little strange this was included in the article. Light rays from the sun (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Welcome! Since the challenge was covered by a source with a whole article (as opposed to just a passing mention), this is probably notable enough to leave in the article. It may be worth noting that there was no game between them (as far as I know). AviationFreak 💬 01:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 * That makes sense, I can’t find a good source for there not being a game so I’ll just leave the article as it is. Light rays from the sun (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see why any source would publish an article about a game not happening—challenges like this happen all the time and rarely manifest. I think we should remove the sentence. It's not really a weighty statement given that Obama never responded and the source Dot Esports might be reliable but as it's a specialist publication and there are so many notable events that did happen involving Hikaru (mostly professional tournaments, which get a lot of coverage even if this article doesn't cite it all) I'm not sure it alone shows due weight. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Twitch
Is it right that we are specifically mentioning Twitch in the short description and in the lead paragraph? Isn't this promotional? Would it be better to just say "livestreamer" or "streamer" without mentioning the particular platform? I ask this, as someone who is not familiar with streaming. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion on the short description, but I think it's fine in the lede. We refer to YouTubers as such, not as "videographers" (unless they make a significant amount of content for non-YouTube platforms). As Nakamura's main outlet is Twitch I think it's fine as-is. AviationFreak💬 23:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine to mention it in the lead (when not be specific when it doesn't cost any more words?), but in the short description I've removed it. "Japanese American chess player" is a short description of Nakamura. Adding anything more specific doesn't serve the purpose of being useful to mobile editors who aren't sure they have the right person, and makes it too long. And most coverage of Nakamura is not about the last three years of streaming. I have removed "content creator" from the lead as well—a rather vague phrase redundant here to "Twitch streamer". Either the "content" (I think the idea is YouTube, rather than say any courses he's done) is so important it needs to be spelled out in the first sentence (here it doesn't) or it's not worth vaguely alluding to in that sentence. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is the single game in the Notable Games section notable?
A quick glance at the top 10 chess players Wikipedia pages shows that only Magnus Carlsen and Viswanathan Anand have notable games (others do have notable tournaments) sections and Anand is the only other one with a full chess annotation but also provides a reason as to why it's important. This Hikaru game should have a reason as why it is notable. List of notable chess games doesn't include it either (which may be the fault of that article).

I ask that either a reason for why it's notable be provided, it be replaced with another more notable game, it be replaced with a section similar to Carlsen's page, or replace it with a notable tournaments section. KieranStanley (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What Magnus Carlsen has instead is a long and good-quality Playing style section (the one here is very incomplete). Viswanathan Anand is not a good idea as its low C-class rating means it's not one of the best-quality chess player articles to model things off. I would change "Notable games" to "Example game", because it seems to me the choice of this game is to illustrate Nakamura's tactical approach. I wouldn't remove it, but if you've got a better game in mind then name it. — Bilorv ( talk ) 07:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

 * The usual Wikipedia standards of "Notability" should apply. For players from long ago, this typically means games that appeared in print in places like newspapers, magazines, textbooks, or anthologies of games.  A game that only appeared in the tournament book, even if it were well played and annotated, would not be considered notable.  For a modern-day player like Nakamura, you'd at least want the game to have appeared in something like chessbase.  I don't know if the game with Novikov is "notable".  The website we are citing is equivalent to a book of the tournament, so it doesn't demonstrate notability.  It's a nice game, but we shouldn't be calling it notable if the chess world isn't treating it that way.  If you can find the game in a better source, you can cite that source in addition to citing the tournament book, and you have the best of both worlds.

 * I said "should" apply, but the last time I surveyed the "Notable games" sections of chess biographical articles, many of them did not adhere to the usual standards. Perhaps things have improved since then, I don't know.  By the way, the chessgames.com database is a handy one for giving the reader a usable link to a game, but it's not a reliable source in the usual Wikipedia sense, so the fact that a game appears in it does not demonstrate notability.  If you want to show a notable game, you should cite a reliable source, possibly in addition to citing chessgames.com.  Bruce leverett (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 * By the way, referring to Viswanathan Anand, the one game in the Notable Games section says that annotations are by Bologan, but it doesn't cite a reference for those annotations. It only cites chessgames.com, in which there are annotations by random pseudonymous contributors.  If anyone knows where those annotations by Bologan are from, would they please add an appropriate citation!  Other than that startling omission, I don't have a problem with that Notable Games section.  Probably Anand has other games that are even more "notable".  Bruce leverett (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Candidates 2016
Article should mention Nakamura's result at [Candidates Tournament 2016]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.14.171 (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ In future, comments go in a new section (there should be a "New section" button at the top of your screen) and you should end them with four tildes to produce a signature. Links need two brackets on each side, so that   produces Candidates Tournament 2016. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Bullet chess record
The "world record for the most bullet chess victories in the 1|0 format in an hour" doesn't look very meaningful. Is there any authority, or even any other entity, besides chess.com (which hosted the event) that recognizes this record? Was there any control on the strength (or lack thereof) of the opponents? Unless there are good answers to these questions we shouldn't be mentioning this "world record".

