text:
Talk:Saint-Chamond (tank)

Style
while informative, this article needs a lot of typos corrected

Copyright violation
The article is largely cut-and-pasted from here. Could someone do a rewrite, so that good-faith editors' workj on it isn't wasted? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * The article in question is actually from here in the first place. This article needs work though (probably written from the French originally) and some reading in books has given me extra insight into the process of the development of the St C.GraemeLeggett
 * Or possibly the Dutch if the entry in nl.wikipedia.org is anything to go by - Lots of info there - but I can't read it. GraemeLeggett

 * Oh, good grief, how did I miss the reference to Wikipedia at the end? That'll teach me to edit when I'm overtired. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Movement
I shall move the whole article to St Chamond (tank) as that fits better with the naming schemes. a) the full stop is not English usage, b) St Chamond is also the armaments company that built it. GraemeLeggett 16:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I've written the Dutch article - and that is indeed the source of the English one - also written by me. :o) The Dutch article reflects the newest French insights, mainly the work of Jeudy. I'm afraid most of the information repeated in English books since the past ninety years is simply wrong or at least distorted. It's in fact an extreme condensation of French newspaper reports of the twenties when there was a big row between several French politicians and soldiers. So, though you have greatly improved my (indeed very poor) English, the factual content has, alas, deteriorated. I'll remove those parts now known to be incorrect.

MWAK--84.27.81.59 14:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Looks better now. GraemeLeggett

 * Thank you! I'll add some more info.

MWAK--84.27.81.59 08:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

St Chamond v. Schneider
My understanding is that the St. Chamond was intended to be superior to the Schneider. The Schneider was based on a lengthened Holt caterpillar tractor. The designers of the St. Chamond certainly took the same protoype chassis but deliberately set out to improve upon the Schneider.

Hengistmate (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Well, at first the company had simply been given the order to produce another four hundred units of the same vehicle. That then the chassis had to be made longer than with the Schneider had its cause in industrial rivalry. The larger chassis again allowed for a bigger gun which of course was presented as an improvement — indeed as such the firepower was enormously increased. But that a much heavier vehicle was created beyond Army specifications was caused by the interests of the designer (a larger and more complex vehicle is more expensive and increases potential profits) and rivalry between the Army and the administration (people tried to increase their power and status by extending their influence on the project). That St Chamond actually bribed certain persons is, though not unlikely, apparently hard to prove :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Several Misapprehensions
The name of the tank was Saint-Chamond, named after the location of the manufacturer's installation. It was not St Chamond, St. Chamond, or Saint Chamond.

It was a result not of commercial rivalry but of Army inter-departmental rivalry.

It was not replaced by British heavy tanks. It served until the end of the War. The French acquired some British heavy tanks but did not use them in action.

It was produced not by "Saint Chamond" (sic) but by Forges et Aciéries de la Marine et d'Homécourt (FAMH). Saint-Chamond was the name of the model.

The reference to "caterpillar tractors that were already employed in France for towing heavy artillery" is not strictly accurate. The British used them in large numbers, but prior to the design of the Saint-Chamond the only use by the French was an isolated improvisation by an officer using tractors that were his own property. Caterpillar tractors to tow or carry artillery pieces were under construction or at the design stage. The Saint-Chamond did not use "tracks from the American-made Holt caterpillar tractors" but used a similar, French-designed version derived from the Holt system.

"The tank produced by Saint Chamond" was not "meant to be identical to the Schneider CA." It originated from the same experimental vehicle but was specifically designed to be what the French Army's Service Automobile considered superior.

The Saint-Chamond was not fitted with spaced armour, nor was it adapted as a recovery tank "to tow the lighter Schneider." Many Schneiders were fitted with spaced armour during the War, and some were modified as Recovery Tanks after the War. Some of both types were, however, modified as unarmed supply vehicles in the later stages of the War.

