text:
Blast injury

A blast injury is a complex type of physical trauma resulting from direct or indirect exposure to an explosion. Blast injuries occur with the detonation of high-order explosives as well as the deflagration of low order explosives. These injuries are compounded when the explosion occurs in a confined space.

Classification
Blast injuries are divided into four classes: primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary.

Primary injuries
Primary injuries are caused by blast overpressure waves, or shock waves. Total body disruption is the most severe and invariably fatal primary injury. Primary injuries are especially likely when a person is close to an exploding munition, such as a land mine. The ears are most often affected by the overpressure, followed by the lungs and the hollow organs of the gastrointestinal tract. Gastrointestinal injuries may present after a delay of hours or even days. Injury from blast overpressure is a pressure and time dependent function. By increasing the pressure or its duration, the severity of injury will also increase.

Extensive damage can also be inflicted upon the auditory system. The tympanic membrane (also known as the eardrum) may be perforated by the intensity of the pressure waves. Furthermore, the hair cells, the sound receptors found within the cochlea, can be permanently damaged and can result in a hearing loss of a mild to profound degree. Additionally, the intensity of the pressure changes from the blast can cause injury to the blood vessels and neural pathways within the auditory system. Therefore, affected individuals can have auditory processing deficits while having normal hearing thresholds. The combination of these effects can lead to hearing loss, tinnitus, headache, vertigo (dizziness), and difficulty processing sound.

In general, primary blast injuries are characterized by the absence of external injuries; thus internal injuries are frequently unrecognized and their severity underestimated. According to the latest experimental results, the extent and types of primary blast-induced injuries depend not only on the peak of the overpressure, but also other parameters such as number of overpressure peaks, time-lag between overpressure peaks, characteristics of the shear fronts between overpressure peaks, frequency resonance, and electromagnetic pulse, among others. There is general agreement that spalling, implosion, inertia, and pressure differentials are the main mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of primary blast injuries. Thus, the majority of prior research focused on the mechanisms of blast injuries within gas-containing organs and organ systems such as the lungs, while primary blast-induced traumatic brain injury has remained underestimated. Blast lung refers to severe pulmonary contusion, bleeding or swelling with damage to alveoli and blood vessels, or a combination of these. It is the most common cause of death among people who initially survive an explosion.

Secondary injuries
Secondary injuries are ballistic trauma caused by impacts of flying shrapnels and other objects propelled by the explosion. These injuries may affect any part of the body and sometimes result in penetrating trauma with visible bleeding. At times the propelled object may become embedded in the body, obstructing the loss of blood to the outside. However, there may be extensive blood loss within the body cavities. Secondary blast wounds may be lethal and therefore many anti-personnel explosive devices are designed to generate fast-flying fragments.

Most casualties are caused by secondary injuries as shrapnels generally affect a larger area than the primary blast area, because debris can easily be propelled for hundreds or even thousands of meters. Some explosives, such as nail bombs, are deliberately designed to increase the likelihood of secondary injuries. In other instances, the target provides the raw material for the fragments thrown into surrounding, e.g., shattered glass from a blasted-out window or the glass facade of a building.

Tertiary injuries
Displacement of air by the explosion creates a blast wind that can throw victims against solid objects. Injuries resulting from this type of traumatic impact are referred to as tertiary blast injuries. Tertiary injuries may present as some combination of blunt and penetrating trauma, including bone fractures and coup contre-coup injuries. Children are at particularly high risk of tertiary injury due to their relatively smaller body weight.

Quaternary injuries
Quaternary injuries, or other miscellaneous named injuries, are all other injuries not included in the first three classes. These include flash burns, crush injuries, and respiratory injuries.

Traumatic amputations quickly result in death, unless there are available skilled medical personnel or others with adequate training nearby who are able to quickly respond, with the ability for rapid ground or air medical evacuation to an appropriate facility in time, and with tourniquets (for compression of bleeding sites) and other needed equipment (standard, or improvised; sterile, or not) also available, to treat the injuries. Because of this, injuries of this type are generally rare, though not unheard of, in survivors. Whether survivable or not, they are often accompanied by significant other injuries. The rate of eye injury may depend on the type of blast. Psychiatric injury, some of which may be caused by neurological damage incurred during the blast, is the most common quaternary injury, and post-traumatic stress disorder may affect people who are otherwise completely uninjured.

Mechanism
Blast injuries can result from various types of incidents ranging from industrial accidents to deliberate attacks. High-order explosives produce a supersonic overpressure shock wave, while low order explosives deflagrate and do not produce an overpressure wave. A blast wave generated by an explosion starts with a single pulse of increased air pressure, lasting a few milliseconds. The negative pressure (suction) of the blast wave follows immediately after the positive wave. The duration of the blast wave depends on the type of explosive material and the distance from the point of detonation. The blast wave progresses from the source of explosion as a sphere of compressed and rapidly expanding gases, which displaces an equal volume of air at a very high velocity. The velocity of the blast wave in air may be extremely high, depending on the type and amount of the explosive used. An individual in the path of an explosion will be subjected not only to excess barometric pressure, but to pressure from the high-velocity wind traveling directly behind the shock front of the blast wave. The magnitude of damage due to the blast wave is dependent on the peak of the initial positive pressure wave, the duration of the overpressure, the medium in which it explodes, the distance from the incident blast wave, and the degree of focusing due to a confined area or walls. For example, explosions near or within hard solid surfaces become amplified two to nine times due to shock wave reflection. As a result, individuals between the blast and a building generally suffer two to three times the degree of injury compared to those in open spaces.

Neurotrauma
Blast injuries can cause hidden sensory and brain damage, with potential neurological and neurosensory consequences. It is a complex clinical syndrome caused by the combination of all blast effects, i.e., primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary blast mechanisms. Blast injuries usually manifest in a form of polytrauma, i.e. injury involving multiple organs or organ systems. Bleeding from injured organs such as lungs or bowel causes a lack of oxygen in all vital organs, including the brain. Damage of the lungs reduces the surface for oxygen uptake from the air, reducing the amount of the oxygen delivered to the brain. Tissue destruction initiates the synthesis and release of hormones or mediators into the blood which, when delivered to the brain, change its function. Irritation of the nerve endings in injured peripheral tissue or organs also contributes significantly to blast-induced neurotrauma.

Individuals exposed to blast frequently manifest loss of memory of events before and after explosion, confusion, headache, impaired sense of reality, and reduced decision-making ability. Patients with brain injuries acquired in explosions often develop sudden, unexpected brain swelling and cerebral vasospasm despite continuous monitoring. However, the first symptoms of blast-induced neurotrauma (BINT) may occur months or even years after the initial event, and are therefore categorized as secondary brain injuries. The broad variety of symptoms includes weight loss, hormone imbalance, chronic fatigue, headache, and problems in memory, speech and balance. These changes are often debilitating, interfering with daily activities. Because BINT in blast victims is underestimated, valuable time is often lost for preventive therapy and/or timely rehabilitation.

Blast wave PTSD research
In addition to known post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) risk factors experienced by both civilians and military personnel in combat areas, in early 2018, 60 Minutes reported that neuropathology specialist, Dr. Daniel "Dan" Perl, had conducted research on brain tissue exposed to traumatic brain injury (TBI), discovering a causal relationship between IED blast waves and PTSD. Perl was recruited to the faculty of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences as a professor of pathology and to establish the Center for Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine mandated by Congress in 2008.

Casualty estimates and triage
Explosions in confined spaces or which cause structural collapse usually produce more deaths and injuries. Confined spaces include mines, buildings and large vehicles. For a rough estimate of the total casualties from an event, double the number that present in the first hour. Less injured patients often arrive first, as they take themselves to the nearest hospital. The most severely injured arrive later, via emergency services ("upside-down" triage). If there is a structural collapse, there will be more serious injuries that arrive more slowly.

title: Blast injury


text:
User talk:Brynosaurus

Hi folks!

the 'branch' proposal comments:

 * not at all comfortable with this system, seems to defeat the consensus basis for wikipedia. consensus isn't reached by democratic process, we are not really trying to make an 'encyclopedia of what the majority wants' we are trying to make something much more potent, an 'encyclopedia of undisputed facts' .   by voting or by the suggested branch system, we diverge from consensus at each branch or each vote.   I appreciate the enormous amount of work involved in creating the idea, but I don't feel it is best for us all.  My suggestion for edit wars is: if someone reverts your page, point it out to 2 other editors, and drop out of the argument.. if you can't stand to drop out of the argument, it's a sure sign of bias...  I'll discuss this at length another time if you like, just drop me a line.  And thanks for all the effort you've put into this, you obviously have the unselfish diligence that I see as essential to this project.  drop me a line if you like.Pedant 11:08, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

 * Hi Pedant, thanks for your feedback - mind if I move it over to my talk page on meta.wikimedia.org, which is where the actual proposal is, just to keep the discussion consolidated? I'll put my response there as well. Thanks, Brynosaurus 02:56, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

PEG topic
Hello. Are you still active here? I had a disagreement with the metacompiler defination here. Mostly substantiated by historical metacompilers.

Anyway I see you were active in the PEG talk discussions. Maybe you can help on the metacompiler.