importance class
why is this in Category:High-importance chess articles and the talk page of Bassem Amin who is the best player of the whole continent of Africa and won against Hikaru more often than he lost, is in Category:Low-importance chess articles? I mean, without any doubt, Hikaru is better known, but I think given the distinctions Bassem has earned, he should not be "Low importance" when this is "High importance". (The main article has "C Class" - is that coherent ?)

This section speaks for itself.
Why no mention of Hans Niemann lawsuit? Anyhoo I added. Thewriter006 (talk) 07:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Nationality
Wikipedia has its own rules for what to mention in lead sentences (and lead paragraphs, etc.) and how to mention it. Do not look elsewhere, such as in stackexchange, for that sort of guidance. I'm looking at MOS:NATIONALITY, which says, "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the lead sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability." Of course, it's obviously necessary to mention the circumstances of his birth, parentage, and citizenship in the article, just not in the first sentence.

In general, you should spend some time reading the Manual of Style. I shouldn't nag, because I myself only read it when I'm looking for the answer to some question, such as whether to include "Japanese born" here. But, as interesting and helpful as stackexchange may be, reading it for Wikipedia work is just a waste of time.

What were you referring to in the edit summary when you said the "peak FIDE rating page"? doesn't say anything about Hikaru's place of birth, nor does. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "peak FIDE rating page" undoubtedly refers to the wikipedia page List of chess players by peak FIDE rating. That page has its own problems, but it isn't really relevant to anything here.  Quale (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * it says 'Highest-ranked Japanese-born player, reigning FIDE World Fischer Random Chess Champion (from 2022)' ? why does that page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_players_by_peak_FIDE_rating say hikaru is japanese-born but hikaru's own page doesn't say hikaru is japanese-born? i think should be both say or neither say. Thewriter006 (talk) 08:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * it says 'Highest-ranked Japanese-born player, reigning FIDE World Fischer Random Chess Champion (from 2022)' ? why does that page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_players_by_peak_FIDE_rating say hikaru is japanese-born but hikaru's own page doesn't say hikaru is japanese-born? i think should be both say or neither say. Thewriter006 (talk) 08:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "hikaru's own page doesn't say hikaru is japanese-born"? It says so in the first sentence of the section on Early Life. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Birth name, again
In this article in chess.com, the memorandum by Nakamura's lawyers in support of his motion to dismiss Niemann's lawsuit is reproduced, and his full original name ("Christopher Hikaru Nakamura") is used in at least two places, including the first page and the last. It seems odd to cite this article in a footnote attached to his name, but I will do so if it's the correct way to support it. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Personal life
User:Bruce leverett, I see you reverted my edit, however that is encyclopedic info and came from a reliable source, and such relationships are often covered in other bio articles. - Indefensible (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

 * I would not consider "encyclopedic info" to include who is sleeping with whom. We don't know where or how Leontxo Garcia got the information.  It could have changed by the time El Pais published the article.  It could easily change in the future, and when it does, we won't necessarily have a reliable source to tell us about it, so we will end up with an article that says Nakamura's girlfriend is X when his current girlfriend, or even his wife, is Y.  In the worst case, one or the other of the couple might consider it a defamatory rumor, and it would become a BLP problem.  I have heard that these considerations have been ignored in some other biography articles, but that's a problem for those articles. Bruce leverett (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A noteworthy relationship is encyclopedic, it does not have to be sleeping together. Past history is still encyclopedic, it does not have to be a current relationship. Truth is that a reliable source reported an apparent fact which I plainly referenced in the article, it should not be considered defamatory or a problematic rumor. - Indefensible (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Format for describing chess games in the Notable Games section
I think the way games are described is very confusing. For example,

Nakamura vs. Boris Gelfand, World Team Championship 2010, King's Indian Defense: Orthodox Variation (E97) 0–1

leads to the impression that Nakamura played White and lost the game. The next sentence

Nakamura leaves his queen able to be captured four times in this win

then leads readers to believe that he won it after all.