Hengistmate (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

 * These are important points. Allow me to address them:

 * 1) I agree that the name should be written in full with the correct punctuation. However, the tank was named after the company. And the common name of that company was Saint-Chamond, after the location of its main works, also because FAMH was only part of a larger consortium.
 * 2) As explained above, it all started with four hundred units to be produced by Saint-Chamond of the same type rival Schneider had to manufacture four hundred of. Commercial rivalry about patents then caused to designs to diverge. Only then did inter-departmental rivalry step in and different specifications were issued.
 * 3) Well, if the British used them (in France) and there was some experimentation, then it would be strictly accurate to state that they "were already employed in France for towing heavy artillery" — just a bit misleading ;o). That has to be elucidated of course. I agree track production took place in France and changes were made in the design, which also has to be mentioned.
 * 4) The Saint-Chamonds were phased out completely soon after the war, the British Mark V*s replacing them in the rôle of heavy tank until they too were phased out from 1926.
 * 5) I was under the impression that the use of spaced armour with the Saint-Chamond was indisputable. At least some vehicles seem to have been uparmoured. Jeudy's Chars de France states at page 20: Blindé seulement à 11 mm à l'avant et 8.5 mm sur les côtés, il faut renforcer sa protection par une seconde tôle de 8 mm à l'avant..., though this is qualified by indicating this was (at first ?) done by field work shops. That (at least with some vehicles) a double side layer was present is illustrated by the picture on page 75 showing a vehicle where a hit ripped off part of the outer plate, revealing the inner plate. That this is not an illusion caused by an extreme cracking and distortion of the outer plate can be seen by the fact that the inner plate is below the rebate of the vertical connection strip, attached by a row of secondary rivets, normally obscured by the outer plate.
 * 6) Jeudy states on page 22 that the first Saint-Chamonds were indeed used as recovery vehicles, illustrated by a picture dated on 14 July 1917. I'm not sure about what modifications this would entail exactly, but at least the main guns seem to have been removed.--MWAK (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, MWAK. Thanks for response.

1.With respect, I cannot agree.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnie_des_forges_et_aci%C3%A9ries_de_la_marine_et_d%27Hom%C3%A9court

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char_Saint_Chamond

2. This is rather tricky. I think it is rather sweeping to say that commercial rivalry resulted in the Saint-Chamond. It is more that it prevented FAMH from producing the Schneider. It was the approach from the Service Automobile that led to the construction of the new model, and that was the result of interdepartmental rivalry.

3. My concern is that this statement implies that the French were using tractors and using them on a regular basis, whereas the only known examples are Lt. Cailloux's privately owned Holts. I note your comment. The experiments, though, were conducted far from the Front.

4. Since the Saint-Chamond served until the end of the War, I don't really see the point of mentioning the Mk V* at this point in the article. To say that the Mk V* replaced the Saint-Chamond is not strictly correct.

5. In the matter of spaced armour, I give way. My apologies. I was inder the impression that additional armour was fixed directly to the glacis plate only.

6. I cannot agree about the Recovery Tank. Jeudy's photo shows what he describes as a Char Caisson. The absence of armament might suggest something but it does not prove it. Char Caisson was the term used for a Supply Tank. Recovery Tank was char de dépannage. There are no other visible modifications to this Saint-Chamond and I have not come across any mention of such a measure elsewhere. Although it's entirely possible that they were used to tow Schneiders, I don't think the evidence is concrete.

Regards.

Hengistmate (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Slowly we are reaching agreement :o). Some more considerations:

 * 1) I'm not denying that FAMH was the formal name of the company. But it was really very common at the time to call the consortium "Saint-Chamond". E.g. see Jeudy page 19 where he refers to La Compagnie de Saint-Chamond. Obviously this was derived from geography — but it would no longer be correct to claim that of all the vehicles and guns having "Saint-Chamond" in their designation each independently and directly was named after the location: it had become a general name.
 * 2) It's true that it prevented FAMH from producing the Schneider. But apparently by their own initiative in reaction they lengthened the chassis, which alone would have made it a very different vehicle. Also the subsequent changes were largely initiated by the company, i.e. Rimailho. That "interdepartmental rivalry" typically mentioned in the literature mainly seems a euphemism for "Breton because of his resentment of Estienne allows himself to be manipulated by Rimailho" :o).
 * 3) It certainly has to be made clear they weren't replaced during the war.
 * 4) Speaking of clarity: as regards the spaced armour, many aspects are very unclear to me. The side armour differs apparently between the prototype, the first production batch and the second production batch. It could be that to ensure the necessary rigidity — which must have been a very serious point of concern for a vehicle that long, with a too short track base and overloaded at the ends — even the prototype had a double layer, which then wouldn't be a reaction to the Spitzgeschoss mit Kern. Perhaps field modifications included a further add-on armour; the last batch might even have had a standard triple layer.
 * 5) Well, what Jeudy calls a Char Caisson is simply a tank in the form of an unarmed hulk, whatever its function. Op page 20 he writes: Pour être complet, signalons que quatre Saint-Chamond caisson (version dépannage, non armé) ont participé à l'affaire de Berry-au-Bac. So these are hulks (caissons) but also recovery vehicles. Also these are the first Saint-Chamonds in action, a month before the armed vehicles engage for the first time. These first recovery vehicles — which of course likely functioned as supply vehicles as well — have to be differentiated from the phased out supply vehicles at the end of the war — which obviously also did recovery work when needed.--MWAK (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

How nice to be able to discuss this calmly and without the apparently automatic resistance that I have encountered in some other debates. Thank you.

1. I still think it is correct to name the manufacturer as FAMH. It's made clear (or soon will be, I hope) in the opening section that the vehicle was called the Saint-Chamond, but I would suggest that it's rather like saying you own a Vauxhall car, whilst the parent company is General Motors. I don't see that it does any harm to make that clear.

2. Hmmm. I need to re-read about that. Bear with me.

3. AFAIK Estienne never became aware of the Tunisian Holts, although some accounts say that he did. I think those accounts have confused the story. It would appear that it was seeing Holts in service with the British that gave Estienne his idea.

4. I need to have another good look at the Char Caisson thing. Still not clear (to me, anyway). I have it on what I believe to be good authority that the Saint-Chamonds that were present at Berry-au-Bac were armed and gave some supporting fire from the rear. Again, I need to have another look.

I shall return. :o) Thank you for your patience.

Hengistmate (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

 * I'll await the results :o).

Having read several accounts again, I'm not at all certain that FAMH was subcontracted to build part of the Schneider order. I thought I didn't recall seeing that previously. Malmassari, Zaloga, and Lawrynowicz make no mention of it, nor does any other reliable source that I can find. Jeudy says that once the second design had been approved Albert Thomas took the opportunity to take advantage of the rivalry between Schneider and FAMH and give the order to the latter, on the grounds that Schneider was too busy to accept an order for a further 400 tanks. I think the confusion arises from the fact that both the CA and the Saint-Chamond started life as the same vehicle. I also find that many accounts name FAMH as the manufacturer of the Saint-Chamond.

There is also a reference to extra armour being fitted to the Saint-Chamond, but no mention of its being "spaced." It is also noted that it was applied to only a small number of examples.

Hengistmate (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Well, the article doesn't state that Saint-Chamond (or FAMH) was a subcontractor. A second order was approved (not a different design) and given to Saint-Chamond. I agree the "spaced armour" issue is unclear. This can be cleverly rephrased, by referring to the spaced armour of the Schneider and then indicating the Saint-Chamond was uparmoured also without claiming it was spaced or not.--MWAK (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

IMO this passage clearly implies that it was intended that FAMH were to build the Schneider: "Originally the tank produced by Saint Chamond was meant to be identical to the Schneider CA. While Brillié began to design a second prototype (based on his earlier work on the Schneider CA-1), Schneider's main competitor, the arms manufacturer St Chamond (the Forges et Acieries de la Marine et Homecourt à Saint Chamond), was given a second order for 400 tanks. First they intended to build the same tank as Schneider. However, Brillié refused to share his patented invention for free and Saint Chamond refused to pay. So the latter company, not even having been given the blueprints of the new Schneider prototype, had to base its design on the original Tracteur A." I have never come across this claim before. AFAIK, were awarded the contract for the Saint-Chamond direct from Mourret. I know that Schneider refused to make their drawings available to Boirault for one of his improbable ideas, whereas FAMH agreed. What's the source for this supposed involvement of FAMH with the CA?