I have researched metacompilers and found websites using the FORTH description that is basically a self-hosting compiler that doesn't distinguishe them from any self-hosting compiler. Meaning by the FORTH metacompiler defination C++ written in itself compiling itself would be a metacompilet. And the same could be said of any self-hosting compiler. I think that FORTH is a specialized metacompiler because it defines itself in a subset of itself and programming in FORTH is extending the language creating dialects of the FORTH language. I am not a FORTH proponent. I basic came to that understanding reading references to the FORTH metacompiler my advocacy put forth in his argument of his claims that a metacompiler is a compiler compiler that compiles otself.

Most other references are to the Schorre metacompilers.

A few are not explained or named but referenced as used in the development of ...

The Metacompiler topic referenced Schorre metacompilers. Some of which were not used to compile them selves as was claimed the distinguishing feature of a metacompiler.

The Schorre Metacompilers are related to PEGs The main differences are implementation, backtracking and output. The backtracking in CWIC for example is controlled using different alternant (or) operators and are independent of the rule. There are actually have two levels of backtracking. CWIC has token rules that backtrack automatically. In syntax rules backtracking occure when input has advanced and a failure occures. A non-backracking alternate will not be tried.

X = A B / C;

will not attempt C if A succeeds and B fails. Written as:

X = A B \ C;

C will be attempted if B fails. Even further if A partially succedes and there is no nested backtracking alternate C would be attempted. The state would be restored to that of before A being called. Backtracking will return the parse state to the beginning of the left backtrack alternate and goto the right alternant. Metacompiler do not build a parse tree automaticly. They stack parsed atomic objects, symbols, numbers... They instead have transform directives as part of the langusge. CWIC builds an abstract syntax tree. Or it could be described as functional representation of the source. a + b × c would get translated to ADD[a,MPY[b,c]]. It can be looked at as a nested functional notation or a tree structure. It is actually implemented as a list whose first element is a node. LISP 2 is a part of CWIC.

They are not parser generators but are compiled into executable code.

I think these metacompilers are distinguished more by the implementation, being compiled into executable code and including the transformation to object code programmed in the metacompiler's metalanguage.

But I also wont to be consistent with current terminology. For example they use a metasyntax defined metalanguage. That is they are compilers that translate a metalanguage into executable code. And the metalanguage thay translate is defined by a metasyntax. The metasyntax can be coded in the same metalanguage it defines. The metalanguage defines the language syntax and transformation to object code.

Look at metacompiler edit on my talk page. PEGS are not as powerful as the Schorre line of metacompilers developed in the 1960s. CWIC is far more advanced. It parses to an abstract syntax tree and then using unparsing rules can traverses and analyze the abstract tree producing optimized code. I includes a full implementation of LISP 2 as the action of an unparse recognition. METAII is a toy compared to CWIC. Steamerandy (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Consensus (computer science), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paxos. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Brynosaurus


text:
List of battleships of Italy

Starting in the 1890s, the Italian Regia Marina (Royal Navy) began building a series of modern battleships. Early designs were marked by their small size, light armor, and high speed compared to contemporary foreign counterparts. The first pre-dreadnought battleship design, the Ammiraglio di Saint Bon-class battleship, was constrained by budgetary limits imposed by the legislature. Two ships were ordered by the class's namesake, Admiral Simone de Pacoret Saint Bon, though the design was also influenced by Benedetto Brin, who replaced di Saint Bon as naval minister after his death. Brin designed the next pair of battleships, the Regina Margherita-class battleship. These ships were larger than the preceding class, and were intended to challenge the Austro-Hungarian Habsburg-class battleships then under construction. Brin himself died during the construction process. Vittorio Cuniberti designed the next class of small pre-dreadnoughts, the Regina Elena-class battleship, which were the fastest battleships in the world at the time of their completion. These ships all served in the Italo-Turkish War of 1911–1912, where they were primarily used to provide naval gunfire support for the Italian ground troops, as the Ottoman Navy largely confined itself to port.

By the time that the Regina Elenas had been built in the early 1900s, the British battleship HMS Dreadnought (1906) had been completed, a revolutionary design that rendered all previous battleships obsolete. Therefore, a new dreadnought-type battleship was needed. The new ship was Dante Alighieri, and was designed by Rear Admiral Edoardo Masdea. The Italian Navy built five further battleships to two similar designs: the Conte di Cavour-class battleship and Andrea Doria-class battleshipes. These six dreadnoughts formed the core of the Italian fleet during World War I, as a further four-ship class was cancelled. Both the Italian and Austro-Hungarian navies adopted cautious fleet policies and neither chose to risk their capital ships in a major engagement; as a result, the Italian battle line spent the war in harbor and did not see combat. Nevertheless, the dreadnought Leonardo da Vinci was destroyed by a magazine explosion in August 1916. The pre-dreadnought Benedetto Brin was also destroyed by an internal explosion in September 1915, and her sister Regina Margherita was sunk by a German mine in December 1916. The remaining battleships of the Ammiraglio di Saint Bon and Regina Elena classes were discarded after the end of the war.

In the interwar period, the Italian Navy—along with the rest of the major naval powers—was limited by the Washington Naval Treaty, which granted Italy parity with the French Navy. The Italians had 70000 LT worth of battleship tonnage available for new vessels before they would reach their treaty limits, but they avoided new construction in the 1920s due to severe budgetary problems and to avoid a naval arms race with France. These financial limitations also forced the Italians to scrap Dante Alighieri in 1928. Nevertheless, the Regia Marina decided to make use of its excess tonnage by the early 1930s, which resulted in the four Littorio-class battleships. Two were finished early in World War II and were used extensively to escort convoys during the North African Campaign. The third ship, Roma, was finished in 1942, but was sunk in September 1943 by a German radio-controlled bomb when Italy surrendered to the Allies. The fourth ship, Impero, was never finished and was instead sunk by American bombers and scrapped after the end of the war. The two surviving ships, Littorio and Vittorio Veneto, were surrendered to the Allies and were later broken up for scrap. Of the surviving members of the Conte di Cavour class, Conte di Cavour was scrapped after the end of the war and Giulio Cesare was surrendered to the Soviet Union as war reparations. Only the two Andrea Doria-class battleships survived in Italian service for any significant length of time after the conclusion of hostilities; both served as training ships until the mid-1950s, when they too were broken up for scrap.

Ammiraglio di Saint Bon class

The first of the Italian Navy's modern battleships, the Ammiraglio di Saint Bon class were smaller than their contemporaries due to limitations imposed by the Italian government and indecision in the naval design staff over what kind of battleship should be built. They were designed under the supervision of Admiral Simone di Pacoret Saint Bon, the namesake of the lead ship, and Benedetto Brin. Ultimately, the ships' small size, weak main battery, and slow speed made them ineffective capital ships, since they were not strong enough to engage foreign battleships, and too slow to catch cruisers.

Both ships served in the active duty squadron early in their careers, and participated in the Italo-Turkish War of 1911–1912. They took part in the Italian offensives in North Africa and the island of Rhodes, but did not see combat with the Ottoman fleet. They were reduced to harbor defense ships by the outbreak of World War I, and spent the war in Venice. The ships were discarded shortly after the end of the war, both having been stricken in 1920.

Regina Margherita class

The pattern of experimentation in Italian capital ship construction continued with the Regina Margherita class. The negative experience with the Ammiraglio di Saint Bon class convinced the constructors, led by Benedetto Brin, to design a larger battleship that could engage its foreign counterparts. The new class was designed specifically to counter the new Habsburg-class battleships of the Austro-Hungarian Navy. For this purpose, the ships were armed with the 12 in gun that had become standard for most pre-dreadnought battleships of the day. As was typical for Italian capital ships of the period, armor protection was reduced in order to secure high speed. Brin died during the construction process, and the Italian Navy named the second vessel after him.

The two ships also saw action in the Italo-Turkish War, alongside the Ammiraglio di Saint Bon class in the 3rd Division of the fleet. Benedetto Brin took part in the attack on Tripoli in October 1911, and both ships were involved in the campaign to seize Rhodes in the eastern Aegean Sea. The Regina Margherita class had become obsolete by the outbreak of World War I and had been reduced to training ships. Both were lost during the war: Benedetto Brin to an internal explosion in Brindisi in September 1915, and Regina Margherita to a German mine in December 1916.

Regina Elena class

The final class of Italian pre-dreadnoughts were designed by Vittorio Cuniberti, the naval architect whose projected design for the first "all-big-gun" battleship would quickly make the Regina Elena class obsolescent. These ships sacrificed two of the 12-inch guns to obtain a powerful secondary battery of twelve 8 in guns. Their high speed—the fastest of any battleship then built, including the revolutionary, turbine-powered HMS Dreadnought (1906)—permitted them to also engage cruisers.

All four ships served in the 1st Division of the Italian fleet during the Italo-Turkish War, and were the workhorses of the operations off North Africa and in the eastern Mediterranean. During World War I, the ships were primarily based in Brindisi, Taranto, and Valona; they saw no action during the war due to the cautious fleet policies adopted by both the Italian and Austro-Hungarian navies. The ships remained in the Italian fleet for a few years after the war, but all were discarded and broken up for scrap by 1927.

Dante Alighieri

Dante Alighieri was the first dreadnought battleship built by the Italian Navy, and was designed by Rear Admiral Edoardo Masdea. Cuniberti's call for heavy artillery arranged to emphasize broadside fire led to the placement of four triple 12-inch gun turrets along the centerline. This allowed a broadside of all twelve guns, while the first generation of British dreadnoughts could only fire eight of their guns on the broadside. Dante Alighieri was the first battleship to mount her main battery in triple turrets, though the Austro-Hungarian SMS Viribus Unitis was completed first.