I had to follow the link to chessgames.com to work out what the result actually was. Nakamura won playing Black in this game so would normally be listed second. I've concluded provisionally that on Wikipedia the player who is the current topic is always listed first, but, since presumably only chess players and fans would be reading this section, it seems strange to go against general chess notational conventions. Wouldn't it be better to write

Boris Gelfand vs. Nakamura

If attention needs to be drawn to Nakamura, bolding would be another option:

Boris Gelfand vs. Nakamura

Ricklaman (talk) 08:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

 * It’s just a mistake that the names are in the wrong order both in this game and the following game against Krasenkow. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Birth name
His infobox states that he was born as "Christopher Hikaru Nakamura". Apologies if this sounds ignorant: I know that his mother is American, but does that automatically mean that he is American-born, and if he is, does that mean his birth name is "Christopher Hikaru Nakamura" and not (only) 中村 光 (Nakamura Hikaru), even though he was born in Japan? CloudChooser11 (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

 * The information that his actual name starts with "Christopher" was added to this article fairly recently. The source we cite for it is in footnote 2, but he has also mentioned it online.
 * His mother was American, married a Japanese man and lived in Japan when their children, Asuka and Hikaru, were born. Later she and her husband divorced and she moved back to the United States.  Our sources for whatever we say about this part of his life are in footnotes 6, 7, 8, and 9, with some of these being more helpful than others.
 * I do not see a source cited for the three versions of his Japanese name presented in our infobox. You are right that they do not include "Christopher".  I don't know if this is correct or incorrect. I do not know if there is guidance in Wikipedia for how to handle this. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's certain that his full name as an American citizen is "Christopher Hikaru Nakamura". It's also certain that his Japanese name is 中村 光 (Nakamura Hikaru). It obviously could not have included "Christopher" (or "クリストファー" or whatever) since legal Japanese names cannot have middle names. The question is whether he was indeed born with his American name "Christopher Hikaru Nakamura", as the infobox states, and that this name was not acquired only later. CloudChooser11 (talk) 07:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

What Ratings Should be Included?
In the information panel on the right side of the page, it gives Hikaru's rating, but it does not specify what time control. Should his Fide blitz and rapid ratings be included? What about his chess.com ratings, as blitz and bullet are predominantly played online. JohnGalt2024 (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect rating
According to FIDE, Nakamura's rating is 2594. However, it's being automatically populated as 2595, the second off-by-one I'm seeing today. Greenman (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 8 July 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. withdrawn by nominator (closed by non-admin page mover) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

– People call him Hikaru way more than his full name. Searching the name "Hikaru" into Google gives you results about the chess player instead of other people with the name. 48JCL 15:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Hikaru Nakamura → Hikaru
 * Hikaru → Hikaru (name)
 * A troll RM? Obviously oppose per NCP, someone close this. If this is in good faith, I would suggest that the filer learn what a surname is. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * AirshipJungleman29: Sorry I made a typo. And no, not a troll. 48JCL 17:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you read the relevant WP:PAGs ? Do you know which they are? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright alright I withdraw this nomination. <b style="color: #004d5c; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px;font-family:Trebuchet MS">48</b><b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">JCL</b> 18:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hikaru Nakamura


text:
Category:Roman Republic

This is the category of all topics and people related to the Roman Republic, which existed approximately 510 BC through the 1st century BC.

title: Category:Roman Republic


text:
Johann Philipp Stadion, Count von Warthausen

Johann Philipp Carl Joseph Stadion, Count von Warthausen (18 June 1763 in Mainz – 15 May 1824, Baden) was a statesman, foreign minister, and diplomat who served the Habsburg empire during the Napoleonic Wars. He was also founder of Austria's central bank Oesterreichische Nationalbank. He was sovereign Count of Stadion-Warthausen from 1787 until 1806, when his lands were mediatised to the Kingdom of Bavaria.