Regards,

Hengistmate (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

 * All these very valid points you raised made me reread François Vauvillier's article in Tankzone N°4: "Le Saint-Chamond — Le beau monstre raté de la section technique" which, as I should have remembered, and expected even after forgetting given the eminence of its author, answers most of our questions explicitly or implicitly. In it are mentioned the presumed connection with the Brillié patent (of course already mentioned by Jeudy) and the difficulties in assessing its veracity; the fact that 48 Chars Caisson were constructed as a separate variant, thus without ever having been fitted with a cannon; and pictures proving without a doubt that a spaced double side armour (of twice a 8.5 mm plate) was standard. Do you have access to a copy?--MWAK (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I have. I translated it a few months ago. Are you refering to page 27, Un scandale étouffé?

I took a little while to grasp the meaning of this passage, but I note that François writes in the conditional tense, implying that the statements are hypothetical rather than actual. "Wine would have been drunk," "a note would exist in Schneider's archives," etc. I believe that this is theorising, not reporting.

He also says that FAMH would have been delighted to receive the second order, not a second order; in other words, the one placed after the order with Schneider, not a second one placed with FAMH.

I don't think FV does say that the caisson versions "were constructed as a separate variant, thus without ever having been fitted with a cannon." What he is saying is that caisson conversions were carried out on Saint-Chamonds irrespective of type (flat-roofed, gable-roofed, and so on). That would mean that they must already have been in service.

Finally, the spaced armour on the Schneider is very obvious. It's not visible on the S-C. The photo to which you refer does show two plates with some space between them, but we must bear in mind that they have been hit by a shell, which would have rearranged them considerably. There is a photo in Tank Zone of Saint-Chamonds under construction with, according to the caption, spaced armour being fitted in the inside of the hull, but I must say that it's very hard to make it out for certain.

Over to you. :o)

Hengistmate (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Let us see:

 * 1) Vauvillier addresses here the theories of others, mainly, if I'm not mistaken, of Jeudy. This poses no problem to Wikipedia. Ideally, all Wikipedia sentences are in the form of "Researcher X claims fact/possibility/opinion of other researcher Y" anyway, so in this case we can simply relate the respective theories.
 * 2) The situation was certainly complex. I think it's obvious that in February 1916 there was no clear intention to build two types of tank. The motive behind also involving Saint-Chamond was either enhancing production or dividing the spoils, so to say. Clearly many even in April 1916 assumed that the second order pertained to basically the same vehicle. On the other hand the day the order was formally made, 8 April, it explicitly indicated a different type.
 * 3) On page 34 Vauvillier states: Au total 48 chars-caissons, pris sur la commande des 400, sont réalisés indifférement sur le type à toit incliné ou à toit plat.... So they are taken from the order for a four hundred vehicles, meaning that the order is partially fulfilled by producing supply/recovery vehicles instead of guntanks. The réalisés sur le type is somewhat ambiguous but has to be understood literally: they were based on a certain general type — actual exemplars of which did not have to be first constructed with a cannon, of course.
 * 4) Some details give away the presence of spaced armour with the left vehicle. On its left side you can actually see the top of the inner plate, separated from the outer plate by the whitish spacers/connectors. On the right side the double layer is clearly visible in the door opening; compare it with the middle vehicle. But perhaps a more revealing picture is that on page 35 where Rimailho to lower the weight of the 120 mm version has removed the outer plate on the front side. This makes it plain how the construction was.--MWAK (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. Right: As regards the spaced armour, I am completely wrong and you are completely right. Apologies.

The caisson or SSR: Witold Lawrinowicz says, "Towards the end of the war 54 St. Chamond (sic) tanks were converted to supply carriers, or chars de ravitaillement. They had their cannon removed, with the apertures closed by armour plate. The unarmed vehicles were used by technical platoons to deliver supplies and to tow the lighter Schneider CA tanks in case of damage."