The ship had a very limited service life. At the outbreak of World War I, she was the flagship of the 1st Battle Squadron, based in Taranto. But due to the policy of restraint adopted by the Italian Navy, Dante Alighieri and the other battleships of the Italian fleet saw no action. Financial limitations in the post-war period forced the navy to scrap the ship to reduce the naval budget. The ship was accordingly stricken on 1 July 1928 and sold for scrap.

Conte di Cavour class

The first design in the second generation of Italian dreadnoughts, the Conte di Cavour class was also designed by Edoardo Masdea. They were ordered in response to the French Courbet-class battleships. They remedied many of the deficiencies of the previous design; the most significant improvement was a dramatically more effective arrangement of the main battery. Ten guns were arranged in twin turrets superfiring over triple turrets forward and aft, and a third triple turret was placed amidships. All thirteen guns could fire on the broadside, but the firing arcs for most of the guns were significantly improved.

The three ships had limited careers during World War I, and did not see action. On the night of 2/3 August 1916, Leonardo da Vinci was sunk by an internal explosion. She was raised in 1919; the navy planned to repair and modernize her, but lacked sufficient funds, and she was sold in 1923. The two surviving ships were heavily rebuilt in the mid-1930s, and both saw action during World War II. On the night of 11/12 November 1940, both ships were attacked by British torpedo bombers in the Battle of Taranto. Conte di Cavour was badly damaged, and had not been fully repaired when Italy surrendered in September 1943. Giulio Cesare meanwhile escaped unscathed, and participated in the battles of Cape Spartivento and First Sirte in November 1940 and December 1941, respectively. After the end of the war, Conte di Cavour was scrapped, and Giulio Cesare was surrendered to the Soviet Union. Renamed Novorossiysk, she was ultimately sunk in October 1955 by an old German mine left over from World War II. Her wreck was later salvaged in 1957 and broken up thereafter.

Andrea Doria class

Vice Admiral Giuseppe Valsecchi was responsible for the next battleship design, the Andrea Doria class. The class comprised two vessels—Andrea Doria and Duilio—and the design was based on the previous Conte di Cavour with minor modifications. These two ships were ordered in response to the French Bretagne-class battleship. As with the Conte di Cavours, the two Andrea Doria-class battleships were significantly modernized in the late 1930s along similar lines: the central turret was removed, the propulsion system was completely replaced with more efficient machinery, and the secondary battery was replaced with new turret-mounted guns.

The two ships entered service in 1916, and were based in Taranto with the rest of the main fleet for the duration of World War I. Both ships were involved in the Corfu incident in 1923. The ships' modernization work was completed after Italy entered World War II. Duilio was damaged at the Battle of Taranto, while Andrea Doria was not hit. Both ships were present at the First Battle of Sirte, though only Andrea Doria engaged British forces. The two ships survived the war, and were the only battleships the Allies permitted Italy to retain after the conclusion of hostilities. They served in the Italian Navy for another decade until they were discarded in the mid-1950s.

Francesco Caracciolo class

The next Italian battleship design represented a major qualitative step forward. The design was prepared by Rear Admiral Edgardo Ferrati, and was intended to match the latest foreign battleships, such as the British Queen Elizabeth-class battleship. The new ships were to be armed with a main battery of eight 15 in guns and had a top speed of 28 kn, much faster than any contemporary design. The Francesco Caracciolo class was ordered in 1914; the lead ship was laid down that year, and the other three vessels were laid down in 1915. After Italy entered World War I in May 1915, work slowed dramatically, as resources were diverted to more pressing needs. Work on the ships stopped completely by March 1916, and the three ships begun in 1915 were scrapped shortly after the end of the war. In 1919, the Italian Navy considered completing Francesco Caracciolo as an aircraft carrier similar to the British HMS Argus (I49) or as a floatplane carrier, but both proposals were too expensive for the cash-strapped navy. Ultimately, she was broken up for scrap in 1926.

Littorio class

The final group of Italian battleships was the Littorio class. These ships, which weighed in excess of 40000 LT standard displacement, violated the naval arms limitation system created by the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922. The ships were armed with a battery of nine 15-inch guns in three triple turrets, and they incorporated a novel underwater protection system designed by Umberto Pugliese. Littorio and Vittorio Veneto were laid down in 1934 and completed in early 1940; a second pair, Roma and Impero, were laid down in 1938. Roma was finished in mid-1942, while Impero was not completed.

The first two ships entered service in August 1940, shortly after Italy joined World War II. Littorio was badly damaged in the November 1940 raid on Taranto, and repairs lasted until March 1941. Vittorio Veneto was undamaged, and later that month took part in the Battle of Cape Spartivento. In March 1941, she was damaged by British torpedo bombers after the inconclusive Battle of Cape Matapan. Both ships were back in action for the First and Second Battle of Sirte in January and March 1942, respectively. By the end of the year, Roma was ready for service and replaced Littorio as the fleet flagship. After Benito Mussolini fell from power in July 1943, Littorio was renamed Italia. During the Italian surrender in September 1943, Roma was hit by a pair of Fritz-X guided glide bombs; her ammunition magazines blew up in a tremendous explosion and she quickly sank. Italia was hit by one Fritz-X and was badly damaged. The United States and Britain received Italia and Vittorio Veneto, respectively, in the peace treaty; both ships were scrapped in the late 1940s, as was the incomplete Impero.

title: List of battleships of Italy


text:
Nez Perce National Historical Park

The Nez Perce National Historical Park is a United States National Historical Park comprising 38 sites located across the states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, which include traditional aboriginal lands of the Nez Perce people. The sites are strongly associated with the resistance of Chief Joseph and his band, who in June 1877 migrated from Oregon in an attempt to reach freedom in Canada and avoid being forced on to a reservation. They were pursued by U.S. Army cavalry forces and fought numerous skirmishes against them during the so-called Nez Perce War, which eventually ended with Chief Joseph's surrender in the Montana Territory.

Nez Perce National Historical Park was established in 1965, and a museum was opened at the park headquarters in Spalding, Idaho, in 1983. The 38 discontiguous sites span three main ecoregions, covering a wide range of elevations and climate. Numerous animal species inhabit the park areas, including several that are considered sensitive.

History
The park commemorates the history, culture, and stories of the Nez Perce. It includes sites associated with the Nez Perce War of 1877, when the people resisted takeover by the United States, and the flight of Chief Joseph and his band. The park is administered overall by the National Park Service, and a number of the sites are managed by other federal and state agencies as well as local communities; the park's headquarters are located in Spalding, Idaho, east of Lewiston.

The park was established by Congress in 1965. Construction of the planned headquarters site and museum at Spalding were delayed by land acquisition and federal funding problems. Soon after construction began in September 1979, Native American graves were discovered at the site. Remains and artifacts were preserved in consultation with the Nez Perce. Construction of the visitor center and museum was later restarted. The museum opened in June 1983.

Sites
The Nez Perce National Historic Park does not follow the format of most national parks, in that it is composed of dozens of sites spread over four states. The 38 sites are linked by the history of the Nez Perce people, rather than by geographic location. Twenty-six of the sites are on or near the Nez Perce Indian Reservation in Idaho and can be toured in one day. Adjacent states hold the other twelve sites.

Several of the sites are connected by the Nez Perce National Historic Trail, managed by the United States Forest Service. It preserves the route taken by Chief Joseph and his band when they tried to reach Canada in 1877.

The sites include:
 * Battle of Bear Paw – Blaine County, Montana
 * Battle of the Clearwater – Idaho County, Idaho
 * Battle of White Bird Canyon – Idaho County, Idaho
 * Big Hole National Battlefield – Beaverhead County, Montana
 * Camas Meadows Battle Sites – Clark County, Idaho
 * Camas Prairie – Idaho County and Lewis County, Idaho
 * Camp Chopunnish – Idaho County, Idaho
 * Joseph Canyon – Wallowa County, Oregon and Asotin County, Washington
 * Old Chief Joseph Gravesite – Wallowa County, Oregon
 * Weippe Prairie – Weippe, Idaho

Ecology
The NPNHP sites cover three main ecoregions. The first, found at the sites in the Palouse grasslands and Missouri Basin, is shortgrass prairie. These flat or slightly rolling prairies include rivers and streams, and have an altitude of about 1000 to 3500 ft. The second, found in the plateaus of the Columbia and Snake rivers, is sagebrush steppe at around 3,000 ft in altitude; it includes lava fields and flows. The third, found in the sites in the Blue Mountains, Salmon River Mountains, southwestern Montana and northern Rocky Mountains, is conifer and alpine meadows. These high-elevation sites have lower temperatures and greater precipitation than the other ecoregions.

Numerous species of mammals, amphibians, reptiles, birds and invertebrates inhabit the various park sites. Several of these species are classified in terms of their status as "threatened," "endangered" or "sensitive" at the state level. Montana Arctic grayling, mountain plover, swift fox, great grey owl, boreal owl and several fish species are all sensitive species that inhabit the park, while gray wolf and bald eagles are sometimes seen. Managers of the park have several ecological concerns including issues of invasive plant species, the degradation of animal habitat due to human activity, the protection of endangered species, and dealing with effects of climate change.

title: Nez Perce National Historical Park


text:
Seaboard System Railroad

The Seaboard System Railroad, Inc. was a US Class I railroad that operated from 1982 to 1986.