Early life
Johann was born as the younger surviving son of Count Franz Konrad von Stadion-Warthausen (1736–1787) and his wife, Baroness Maria Johanna Ludowika Esther Zobel von Giebelstadt (1740–1803).

Life and career
In 1787–1790, he was ambassador in Stockholm, then in London from 1790 to 1793. After some years of retirement, he was entrusted with a mission to the Prussian court (1800–1803), where he endeavoured in vain to effect an alliance with Austria. He had greater success as envoy at Saint Petersburg (1803–1805), where he played a large part in the formation of the third coalition against Napoleon (1805). Notwithstanding the failure of this alliance, he was made foreign minister and, in conjunction with Archduke Charles of Austria, pursued a policy of quiet preparation for a fresh trial of strength with France.

In 1808, he abandoned the policy of procrastination and hastened the outbreak of a new war. Stadion was encouraged by news from Spain regarding the rising of the Spanish population against French occupation and the defeat of a French army by Spanish general Francisco Castanos at Bailen. He was instrumental in persuading Emperor Francis of Austria to attempt to arouse popular resistance to Napoleon in Austria and Germany.

The war that began in 1809 pitted Austria alone on the continent against Napoleonic France. The campaign saw the first major defeat of Napoleon at Aspern by the Archduke Charles, brother of the Emperor. Nonetheless, the French recovered and inflicted a decisive defeat on the Austrians at Wagram, one of the largest battles of the Napoleonic Wars. The unfortunate results of the campaign of 1809 compelled his resignation. He was succeeded as Foreign Minister by Klemens von Metternich, whom the Emperor had recalled from Paris. Nonetheless, in 1813, he was commissioned to negotiate the convention which finally overthrew Napoleon.

The last ten years of his life were spent in a strenuous and partly successful attempt to reorganize the disordered finances of his country. As minister of finance (1815–1824), he founded Austria's central bank Oesterreichische Nationalbank in 1816.

Personal life
On 4 November 1773 in Mainz, he married his cousin, Countess Maria Anna Philippine Walpurgis von Stadion-Thannhausen (1771–1841), daughter of Count Joseph Georg Johann von Stadion zu Thannhausen (1652-1742) and his wife, Baroness Maria Anna Wambolt von Umstadt (1687-1764). Together, they had eight children. Among them was Franz Stadion, Count von Warthausen, a prominent liberal statesman of the 1840s.

Death
He died on 15 May 1824 in Baden bei Wien, Austria.

Acknowledgements

 * In 1874, an alley in Vienna's 1st district was renamed "Stadiongasse" in honour of Johann Philipp von Stadion.
 * Since 1897, the Hotel Graf Stadion on Buchfeldgasse Nr. 5 in Vienna's 8th district Josefstadt bears the statesman's name.


text: Category:Venice

title: Category:Venice


text: User talk:64.198.240.93

title: User talk:64.198.240.93


text:
Bridge of Sighs, Cambridge

The Bridge of Sighs in Cambridge, England is a stone covered bridge at St John's College, Cambridge. It was built in 1831 and crosses the River Cam between the college's Third Court and New Court. The architect was Henry Hutchinson. It is named after the Bridge of Sighs in Venice, although they have little architecturally in common beyond the fact that they are both covered bridges with arched bases. The bridge, a Grade I listed building, is a Cambridge attraction and Queen Victoria is said to have loved it more than any other spot in the city.

History
In the early 19th century, St. John's College added accommodation on the west side of the River Cam, an area known as the Backs, with the construction of New Court. The new buildings and the bridge linking them with the original college buildings were designed in 1827 by Henry Hutchinson in the fashionable Gothic Revival style. Construction was completed in 1831, shortly before his death.

On two occasions, students have pulled the prank of dangling a car under the bridge. In the first incident (in June 1963), a 1928 Austin 7 was punted down the river using four punts that had been lashed together, then hoisted up under the bridge using ropes. The second incident (in 1968) a Bond or Reliant Regal three-wheeler car was dangled under the bridge. In neither case was the bridge damaged.

The bridge was a favourite spot of former Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who had photos taken there in 1947 when he was a student, upon Lee Hsien Loong's graduation in 1974 and in 2000.