That is my understanding of what happened. As far as I am aware, all Saint-Chamonds began life as fighting tanks. I suspect the photo of the S-C with Schneiders is later than has been proposed.

The two orders for 400 tanks: Estienne certainly heard about the order for a second 400, and he assumed it was for more Schneiders. That was because Mourret had deliberately kept him in the dark about the development of the S-C. It had been developed from the same machines as the Schneider, but there was never any intention that FAMH should build Schneiders. The line, "Originally the tank produced by Saint Chamond was meant to be identical to the Schneider CA. . . . First they intended to build the same tank as Schneider." is either a bad translation (meaning they were based on the same prototype) or a complete misunderstanding. Either way, it is insupportable.

As regards FV's speculation about the patents, etc: I know its inclusion is permissible within Wikipedia's rules, but is it worth including in an article of this depth? It doesn't materially affect the outcome and it seems to be a lot of trouble to find a way of accommodating it. There's enough skullduggery in the story as it is. I haven't heard of this theory before. Are there any other sources apart from FV?

Regards,

Hengistmate (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

New Thoughts, April 13th, 2012.
OK. The following is based on all previous sources, a discussion with François Vauvillier, and a very careful translation of French accounts.

To say that "the tank produced by Saint-Chamond was meant to be identical to the Schneider CA" is definitely incorrect. The order placed with Schneider was for 400 of the Brillié/Estienne design. Mourret's response was to revisist the test vehicles and develop the longer (8-wheel) version into another design of which 400 were then ordered from FAMH. I think what this sentence is meant to imply, at best, is that both designs had a common origin. That's what every reliable source says. There is no suggestion that FAMH were asked to build anything like the Schneider.

"While Brillié began to design a second prototype (based on his earlier work on the Schneider CA-1), Schneider's main competitor, the arms manufacturer Forges et Aciéries de la Marine et d'Homécourt, based at Saint-Chamond, was given a second order for 400 tanks. First they intended to build the same tank as Schneider. However, Brillié refused to share his patented invention for free and Saint-Chamond refused to pay. So the latter company, not even having been given the blueprints of the new Schneider prototype, had to base its design on the original Tracteur A. Because of this the designs of the two companies began to diverge already, as the Tracteur A was longer." I should very much like to see the source of this claim. AFAIK Brillié had patented the front and rear attachments that were supposed to assist in trench-crossing. I don't know of any attempt to incorporate them in the Saint-Chamond. Photos of the 'A' Machine show large, overhanging projections at front and rear that appear to coincide with the eventual Saint-Chamond body. What was Brillié's second design? I'm sorry if I sound obstructive, but I haven't come across any reference to such a design. He and Estienne made some small alterations to the CA, but nothing major. The CA2, CA3, and CA4 were much later. The Schneider CD was a tractor based on the CA, and 500 were ordered in October 1916, the prototype ran in April 1917, and only 20 were delivered between August and the end of October. It didn't interfere with production of the CA.

The rivalry: The inter-departmental and political rivalry is agreed. The commercial rivalry is more subtle. Albert Thomas suggested taking advantage of the Schneider-FAMH rivalry to persuade FAMH to build the Saint-Chamond, believing that FAMH would not wish to be left out in the cold and perhaps even be engaged as subcontractors, which would have been a blow to their prestige. But other factors were involved; a desire for the public sector (l'état) to do at least as well as the private sector, and a genuine (and perfectly honorable) desire by all parties to contribute as much as possible to the war effort. François V states on at least 4 occasions that Schneider planned to approach FAMH as subcontractors for the CA - he actually says that Schneider were "counting on them" - but the order for the Saint-Chamond ruled it out.

On the subject of Supply Tanks, there is no evidence that any Saint-Chamonds were fitted out as such straight from the production line. No source that I can find says that. All machines were finished as fighting tanks; some were later refitted as tender/supply/recovery. And, according to FV, they were not all of the first (flat-roof) type.

I hope this makes sense. If you've got sources that contradict the above, I'd be delighted to have a look at them.