Since the late 1960s, Seaboard Coast Line Industries had operated the Seaboard Coast Line and its sister railroads—notably the Louisville & Nashville and Clinchfield—as the "Family Lines System". In 1980, SCLI merged with the Chessie System to create the holding company CSX Corporation; two years later, CSX merged the Family Lines railroads to create the Seaboard System Railroad.

In 1986, Seaboard renamed itself CSX Transportation, which absorbed the Chessie System's two major railroads the following year.

History
The Seaboard System's roots trace back to SCL Industries, a holding company created in 1968 that combined the Seaboard Coast Line's subsidiary railroads into one entity. In 1969, SCL was renamed Seaboard Coast Line Industries, which was known as the Family Lines System from 1972-1982, to better compete with the Southern Railway System. this entity adopted its own logo and colors, but each railroad maintained its own identity. Over time, this caused confusion among customers. In comparison to the neighboring Chessie System, which had four railroads, the Family Lines had six railroads. In 1971 SCL bought out the remaining shares and made the Louisville & Nashville a subsidiary.

On November 1, 1980, Seaboard Coast Lines Industries and Chessie System merged under the holding company CSX Corporation. Over the following seven years, the Chessie and Seaboard's various railroads were gradually merged into one.

The first step came on December 29, 1982, when the Seaboard Coast Line and Louisville & Nashville (under the Family Lines entity) were merged to form the Seaboard System Railroad, Inc.

Considered as a "temporary railroad", the Seaboard System quickly began to merge the smaller railroads that were owned under the Family Lines System entity. This included the Georgia Railroad and the Clinchfield Railroad (1983), South Carolina Pacific Railway (April 30, 1984), Louisville, Henderson & St. Louis Railway (July 1984), Gainesville Midland (1985), Atlanta & West Point Railroad (June 1986) and the Columbia, Newberry & Laurens (June 1986). These mergers simplified equipment and management alongside the Chessie System railroads (Chesapeake & Ohio, Baltimore & Ohio, Western Maryland).

The Seaboard System renamed itself CSX Transportation on July 1, 1986. On April 30, 1987, the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad was merged into the Chesapeake & Ohio. Finally, on August 31, 1987, the Chesapeake & Ohio (still under the Chessie System entity for corporate reasons) was merged into CSX Transportation. All the major railroads under CSX Corporation were now one company. (The Western Railway of Alabama would remain an operating subsidiary until December 2002, when it was finally merged into CSX. )

Equipment colors and painting
After creation of the Family Lines name, SCLI begin painting locomotives in a standardized paint scheme. When the Seaboard System came into being, the new scheme retained the grey, red, and yellow colors were of the Family Lines scheme. The new Seaboard System also had a new logo featuring a coupled variation font of ITC Eras Demi. The first locomotive to be decorated with the new Seaboard System paint scheme was Uceta GP16 #4802 in October 1982. Because the merger did not occur until December, locomotives after October 1982 were to receive the Seaboard System paint scheme with the existing railroad's reporting marks applied.

When the merger officially took effect on January 1, 1983, all former reporting marks were to be either removed or patched with SBD initials. Shortly before taking delivery of the L&N specified EMD SD50's, Seaboard adopted a Swis721 type font for reporting marks and numbers, instead of the customized Seaboard Coast Line lettering seen on pre-1983 repaints. To simplify its locomotive roster and meet Chessie System specifications, Seaboard introduced a numbering system that partially became meshed within the Chessie System locomotive fleet, and removed any existing Mars Lights or Gyralights from locomotives. Any new locomotives purchased by Seaboard would be built to meet Chessie specifications; of which only three, EMD SD50, EMD MP15T and GE B36-7, were ordered.

Heritage Units
In June 2023, GE ES44AH unit #1982 entered service, being repaired and repainted at CSX shops in Waycross, GA with a CSX blue and yellow color scheme on the front (nose) and cab of the locomotive and throughout the rest of the locomotive, the classic grey Seaboard System scheme. It was numbered #1982 in homage to the year the Seaboard System was created. A second heritage unit featuring The Family Lines System, a GE Evolution Series GE ES44AH unit #1972 entered service in March 2024.

Operating divisions
This section lists the operating divisions of the Seaboard System as of January 1, 1985:
 * Atlanta
 * Birmingham
 * Corbin
 * Evansville
 * Florence
 * Jacksonville
 * Louisville
 * Mobile
 * Nashville
 * Raleigh
 * Savannah
 * Tampa

title: Seaboard System Railroad


text:
Talk:Overwatch (military tactic)

For an August 2004 deletion debate over this page see: Votes for deletion/Overwatch

To the author, Weatherman: I realize that this article is new, and Wikipedia needs articles on military topics. See the VfD debate, though: If this is a commonly used military term, we need some evidence of that. Also, the information, if it cannot be expanded, might well be better on a List of military terms article. We no doubt need military information, but at present this is a bit too brief and unexplained. Geogre 13:52, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page was placed on VfD: Discussion resulted in decision to RETAIN: A military term with difficult-to-establish usage. I wrote a note on the article's discussion tab asking the author to expand or consider another manner of providing the information to Wikipedia. Geogre 13:57, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

* Keep. Very common military concept used in any discussion of modern tactics of "fire and maneuver". Current content is a mere definition (and not completely right). I'll try to fix it later. Rossami 15:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) o Comment: That's all I could ask for, Rossami. I sure don't mind being proven wrong, if it means we get good articles on military topics that we've been lacking. Geogre 17:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) * Keep. As above. DJ Clayworth 18:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) * Keep. Even if Rossami does not have time to expand, it is a valuable entry and someone with extensive military knowledge could add great contribution to it (i.e. common usage, historical usage, examples, etc.) Skyler 21:14, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC) * Keep Important military concept, merits expansion, not deletion. -FZ 15:42, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What about the term 'bounding overwatch', where the unit is split into two or more subunits and one moves under cover of the others?

Edit: The statement above, would be the Tactical use of only 'Over-Watch'. But, when the advancing unit stops, and the 'Over-Watch' element moves to advance and passes their lines, then the passed element becomes the 'Over-Watch' element as the last 'Over-Watch' element passes the unit and presses forward. It is a form of Leap-Frogging where the two elements exchange roles as they 'bound' forward. This is the essence 'Bounding Over-Watch'.

One more note: the main page states: 'The term overwatch originates in U.S. military doctrine.'. I was a Tank Commander with the 1st Armored Division (American) in Germany after the Yom Kippur War (1973). We were trained in these tactics by Isreali Tank Commanders in Germany after Yom Kippur. We basically used German WWII tactics (On-Line, Echelon Left or Right, V-Formation...etc) previous to the Isreali training of us. Having trained and qualified with German tanks (Leopard II) and tactics, I am unaware of any German equivilent. While in Germany I was invited to, and became colleagues with retired members of the 35th Panzer Regiment as I am fluent in German. You might read 'Knight's Cross; The 35th Panzer Regiment'. (I happened to be a Tank Commander of the American 3rd Battalion/35th Armored Regiment, 1st Armored Division) and we happened to share the same barracks as they had pre and post WWII). They seemed happy that the Bamberg Kaserne still belonged to the 35th Armored/Panzer. They were keen to warn me about Russia and how sadly our American Supply Trucks would do in the mud. I listened mostly, but I asked questions too. They knew of no such tactics as 'Over-Watch' or 'Bounding Over-Watch' and there are other examples of Isreali tactics not mentioned here. The term, 'Uber Uhr' means no such thing. I too must regretfully doubt Steve Moyer's assertions... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaoticus (talk • contribs) 19:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

-

In German the words "over watch" translate into "Uber Uhr." It is a word which lends itself to a connotation of superiority, as in "taking the high ground and conducting overwatch duty."

It also sounds like the pretext of a justification for continued military presence in Iraq and the presumption that American military might is required to maintain Iraqi government control. Some people might look at this as "propping up a puppet government." While the term "puppet government" doesn't get much play on American news media, it is widely used in Iraq to describe their current government. Perhaps the political solution requires that this perception is changed. It's difficult to see how that will happen while American military forces conduct "overwatch duty."