In popular culture
The bridge was a filming location for Elizabeth: The Golden Age in 2007 and The Theory of Everything in 2014. The bridge can also be seen in the music video for the song "High Hopes" by Pink Floyd.

title: Bridge of Sighs, Cambridge


text:
Bridge of Sighs, Oxford

Hertford Bridge, often called the Bridge of Sighs, is a skyway joining two parts of Hertford College over New College Lane in Oxford, England. Its distinctive design makes it a city landmark.

Misnomer and myth

The bridge is often referred to as the Bridge of Sighs because of its supposed similarity to the better known Bridge of Sighs in Venice.

There is a false legend saying that many decades ago, a survey of the health of students was taken, and as Hertford College's students were the heaviest, the college closed off the bridge to force them to take the stairs, giving them extra exercise. However, if the bridge is not used, the students actually climb fewer stairs than if they do use the bridge.

Building
The bridge links together the Old and New Quadrangles of Hertford College (to the south and the north respectively), and much of its current architecture was designed by Sir Thomas Jackson. It was completed in 1914, despite its construction being opposed by New College.

The building on the southern side of the bridge houses the college's administrative offices, whereas the northern building is mostly student accommodation. The bridge is always open to members of the college, who can often be seen crossing it. The bridge is Grade II listed.

title: Bridge of Sighs, Oxford


text:
Bit time

Bit time is a concept in computer networking. It is defined as the time it takes for one bit to be ejected from a network interface controller (NIC) operating at some predefined standard speed, such as 10 Mbit/s. The time is measured between the time the logical link control sublayer receives the instruction from the operating system until the bit actually leaves the NIC. The bit time has nothing to do with the time it takes for a bit to travel on the network medium but has to do with the internals of the NIC.

To calculate the bit time at which a NIC ejects bits, use the following:

bit time = 1 / NIC speed

To calculate the bit time for a 10 Mbit/s NIC, use the formula as follows: bit time = 1 / (10 * 10^6) = 10^-7                 = 100 * 10^-9                  = 100 nanoseconds

The bit time for a 10 Mbit/s NIC is 100 nanoseconds. That is, a 10 Mbit/s NIC can eject 1 bit every 0.1 microsecond (100 nanoseconds = 0.1 microseconds).

Bit time is distinctively different from slot time, which is the time taken for a pulse to travel through the longest permitted length of network medium.

title: Bit time


text:
Kalapana, Hawaii

Kalapana is a town and a region in the Puna District on the Island of Hawaii in the Hawaiian Islands. The town was the original location of the Star of the Sea Painted Church.

In 1990, lava flows from the Kūpaʻianahā vent of Kīlauea destroyed and partly buried most of the town, as well as Kalapana Gardens and nearby Royal Gardens subdivisions. The lava flow that destroyed Kalapana erupted from the southeast rift zone of Kīlauea. Along with the destruction of Kalapana were those of the nearby town of Kaimū and Kaimū Bay, both of which now lie buried beneath more than 50 feet of lava. The lava flow created a new coastline.

In July 2010, lava from Kīlauea continued into the Kalapana region destroying a home that was only 5 years old, leaving 35 homes remaining in the Kalapana Gardens Subdivision. The 2010 lava flow partly covered the 1986–1992 flow field again, while attracting thousands of visitors a day.

Access to the village was reestablished and a thriving farmers market was held every Wednesday night until May, 2018 when lava flows impacted nearby roads. For many years the lava flow from Puʻu ʻŌʻō continued, for a time entering the sea at Kamokuna. In May 2018, destructive new lava vents opened in nearby Leilani Estates. Access to Kalapana was restricted to residents until July 3, 2018, when the road was reopened to all motorists.

title: Kalapana, Hawaii


text: User talk:65.94.25.199

title: User talk:65.94.25.199


text:
Deborah Foreman

Deborah Lynn Foreman (born October 12, 1962) is an American photographer and actress. She is perhaps best known for her starring role in the 1983 film Valley Girl opposite Nicolas Cage. She is also regarded as a scream queen and known for playing in various horror films of the 1980s, such as April Fool's Day, Waxwork, Destroyer and Sundown: The Vampire in Retreat.

Early life
Foreman was born October 12, 1962, in Montebello, California, the daughter of Lynette and Clyde Foreman, a Marine Corps pilot. She was raised in Arizona and Texas. When she was 13, her parents enrolled her at the Barbizon School of Modeling in Houston to help her overcome shyness, where she received a trophy after completing the courses. In high school, Foreman received high marks and was a cheerleader. While she was still a student, local photographer Wally Lewis hired her for newspaper and catalog ads. A chance meeting with a representative of Wilhelmina Models led to her signing with its California office and modeling assignments for Maybelline cosmetics.