BTW, do you mind if I ask what nationality you are? If you're not a native English speaker I'll make sure not to use too many idioms that might be ambiguous in translation. No offence meant.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I have read Detchessahar & Lemarchand online, and can't find anything there to support the idea of Schneider & FAMH being intended to build the same tank. If FAMH had been subcontracted, then yes, but that never happened. Hengistmate (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Well, I'm Dutch. We Dutch are not supposed to have any trouble whatsoever with any English idiom ;o).

 * Now let us, to get a clearer understanding of the origins of the Saint-Chamond, consider the situation in January and February 1917. It had been decided to produce a large number of French tanks using Schneider as the main contractor. Mourret planned to enlarge this by involving FAMH. Generally there was at that time no conception that this would pertain to some very different type. Even on 1 April (Jeudy p. 18) Thomas could refer to the FAMH contract as if it simply were a "second order" of basically the same vehicle. The expectations of Schneider to use FAMH as a subcontractor were based on this assumption. FAMH wasn't supposed to build a second main type parallel to the Schneider CA, but at worst a variant of it. Of course this would have put FAMH in a subordinate, and likely financially disadvantageous, position. The prototype of the Army workshop was not meant to represent a development for the Schneider company alone but Brillié, in patenting his system and drawing blueprints for the benefit of his employer, was already legally shutting out any possible competitor in early February. Therefore the two development lines began to diverge, which in March was used by Rimailho and Mourret to incorporate their favoured ideas. Obviously, in this phase the Brillié system was no longer relevant for the Saint-Chamond. I have to admit though that I might have misunderstood the development of the Tracteur A. I assumed it already had a lengthened suspension compared to the Schneider CA production version, but reading Malmassari I get the impression it was merely longer than the Baby Holt and only the Tracteur B surpassed the Schneider in suspension length.

 * In any case the present text is by far too simplistic and a longer, more subtle, account is needed to do justice to a complex situation.

 * As regards the supply tanks, I can merely repeat my earlier argument: a literal reading of the 2009 text by Vauvilliers can only lead to the conclusion that he claims that such tanks were built as such. The new GBM 100 issue (BTW heartily recommended to all tank enthusiasts as it covers every single French Army AFV type built before 1941) accordingly states on page 19 about the Saint Chamond production: Production totale : 400 ex. incluant 48 non armés, again leaving no room for doubt. Obviously this does not exclude the possibility that at some time gun tanks were rebuilt. Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Just read the discussion on the Landships Forum. The data presented by Tim G seem to explain the cause of the confusion: apparently even in the earliest stage Saint Chamonds were both factory produced and field converted as Chars Caisson.--MWAK (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Unfortunately, since it is part of his PhD, it's all "original research." I think we need to make this bit more non-committal. As regards the other matter, I'm still scrutinizing the various sources. Pls bear with me. TTYL. Hengistmate (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

 * If the dissertation has been submitted and deposed in some library, I believe it can count as a valid secondary source. Anyway, we can be guided by its content when selecting and ordering the sources.--MWAK (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, MWAK. I have gone over this very carefully. The patent that Brillié declined to share was for the rear tail skids, not for the whole vehicle. I've check Rimailho, Breton, Ramspacher, Jeudy, Malmassari, and Mourret. There was never an intention to give FAMH a separate order for the Schneider, only a provisional plan to ask them to build some of the original 400 as subcontractors. Hengistmate (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 * My excuses for again responding so tardively. I think I have found a solution for most of the problems that have plagued us. I intend to vastly expand the articles of the Schneider CA, Saint-Chamond and Renault FT, carefully inserting and citing most of the relevant information that can be found in the literature. When this process is finished, and the articles in question have about tripled in size, the narration will have become far less simplistic and rhetorical and most of your, largely justified, objections will, I hope, have been met. It will take some time though :o).--MWAK (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, MWAK. Thanks for your continued interest. Your idea is, of course, ideal. I ought to have done more, but time is one of the problems. The other is that, as you might have noticed with the Renault FT and other tank articles, one can get into the most stupid, time-wasting, and unpleasant arguments with tedious people who seem to be dependent on Wikipedia as a reason for existing and won't entertain the notion that someone might know more about something than they do. It annoys and depresses me. Fortunately, you are not amongst their number. I'll help as often as I can. (I must insist, though, that FAMH were never expected to build Schneiders!) I look forward to developments. Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I have good hopes we will succeed :o).--MWAK (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hooray!
M. Demaison has made an edit that is correct! It also improves the article - barely perceptibly, but after several hundred attempts it's a cause for celebration. The transmission in the Saint-Chamond was the Crochat-Colardeau, with only one "l". Henry Crochat owned the company; Emmanuel Louis Paul Colardeau was his employee. However, they filed a number of patents jointly. This might be the turning point. Hengistmate (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