Steve Moyer http://stevemoyer.us

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.50.254 (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Steve Moyer is scarily prescient. This does look like it's being used for propaganda. Needs verification or deletion. 62.131.79.96 (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Still no sources?
This is a very well written little article -- succinct but descriptive -- but it's still lacking a single reference 8 years in! Can someone remedy? Snow (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 15 July 2016

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. While there is a reasonable case to revert to status quo ante, there are also reasonable arguments that a disambiguation page at the base title is the optimal solution, and that "Overwatch" does not reach "Apple" level in terms of recognizability. Page view statistics would be an interesting metrics for a future RM. No such user (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

– Request to revert undiscussed move by. No evidence has been presented that the video game released less than 2 months ago has taken over the MilHist topic in significance. This is a classic Apple/Apple Inc. situation. SST flyer  13:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Overwatch (military tactic) → Overwatch
 * Overwatch → Overwatch (disambiguation)
 * If it's undiscussed, you can just do it anyway per WP:BRD, and then the initial move has to be discussed, no? Nohomersryan (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support this reversion, for the record. However, there's no need for a formal RM here; you can simply revert it. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, its not just the game, there's also the Australian military unit.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you mean Overwatch Battle Group (West), that title is already sufficiently disambiguated. Also, that article will never be at the plain title Overwatch, so it's not a reason to move this article away from the plain title. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The Overwatch battle group is never going to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Overwatch, yes. But the existence of the group is another reason why the overwatch tactic shouldn't be. Also the Apple/Apple Inc. comparison isn't anywhere close to this one, considering the tactic is nearly a stub.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Quite frankly I'm not sure the military tactic needs its own article, per WP:DICDEF. Just because it came first doesn't guarantee it gets to stay as the primary topic.  Calidum   ¤   05:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Standalone article or redirect?
This used to be an article from 2004 until a bold redirecting in 2021. I don't want to make any statements about notability (this is outside my topic areas), but I'm seeing plenty of uses on Google Books, and the article survived an AfD (in 2004). The topic is also sought by a lot of readers: its entry on the dab page Overwatch receives clickthroughs of the same overall order of magnitude as those for the very popular video game of the same name. A separate article with a few paragraphs of context is more useful to readers than a single-sentence entry in a big list. Because of all that, I intend to restore the article. – Uanfala (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

 * If you have multiple, reliable sources, go for it. Which sources do you plan to use? And what are you using to track dab page clickthroughs? czar  03:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, no, no: I'm not going to make any content changes, this is not my topic area (I came here only because of the ongoing RM on the Overwatch video game). I was simply suggesting restoring this article as it's more useful for readers. I haven't really dug for sources, but I see stuff like this 75-page report entitled Sustaining the Tempo: A New Method of Overwatch . Also, if there's any topical reorganisation to be done, it will probably make sense to merge Bounding overwatch here, or if these two are to be upmerged, then a better target would be the article about the larger topic (Fire and movement?); I'll leave those bigger decisions to others though. The dab clickthroughs are from Wikinav (which shows the most recent month; for older data you'd need the WP:Clickstream). – Uanfala (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That Wikinav link shows the video game receiving 70% of outgoing pageviews so the claim that that's the same magnitude as this concept seems incorrect.
 * And for what it's worth, that linked School of Advanced Military Studies report does not strike me as a source with editorial oversight. I'd be interested in seeing what overabundance of sources we'd be using to write this article and warrant a dedicated page. Based on the coverage I saw previously, I believe we adequately cover the topic within the existing glossary entry. czar  16:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Wikinav link currently shows the clickthroughs for March: 68% for the game and 23% for the tactic. Of the two differ by a ratio of 3x then this indicates they're roughly the same order of magnitude. I continue to believe that reducing the article to a single-sentence definition inside a glossary is not an improvement and that the topic indeed lacks notability then the better course of action is to merge it, possibly along with some of the related topics, into the superordinate article. – Uanfala (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not opposed to merging it, but we should not restore unsourced or poorly sourced content czar  22:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The article's content is consistent with what I glimpsed from my searches. Do you believe anything there is dubious? – Uanfala (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the unsourced paragraph. If there is not enough sourcing to support a dedicated article, I'm not sure what you're proposing. There is nothing to restore here but a dictionary definition. czar  22:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Overwatch (military tactic)


text:
Phlegraean Fields

The Phlegraean Fields (Campi Flegrei, ; Campe Flegree) is a large caldera volcano west of Naples, Italy. It is part of the Campanian volcanic arc, which includes Mount Vesuvius, about 9 km east of Naples. The Phlegraean Fields is monitored by the Vesuvius Observatory. It was declared a regional park in 2003.

The area of the caldera consists of 24 craters and volcanic edifices; most of them lie under the Gulf of Naples. There are effusive gaseous manifestations in the Solfatara crater, which was believed in ancient Rome to be the home of Vulcan, the god of fire. The area features bradyseismic phenomena, which are most evident at the Macellum of Pozzuoli (misidentified as a temple of Serapis): bands of boreholes left by marine molluscs on marble columns show that the level of the site in relation to sea level has varied. Hydrothermal activity can still be observed at Lucrino, Agnano and the town of Pozzuoli.

At present, the Phlegraean Fields area comprises the Naples districts of Agnano and Fuorigrotta, the area of Pozzuoli, Bacoli, Monte di Procida, Quarto, the Phlegraean Islands (Ischia, Procida and Vivara).

The Solfatara crater was accessible on foot until 2017 and contains many steam-emitting fumaroles and over 150 pools (at the last count) of boiling mud. Several subsidiary cones and tuff craters, one filled by Lake Avernus, lie within the caldera.

Geochemistry
The magma underlying the Phlegraean Fields produces lavas of varying composition but generally rich in potassium. Trachyte is the most common eruptive product, unusually alkali-rich in some cases. Peralkaline phonolitic trachyte and latite have also been produced, and there is rare trachybasalt.

Geological phases
Three geological phases or periods are recognised and distinguished.

"The dating of the Campanian Ignimbrite Eruption (CI) to ~37,000 calendar years B.P. draws attention to the coincidence of this volcanic catastrophe and the suite of, Late Pleistocene biocultural changes that occurred within and outside the Mediterranean region. These included the Middle to Upper Paleolithic cultural transition and the replacement of Neanderthal populations by anatomically modern Homo sapiens, a subject of sustained debate. No less than 150 km3 of magma were extruded in this eruption (the CI eruption), traces of which can be detected in Greenland ice cores. As widespread discontinuities in archaeological sequences are observed at or after this eruption, a significant interference with ongoing human processes in Mediterranean Europe is hypothesized."
 * First Phlegraean Period. It is thought that the eruption of the Archiflegreo volcano occurred about 39,280 ± 110 years (older estimate ~37,000 years) ago, erupting about 200 km3 of magma (500 km3 bulk volume) to produce the Campanian Ignimbrite eruption. Its Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) was 7 and it left a large part of eastern Europe covered in ash.

 * It is believed that the resulting ecological crisis wiped out both the last Neanderthal and the first Homo Sapiens populations of the early Upper Paleolithic. Modern humans then repopulated Europe from the east after the eruption and the ice age that took place from 38,000 to 36,000 BC.

 * The Phlegrean area is characterised by banks of piperno and pipernoid grey tuff at Camaldoli hill, as in the northern and western ridge of Mount Cumae; other referable deep products are those found at Monte di Procida, recognizable in the cliffs of its coast.

 * Second Phlegraean Period, between 35,000 and 10,500 years ago. This is characterized by the Neapolitan yellow tuff that is the remains of an immense underwater volcano, with a diameter of c. 15 km; Pozzuoli is at its centre. Approximately 12,000 years ago the last major eruption occurred, forming a smaller caldera inside the main caldera, with its centre where the town of Pozzuoli lies today.
 * Third Phlegraean Period, between 8,000 and 500 years ago. This is characterized by white pozzolana, the material that forms the majority of volcanos in the Fields. Broadly speaking, it can be said there was initial activity to the southwest in the zone of Bacoli and Baiae (10,000–8,000 years ago); intermediate activity in an area centred between Pozzuoli, Spaccata Mountain and Agnano (8,000–3,900 years ago); and more recent activity towards the west, which formed Lake Avernus and Monte Nuovo (New Mountain) (3,800–500 years ago).

Volcanic deposits indicative of eruption have been dated by argon at  315,000, 205,000, 157,000 and 18,000  years ago.

More recent history

In 1538, an eight-day eruption in the area deposited enough material to create a new hill, Monte Nuovo. It has risen about 2 m from ground level since 1970.

The volcanic island of Ischia suffered three destructive earthquakes in 1828, 1881, and the most destructive one in 1883, with a magnitude of 4.2–5.2 and causing catastrophic shaking assigned XI (Extreme) on the MCS scale. Extreme damage was reported on the island, and over 2,000 residents perished.

A 2009 journal article stated that deformation of the caldera centre near Pozzuoli might presage an eruptive event within decades. In 2012 the International Continental Scientific Drilling Program planned to drill 3.5 km below the earth's surface near Pompeii, in order to monitor the massive molten rock chamber below and provide early warning of any eruption. Local scientists were worried that drilling could precipitate an eruption or earthquake; programme scientists said it was no different from industrial drilling in the area. The drilling was halted in 2010, but later resumed. A Reuters article emphasized that the area could produce a "super volcano" that might kill millions.

A study from the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia reported that the volcanic unrest of the Campi Flegrei caldera from January 2012 to June 2013 was characterised by rapid ground uplift of about 11 cm, with a peak rate of about 3 cm per month during December 2012. It added that from 1985 to 2011 the dynamics of ground uplift were mostly linked to the caldera's hydrothermal system, and that this relation broke down in 2012. The driving mechanism of the ground uplift changed to periodical emplacement of magma within a flat sill-shaped magmatic reservoir about 3000 m in depth, 500 m south from the port of Pozzuoli.

In December 2016, activity became so high that an eruption was feared. In May 2017 a new study by University College London and the Vesuvius Observatory published in Nature Communications concluded that an eruption might be closer than previously thought. The study found that the geographical unrest since the 1950s has a cumulative effect, causing a build-up of energy in the crust and making the volcano more susceptible to eruption.

On 21 August 2017 there was a magnitude 4 earthquake on the western edge of the Campi Flegrei area. Two people were killed and many more people injured in Casamicciola on the northern coast of the island of Ischia, which is south of the epicentre.

Activity since 2020
The reason for the seismicity and bulging ground is not known. According to one model, called in a Scientific American article the shallow magma model, magma is pushing to break through the surface, making an explosive eruption with magma flow likely. In what has been termed the hot fluids model, steam and hot gases generated deeper underground are the cause; in this case activity could stop abruptly, or lead to a phreatic eruption of hot liquids, gases and rock fragments, rather than lava. While very dangerous, it is less so than a magma eruption. An answer to this question would help to estimate how likely this volcano, and other large volcanoes and supervolcanoes, are to erupt, and what warning signs to look out for.