Career
Four weeks after arriving in Los Angeles, Foreman earned her SAG card after appearing in a McDonald's of England commercial. Resolving to become a serious actress, she took acting lessons from a variety of teachers. Her first acting job was in a comedy pilot for NBC's The Grady Nutt Show. More television work and two supporting film roles soon followed. After a 1983 appearance on the popular sitcom Family Ties, her first starring role in a feature film was Valley Girl (1983) with the then-little-known Nicolas Cage, which brought her national fame. The New York Times reviewer did not care for Valley Girl and wrote that Foreman was "too passive to carry the movie" while her counterpart at the Los Angeles Times enjoyed the same movie. Mark Deming of AllMovie wrote that Foreman "made an indelible impression on fans of 1980s pop culture with her performance in the title role of the film Valley Girl".

In 1985, Foreman had a small role in the comedy film Real Genius. In 1986, she was named "Most Promising New Star" by ShoWest, the largest and most notable film convention in the world.

She had a starring role in the comedy film My Chauffeur (1986), in which she played a somewhat Madonna-influenced character who gets a job as a driver for a stuffy limousine service. My Chauffeur was publicized widely, but connected only modestly with teen audiences and critics. The New York Times reviewer Lawrence Van Gelder wrote "Miss Foreman, who with discipline and far better script might become an engaging comedienne, is mired here in a character who at one moment is delivering a lecture on proper treatment of women and at the next is smirking." The Los Angeles Times reviewer Michael Wilmington called Foreman a "New Wave Carole Lombard crossed with early Shirley MacLaine". However, Robert Blau of the Chicago Tribune wrote that Foreman "gives a breathlessly irritating portrayal of Casey". By contrast, Charles Taylor of the Boston Phoenix wrote that Foreman "is an appealing comic actress who goes at even the most inane situations with tireless enthusiasm and dimpley sex appeal" and although "she can't salvage My Chauffeur, she does give perkiness a good name."

That same year, Foreman played dual roles in the offbeat dark comedy and preppy murder mystery April Fool's Day. Although her performance was praised by reviewers, the film's plot and surprise ending were widely panned,  with critic Vincent Canby commenting for The New York Times: "... the dialogue is mostly composed of rude variations on 'eek,' 'ugh', and 'I'd like to sleep with you this evening.'" The reviewer for AllMovie wrote "With her Sheryl Lee-like features and facial expressions, Deborah Foreman makes an appealingly off-balance scream queen".

During the five years following, Foreman appeared in over half a dozen low-budget horror movies and independent films. Syndicated columnist Joe Bob Briggs gave Foreman a "Drive-in Academy Award nomination as the damsel in distress" for saying "It's all very simple! Bunny men from Neptune have invaded Mars!"

Though she retired from acting in 1991, Foreman did make a brief appearance in a music video for the rock band She Wants Revenge, as well as a small cameo as a shopgirl in the 2020 remake of Valley Girl, her best known film.

title: Deborah Foreman


text:
Talk:Jiang Yanyong

Untitled
The Beeb article for this says he mailed the gov't over T Square incident in Feb 2004. Article Says May.

Is there a corresponding article in chinese about Jiang? If not, can somone who knows chinese translate this? chinese wikipedia Theon 00:32, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Parts of the article say "Dr. Jiang" and parts of the article use "Dr. Yanyong". Which one is correct?--Lucky13pjn 22:51, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Dr. Jiang. It's Chinese, so last name first.

Birthdate from. Recent news from.

Does anyone know just when the "recent" note was?

Tualha 13:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Questions about Dr. Jiang's Motivation
His intention is unknown and his action is still controversial.

I actually do not know why his intention needs to be questioned at this point. However, at least one source is necessary! --Ghormax (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Ghormax, I agree with you and will work on finding more cites. But, it seems to be similar to looking for a needle in a haystack. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello all. At the DC edit a thon, I added more cites and removed the warning tag. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jiang Yanyong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040901233300/http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA170272004 to http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGASA170272004

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jiang Yanyong


text: User talk:65.94.230.71

title: User talk:65.94.230.71