A February 2020 status report indicated that earth uplift around Pozzuoli continued at steady rates, with a maximum average of 0.7 cm per month since July 2017. Gas emissions and fumarole temperatures did not change significantly. In May 2024 the ground was reported to be rising by 2 cm per month, with the rate increasing.

On April 26, 2020, a moderate earthquake swarm hit Campi Flegrei caldera, with about 34 earthquakes ranging between magnitude 0 and magnitude 3.1 centred around the port city of Pozzuoli. The strongest quake in the sequence was of magnitude 3.1, the strongest at the time since the last major period of unrest and rapid uplift in 1982-1984. However, no new fumaroles were reported.

Volcanic activity was reported in January 2022 to be increasing. In the year to September 2023 seismic activity had intensified, particularly in the later months. On 27 September 2023, a magnitude 4.2 earthquake—the strongest in 40 years—prompted the preparation of contingency plans to evacuate up to 360,000 people in the area. Despite a further 4.0 quake on 2 October, most volcanologists consider that a major eruption is not expected imminently. The best-case scenario was deemed to be the activity ending, as happened after much activity on the 1980s; the worst would be an eruption like the one of 1538. A study by Italy's National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology (INGV) and University College London (UCL) in June 2023 concluded that the volcano was edging towards "breaking point" and in an "extremely dangerous state". Nello Musumeci, Italian minister for civil protection, was to ask Neapolitan local officials for an "acceleration in the drafting of exodus plans in the event of an emergency"; he said that evacuation would only be carried out in the event of "extreme necessity". Mass evacuation plans were to be tested at the end of May 2024.

Intense seismic activity continues in 2024. On 20 May 2024, seismic activity intensified, with a swarm of 150 earthquakes in a few hours, one of magnitude 4.4 causing fear among the population of Pozzuoli and some cracks and minor damage to buildings. Schools and a prison were evacuated.

Geoheritage designation
In respect of its 18th and 19th century role in the development of geoscience, not least volcanology, this locality was included by the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) in its assemblage of 100 'geological heritage sites' around the world in a listing published in October 2022.

Wine
Italian wine, both red and white, under the Campi Flegrei DOC appellation comes from this area. Grapes destined for DOC production must be harvested up to a maximum yield of 12 tonnes/hectare for red grape varieties, and 13 t/ha for white grape varieties. The finished wines need to be fermented to a minimum alcohol level of 11.5% for reds and 10.5% for whites. While most Campi Flegrei wines are blends, varietal wines can be made from individual varieties, provided the variety used comprises at least 90% of the blend and the wine is fermented to at least 12% alcohol for reds and 11% for whites.

Red Campi Flegrei is a blend of 50–70% Piedirosso, 10–30% Aglianico and/or Sciascinoso and up to 10% of other local (both red and white) grape varieties. The whites are composed of 50–70% Falanghina, 10–30% Biancolella and/or Coda di Volpe, with up to 30% of other local white grape varieties.

Cultural importance
Campi Flegrei has had strategic and cultural importance.
 * The area was the site of quarries for piperno stone, an ignimbrite (welded tuff), a stone that was used to build much of Naples; piperno "is probably the most important building stone of Naples, used over a time-span from at least the Roman age until the beginning of the 20th century." Piperno stone was used in the construction of Pompeii, along with other stone including Naples yellow tuff, foamy basalt, and limestone.
 * The area was known to the ancient Greeks, who had a colony nearby at Cumae, the seat of the Cumaean Sibyl.
 * The beach of Miliscola, in Bacoli, was the Roman military academy headquarters.
 * Lake Avernus was believed to be an entrance to the underworld, and is portrayed as such in the Aeneid of Virgil. During the civil war between Octavian and Antony, Agrippa tried to turn the lake into a military port, the Portus Julius.
 * Baiae, now partially submerged, was a fashionable coastal resort and was the site of summer villas of Julius Caesar, Nero, and Hadrian (who died there).
 * In Pozzuoli is the Flavian Amphitheatre, the third-largest Italian amphitheatre after the Colosseum and the Capuan Amphitheatre.
 * The Via Appia passed through the comune of Quarto, entirely built on an extinguished crater.
 * The Cave of Dogs, a famous tourist attraction during the early modern period, is on the eastern side of the Fields.
 * Europe's youngest mountain, Monte Nuovo, is here. A WWF oasis lies beside the enormous Astroni crater.
 * The tombs of Agrippina the Elder and Scipio Africanus are here.
 * At Baiae, now in the comune of Bacoli, the most ancient hot spring complex was built for the richest Romans. It included the largest ancient dome in the world before the construction of the Roman Pantheon.
 * Astronomical broadcaster and writer Patrick Moore used to cite these Fields as an example of why the impact craters on the Moon must be of volcanic origin, which was thought to be the case until the 1960s.
 * There is a theory that the Campanian Ignimbrite super-eruption around about 39,280 ± 110 years ago contributed to the extinction of the Neanderthals, based on evidence from Mezmaiskaya cave in the Caucasus Mountains of southern Russia.

title: Phlegraean Fields


text:
Szlachtowa Ruthenia

Ruś Szlachtowska (Shlakhtov Ruthenia) was a name introduced in 1930s by Prof. Roman Reinfuss to denote the region surrounding the villages of Biała and Czarna Woda, Jaworki, and Szlachtowa in the Grajcarek valley in the Pieniny mountains, in the Nowy Targ County of southern Poland.

The region was the westernmost area inhabited by Lemkos. It was separated from the rest of the Lemko Region by the Polish-dominated Poprad valley which led to isolation of the local population and its gradual assimilation with Poles and Slovaks, until Operation Vistula in 1947, when the Lemkos were deported together with the Ukrainians and Boykos to other areas of Poland and to the Soviet Union. Since then, the villages of Jaworki and Szlachtowa were gradually settled by Polish population from Podhale and Spisz, and the remaining two villages do not exist today.

It is not known for certain when the first settlers arrived in the valley, but it was probably not before the 15th century because Jan Długosz states nothing about the settlement in his Liber beneficiorum.

title: Szlachtowa Ruthenia


text:
Sociology of disaster

Sociology of disaster or sociological disaster research is a sub-field of sociology that explores the social relations amongst both natural and human-made disasters. Its scope includes local, national, and global disasters - highlighting these as distinct events that are connected by people through created displacement, trauma, and loss. These connections, whether that is as a survivor, working in disaster management, or as a perpetrator role, is non-discrete and a complex experience that is sought to be understood through this sub-field. Interdisciplinary in nature, the field is closely linked with environmental sociology and sociocultural anthropology.

Overview
Many studies in the field of sociology of disaster focus on the link between social solidarity and the vulnerabilities exposed by disasters. Scholarship in this field has observed how such events can produce both social solidarity and social conflict,  and more importantly, expose inequalities inherent in the social order by exponentially exacerbating its effects. Studies investigating the emotional impact of disaster state that the emotional responses in these contexts are inherently adaptive. These emotions, when reflected on and processed, lead to post traumatic growth, resilience, increased altruism, and engagement with community.

Early disaster research established the mainstream parameters of what it is to do such research - i.e. a focus on solidarity arising in the aftermath of disasters and that disasters are a consequence of human maladaptation to the hazardous environment.

title: Sociology of disaster


text:
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad

The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad was a Class I railroad company operating in the Southeastern United States beginning in 1967. Its passenger operations were taken over by Amtrak in 1971. Eventually, the railroad was merged with its affiliate lines to create the Seaboard System in 1983.

At the end of 1970, SCL operated 9,230 miles of railroad, not including A&WP-Clinchfield-CN&L-GM-Georgia-L&N-Carrollton; that year it reported 31,293 million ton-miles of revenue freight and 512 million passenger-miles.

History
The Seaboard Coast Line emerged on July 1, 1967, following the merger of the Seaboard Air Line Railroad with the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad. The combined system totaled 9809 mi, the eighth largest in the United States at the time. The railroad had $1.2 billion in assets and revenue with a 54% market share of rail service in the Southeast, facing competition primarily from the Southern. The seemingly redundant name resulted from the longstanding short-form names of these two major Southeastern railroads. For years, SAL had been popularly known as "Seaboard," while ACL was known as "the Coast Line."

Prior to the creation of Amtrak on May 1, 1971, the Seaboard Coast Line provided passenger service over much of its system, including local passenger trains on some lines. Local trains ended when the Amtrak era began. Although several named passenger trains survived through the Amtrak era, many were renamed or combined with other services.

The first expansion for the Seaboard Coast Line came in 1969 with the acquisition of the Piedmont and Northern Railway, which operated about 128 mi in North and South Carolina. SCL would buy out the remaining shares and gain control of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad in 1971, and also bought the Durham and Southern Railway from the Duke family in 1979.

On November 1, 1980, CSX Corporation was created as a holding company for the Family Lines and Chessie System Railroad. Effective January 1, 1983, the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad became Seaboard System Railroad after a merger with the Louisville and Nashville Railroad and Clinchfield Railroad. For some years prior to this, the SCL and L&N had been under the common ownership of a holding company, Seaboard Coast Line Industries (SCLI), the company's railroad subsidiaries being collectively known as the Family Lines System which consisted of the L&N, SCL, Clinchfield and West Point Routes. During this time, the railroads adopted the same paint schemes but continued to operate as separate railroads.

In 1983, CSX combined the Family Lines System units as the Seaboard System Railroad and later CSX Transportation when the former Chessie units merged with the Seaboard in December 1986.

New York - Florida

 * Silver Meteor, inaugurated February 2, 1939
 * Inherited from SAL. Initially an all-coach train (Pullman sleepers added in 1941), first streamliner to serve Florida, New York to Tampa/St. Petersburg and Miami. Trains continued beyond Tampa to Sarasota and Venice. Preserving its reputation as "one of the finest [trains] in the country," the train retained its round-ended observation cars until Amtrak took over operation in 1971. Still in Amtrak service today with updated equipment.

 * Silver Star, inaugurated December 12, 1947
 * Inherited from SAL. Streamliner, coach and Pullman cars, New York to Tampa/St. Petersburg and Miami. Still in Amtrak service, with updated equipment.

 * Champion, December 1, 1939 - October 1, 1979
 * Inherited from ACL. Streamliner, coach and Pullman cars, New York to Tampa/St. Petersburg and Miami. Initially continued by Amtrak, it was discontinued in 1979.

 * Gulf Coast Special, 1920's – April 30, 1971
 * Inherited from ACL. Coach and Pullman cars, New York – Tampa. The train was not continued by Amtrak in 1971.

 * Everglades, 1940's – April 30, 1971
 * Inherited from ACL. All-coach, New York – Jacksonville. The train was not continued by Amtrak in 1971.

 * Palmland, Winter 1941 – April 30, 1971
 * Inherited from SAL. Coach and Pullman cars, New York – St.Petersburg/Miami. The route was cut back to Columbia, South Carolina as the southern terminus by in 1968, and the train was not continued by Amtrak in 1971.

 * Sunland, Winter 1948 – December 1968
 * Inherited from SAL. Coach and Pullman cars, New York – Tampa/Miami. Connections in Washington to New York and Boston. The route was cut back to Jacksonville, Florida as the southern terminus in February 1968, and later discontinued in December.

Winter Only

 * Florida Special, Late 1800's - Spring 1972
 * Inherited from ACL. Streamliner, coach and Pullman cars, New York to Tampa/St. Petersburg and Miami. Initially continued by Amtrak, it was discontinued after the 1971-1972 winter season.

Miscellaneous

 * Silver Comet, May 18, 1947 – October 15, 1969
 * Inherited from SAL. Streamliner, coach and Pullman cars, New York – Birmingham via Athens and Atlanta. The train was cut back to Washington – Atlanta only by January 1969, then to Richmond – Atlanta only by May, and finally discontinued October 15, 1969.

 * Gulf Wind, July 31, 1949 – April 30, 1971
 * Inherited from SAL. Coach and Pullman cars, Jacksonville – New Orleans via Tallahassee, Pensacola and Mobile. Handled jointly by SCL and the Louisville and Nashville Railroad, with motive power changed at Chattahoochee. The train was not continued by Amtrak in 1971.

 * Tidewater, November 1, 1953 – February 1968
 * Inherited from SAL. Streamliner, coach and Pullman cars, Portsmouth, Virginia – Jacksonville, Florida, forwarding cars to the Silver Comet at Hamlet, North Carolina. Ferries would transport passengers between Norfolk and Portsmouth. Coach only by 1968.

 * Palmetto, 1944 – 1968
 * Inherited from ACL. All-coach, New York – Savannah. The name and route was later revived by Amtrak in 1976 and still operates today.

Juice Train
Juice Train is the popular name for famous unit trains of Tropicana fresh orange juice operated by railroads in the United States. On June 7, 1970, beginning on Seaboard Coast Line railroad, a mile-long Tropicana Juice Train began carrying one million gallons of juice with one weekly round-trip from Bradenton, Florida to Kearny, New Jersey, in the New York City area. The trip spanned 1250 mi one way, and the 60 car train was the equivalent of 250 trucks.

Today it is no longer operated by SCL successor CSX Transportation, a victim of CSX’s PSR operating philosophy. Tropicana refrigerated boxcars are still transported between Florida and New Jersey, however they are now mixed in with Intermodal trains. In the past, the Juice Trains have been the focus of efficiency studies and awards as examples of how modern rail transportation can compete successfully against trucking and other modes to carry perishable products.

Motive power
Immediately following the 1967 merger, the newly created SCL network had 1,232 locomotives. The vast majority of the ACL roster contained EMD (Electro-Motive Division of General Motors) locomotives in addition to some General Electric (GE) and Alco models as well as Baldwin switchers, while the SAL rostered mainly EMD and Alco diesels in addition to some GE models and Baldwin switchers. Both railroads had purchased new freight locomotives in the 5 years leading up to the merger. Among the first new locomotives purchased by the Seaboard Coast Line were 28 GE U33B locomotives, acquired in 1967 and 1968. These were followed by 108 GE U36B locomotives between 1970 and 1972. From EMD, SCL purchased SD45 locomotives in 1968, with more to follow in 1971. SD45-2 locomotives were added in 1974. GP40 and GP40-2 locomotives were added to the fleet between 1968 and 1972 for use on through freights and other high priority freight trains. All former SAL locomotives ran for many years in the "Split-image" scheme, still in full SAL paint, but relettered and renumbered SCL. Two GP-7's 915 & 981 went from pure SAL to SCL Black without being in split-image and GP-7 944 and RS-3 1156 were never painted black, and retained their SAL paint until retired in 1976. The last operating SCL locomotive in SAL paint was GP-40 1559, former SAL 644, and was repainted at Hamlet, NC in March 1976 according to records. There were former P&N locomotives that retained their P&N scheme from 1969 until 1977, only RS-3's 1250 & 1256 and S-4 230 ever were repainted SCL black.

Gainesville Midland SD-40, retained its SAL paint until 1986 when it was repainted Seaboard System 8300, it had been SBD 0010 and 8300 in SAL style "split-image" for several years prior to that.

SCL supplemented its local freight units with orders of GE U18B and EMD GP38-2 locomotives. Some U18B models contained a shorter, and therefore lighter, fuel tank which proved ideal for light density lines. Most units of this type were assigned to the Carolinas. However, in 1978 the SCL decided not to purchase any more locomotives for local service on secondary mainlines and branchlines, instead aging GP7, GP9, and GP18 locomotives would be rebuilt into GP16 models at the Uceta shops.

In the years leading up to the creation of the Seaboard System in 1983, SCL began acquiring the next generation of locomotives from EMD and GE. These orders included GE B23-7 locomotives in 1978 and 1980, including the GE BQ23-7 variant, of which only 10 were built and all belonged to SCL. EMD GP38-2 units were added in 1979 and 1980, and 5 EMD GP40-2 locomotives also delivered in 1980. Six axle GE C30-7 and EMD SD40-2 units were added to the roster between 1979 and 1980.

title: Seaboard Coast Line Railroad


text:
Talk:Southeast Europe

Southeastern Europe
24.189.3.230 said BUT: they're different, that's like saying a Canadian is the same thing as a South African!!!!

 * Uhh, except that it isn't. The terms are synonymous in the real world regardless of your "subregion" agenda. --Joy [shallot]   13:56, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Request to merge with Balkans
User:Dbachmann requested that this article should be merged with Balkans, without giving any reason.

 * I Oppose the request. If this article can be shown to have merit, in some models it describes an area that is bigger than the Balkans. --Red King (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Support. Absolutely. Southeastern Europe is Chechnya or Georgia. The Balkans may be Central-South. --Lysytalk 19:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Support It even states in the introduction of this article that it is a name for the balkans. This whole article is just a different name for the Balkans, and merging them would make both articles better. A section in the merged article about names would be a useful addition too. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose. These are 2 different regions. Southeast Europe may be considered Balkans as Balkans is clearly within this part of Europe, however, SE also encompasses countries outside the Balkans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.32.36.43 (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Gsarwa (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. But Balkan should be redirecting to Southeast Europe due to the last term is neutral term should we have to use.

 * Support. Given that this article is simple about an alternative term for the Balkans, I do not see why it merits a separate page. Furthermore, it seems that the creators do not have many things to fill the article with as half of the content is about obscure EU initiatives, etc.--Bucharwm (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose. The Southeastern Europe is a completely different term from Balkans. Balkans is just a peninsula in Southeastern Europe, but not the region itself. Yes, Southeast Europe mostly covers the Balkans, but not only the peninsula. There is a reason why both words exist and they DO NOT mean the same thing. I think that these two pages MUSTN'T be merged by any chance! We want Wikipedia to be accurate and correct! Filipdr (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose for now. The article seems to cover more than just the balkans Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

From a political standpoint....that's another discussion. Numaru7 (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose . Geographically speaking the distances from Romania (where i'm from), to the N,W,E,S points of Europe (these can be found here for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_points_of_Europe ) are (using: http://www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-distance-calculator.htm): 1000km to the south in Greece, 2800 To Portugal in the West, 2800 To Norway in the North, and approx 2700-2800 to the Ural Mountains - not taking islands into consideration. So...by this definition Romania is in south-central(roughly) Europe and everything underneath it is South Europe - which means the Balkans ofc. So...South-eastern Europe would be...actually just the Black Sea and the region North of the Caucasus.

 * Oppose. Unlike the Balkan peninsula definition, Southeastern Europe includes the entirety of Slovenia and Croatia within the definition of Southeastern Europe.--R-41 (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: What happened with this discussion? Reached anywhere? --E4024 (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"Extended sense"
I'm removing this section as I have waited more than three weeks and the material is still absolutely unreferenced. This theory is listed at the Balkans article:"The father of the term 'The Balkans' August Zeune defined it in 1808 to describe areas that remained under Turkish rule after 1699." This is about the Balkans, NOT Southeast Europe and countries like Hungary, Slovakia, Austria are not included in this definition. Squash Racket (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I also oppose, as in economic sense, used by companies Southeastern European market is (most cases) fall under the umbrella of countries including Slovenia, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, sometimes Austria (as listed by Squash Racket), and is used similarly like EMEA (Europe, Middle-East & Africa). 164.129.1.42 (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If Austria or Hungary are in Southeastern Europe, then where would countries like Georgia, Azerbaijan or Chechnya be ? --Lysytalk 19:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Those countries are usually considered the Caucasus region. Goustien (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Criteria??
Which of the mentioned criteria is used to list the SEE Countries? The way it looks now - no criteria at all. One must take one or more criteria and then list the countries. I suggest to use UN as a reliable source. Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request (Ref. 6)
Ref 6 is not reachable. Could someone correct it please? Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Done! --79.160.40.10 (talk) 11:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Balkan Music
Balkan Music has a typical rhythm. It is neither European nor Asian but a very fine fusion of both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbx911 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

New changes
your new changes in article has been reverted because southeast-europe.net is not reliable source. Map on page concerns "South East Europe Transnational Cooperation Programme", not geographical things. Also, Slovakia and Austria (see map in source) lies in South East Europe? Absurd. According to Wikipedia:CYCLE, before new controversial changes must to be discuss and consensus. your change is also controversial. Noseamuseos and Tanper - both, please not continue the edit-war. Discuss please, below. Subtropical -man  talk   (en-2)   23:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Changes after 16 August 2014 has been reverted, discuss and consensus first. Subtropical -man   talk   (en-2)   23:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

 * I've already provided a reliable source from CIA that put Croatia within Southeast Europe under Geography section Croatia but the reverts continue. Noseamuseos (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Slovenia and Croatia are both generally excluded due to their political, economical and cultural differences and the geographical connection is somewhat vague.

Noseamuseos' reasoning concernig Turkey is flawed since Turkish part in SE Europe has more population than Slovenia and Croatia combined and more land mass. Not to mention its cultural influences on neighbouring countries. Few sources could list Slovenia or Croatia as SE country, but the general consensus is that they are not. There are numerous sources listing them as Central European. Tanper (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Slovenia is not part of the question here. Romania has very small population but is included. The geography is important here. Plus I've already provided a reliable source from CIA (I hope you are not Anti-American) that put Croatia within Southeast Europe under its Geography section Croatia From the CIA source - "Location: Southeastern Europe, bordering the Adriatic Sea, between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Slovenia" Noseamuseos (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

 * And here we have Croatia in Central Europe. As I noted, you can find few sources saying otherwise, but the general census is as it is. Romania is Eastern / South Eastern, that does not relate to Croatia. Tanper (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

 * 1. One more reliable source from UN agency: "Croatia: 2014 UNHCR regional operations profile - South-Eastern Europe." 2. Plus my previous reliable source from CIA: "Location: Southeastern Europe, bordering the Adriatic Sea, between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Slovenia." Croatia Noseamuseos (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Croatia is traditionally counted to the western balkans and with this also to southeast europe. It is also counted into central europe if cultural and historical relations are counted in. I have now put some sources into the article for croatia as part of southeast europe. Kind regards Seader (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice section title. Eric talk 03:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the whole "significant" and "partial" part under "Definition" section
There's been way too many OR and personal opinion edits on this, mostly from IP users from countries that don't want to see their respective countries be identified with and/or included in the broader definition of the peninsula, in any way whatsoever. This is presumably because of the widespread negative view of the region. So, to avoid this "edit clashing", I suggest just including all countries in one coherent list, rather than dividing them by territorial percentages which seem more or less arbitrary. ProKro (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Urban's comment on this article
Dr. Urban has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"Some background information on the Stability Pact such as the breakup of former Yugoslavia and the wars on the Balkan Peninsula are missing."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Urban has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

 * Reference : Vasily Astrov & Vladimir Gligorov & Peter Havlik & Mario Holzner & Gabor Hunya & Anna Iara & Sebastian Leitner & Zdenek Lukas & Anton Mihailov & Olga Pindyuk & Leon Podkaminer & Josef Poschl & Sandor, 2009. "Differentiated Impact of the Global Crisis," wiiw Forecast Reports 3, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Holzner's comment on this article
Dr. Holzner has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"There are hardly any additional informations apart from the issue of the definition of the region."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Holzner has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

 * Reference : Vasily Astrov & Serkan Cicek & Rumen Dobrinsky & Vladimir Gligorov & Doris Hanzl-Weiss & Peter Havlik & Mario Holzner & Gabor Hunya & Sebastian Leitner & Olga Pindyuk & Leon Podkaminer & Sandor Richte, 2014. "On Thin Ice: CESEE Core Resilient in the Face of EU Stagnation and the Ukraine Crisis," wiiw Forecast Reports Autumn2014, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Top illustration
There has been many discussions in different "X-ern Europe" articles about maps purporting to illustrate the region. Since many of these articles actually use a lot of space to discuss different definitions, and since none of these regions are well-defined, it has generally been concluded that any map showing a specific definition is not suitable as a top illustration. In this case, the CIA World Facebook classification map is just one of many possible classification. It is a good idea to use the map, but it will have to be in a separate subsection under the "Definition" section. I have reinserted the former top map and created a new subsection for the CIA classification.

Regarding the other map presented with caption "Countries in Southeast Europe", I have again removed it. For one thing, it is of very low technical quality. Secondly, it is inaccurate (colouring parts of Greece and Bulgaria as Turkish). And thirdly, it is not consistent with any of the definitions of SE Europe presented in the article. --T*U (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Still, the map of south-eastern Europe is not similar to that of the Balkans (used in the corresponding article). (Rgvis (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC))
 * The definitions of neither Balkans nor Southern Europe are well-defined, and they may or may not coincide. My main concern is to secure that we do not give the impression of pushing one specific definition. I am happy with your current edits, since they are quite helpful in this regard. Thanks! --T*U (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Infobox
Should we include an infobox here. I feel it would be a good visual and would benefit this article greatly.2600:100C:A211:38E7:3099:5E76:3DC8:D156 (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Kalmykhia
Haven't you looked at it map of Europe? The longest river in Europe is the Volga, which flows into the Caspian Sea. That is wher South Eastern Europe is. PS Anatolia is in Western Asia Stop being stupid 46.97.168.251 (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Geographical Southeast Europe - source?
In the section "Geographical Southeast Europe" there is a list of countries that are, according to the text, "geographically, at least partially, described to be within the region". A source is given: as well as pages 1-3 where the reader is supposed to find this information. I am reading the source right now and the term "Southeast Europe" isn't mentioned anywhere on those pages, nor is there a list of countries belonging to said region. I might be missing something so please correct me if I am wrong. In case nobody corrects me I will deem the section to be unsourced and consequently delete it. —  GeographieMan [ ~MSG~ ] 18:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

 * I've now removed the unsourced part; additionaly I found out that not ony doesn't the main (Barbara Jelavich) source mention anything about Southeast Europe on pages 1-3, so don't (for example) three sources given for Cyprus. I have also added a new sourced section called "Standing Committee on Geographical Names" which is used in almost every other article describing Europe's subregions. —  GeographieMan [ ~MSG~ ] 14:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Croatian status
I understand you are quoting a paper when you classify Croatia as Central Europe by cultural criteria, but that doesn't make it factually correct. There is no comparison between the cultural similarities of Croatia and other Southeastern European countries and the cultural similarities of Croatia and Hungary, Germany, Poland, Slovakia, Austria, etc. (Central European countries). Croatians have almost the same language as Bosnians and Serbians, share the same traditions, have similar traditional meals, and so much more. Whoever wrote the paper you are quoting either has no idea what they were writing or has an agenda to distance Croatia from other Southeastern European countries by spreading misinformation. Since Wikipedia is about facts, I don't think misinformation should have a place on this site, regardless of who wrote it. 176.220.89.185 (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Croatia
Claiming that Croatia is culturally closer to Germany, Poland, Austria, etc. than it is to Serbia and Bosnia and Hercegovina is beyond rediculous. 176.220.89.185 (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Southeast Europe


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overwatch

A military term with difficult-to-establish usage. I wrote a note on the article's discussion tab asking the author to expand or consider another manner of providing the information to Wikipedia. Geogre 13:57, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very common military concept used in any discussion of modern tactics of "fire and maneuver".  Current content is a mere definition (and not completely right).  I'll try to fix it later.  Rossami 15:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's all I could ask for, Rossami. I sure don't mind being proven wrong, if it means we get good articles on military topics that we've been lacking. Geogre 17:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. As above. DJ Clayworth 18:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even if Rossami does not have time to expand, it is a valuable entry and someone with extensive military knowledge could add great contribution to it (i.e. common usage, historical usage, examples, etc.) Skyler 21:14, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Important military concept, merits expansion, not deletion. -FZ 15:42, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)