One step forward . ..
May 31, 2015. I'm afraid our rejoicing was premature. M. Demaison is back, now inserting gobbledegook into this article. I have reversed today's edits and restored the previous, less bad version. Hengistmate (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

How many are left??????
There seems to be the common belief there is only 1 Saint-Chamond tank left in existence. It is at the Muse De Blinds. *However*....there is one at the Historial De la Grande Guerre - Musee de Thiepval. Which according to my calculations :-)... means there are two left! It's definitely there, some friends of mine are in France visiting and just had their photograph taken with it today. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St._Chamond_-_Historial_de_la_Grand_Guerre,_Peronne_(1).jpg Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

 * The exhibit at Péronne is a replica made of expanded polystyrene. Here's a video of it being constructed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OiaicjtIVg Hengistmate (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

 * Sadly so... But still a great job by those students!--MWAK (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

 * Damn! Ok thanks for the info, I know my tanks pretty well, but that's a pretty good job. Though once you look at it closely you can see it is a replica. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thiepval and Péronne museums are in partnership, but are two separate sites about 15 miles apart. The replica is at Péronne. Hengistmate (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

"The Saint-Chamond tanks were scheduled to be entirely replaced by imported British heavy tanks."
That's not strictly the case. The French were conducting their own heavy tank programme (the FCM A, 1A, 1B, & 2C). They were going to take part in the Mk VIII programme with GB & the USA, but withdrew. The Schneiders and Saint-Chamonds did valuable service but suffered heavy losses in the closing stages of the War. The 90 Mark V* machines supplied to France by GB were a stop-gap to be used in what remained of the War, pending the design and construction of improved French machines. A slight change of wording required. Hengistmate (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Well, the "scheduled" is ambiguous: after the war they were in fact replaced by Mark V*s.--MWAK (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

"Second heavy tank"?
There is some debate about this definition. According to some, the Schneider CA was the first "heavy" tank, which would make the Saint-Chamond the second. But other sources, particularly American ones, describe the Schneider as "medium." Perhaps best to write one's way around this potential disagreement. Hengistmate (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Definition of tank
"Although not a tank by a strict definition of a heavily armoured turreted vehicle, it is generally accepted and described as such in accounts of early tank development." I certainly hope so, because otherwise we would not be able to call the vehicle that gave birth to the name tank a "tank". The British tanks didn't have turrets or "heavy" armor, yet they were and are considered the first tanks, and are the genesis of the name. I would rather say that although they do not fit the modern definition of a tank, they are clearly part of the design evolution and in the same category as other early tanks.

64.222.160.104 (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 * @64.222.160.104 "Although not a tank by a strict definition ..." This just begs the need for a strict definition, and/or ways that this vehicle did not meet that definition. Whbjr (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Tracks
It says "the greatest weakness...was the the American Holt tractor tracks". Could one not just as easily say the hull was the problemm since it was obviously too long for the tracks, instead of assuming the tracks were too short for the hull? I also argue that the gun mounting method wasn't the "only option" for the designers. It was the only option that didn't involve designing an entirely new mount for it. But it could have been done. The article seems to suggest that the adoption of this gun forced the designers to mount it in the hull instead of a revolving turret, but is there actually any evidence that they would have used a revolving turret if the gun was smaller? Tanks were new, they hadn't hit upon revolving turrets as a standard technique of mounting arms yet. The only one who had tried it so far is Renault. It seems to me that it has more to do with them not thinking of it, rather than being forced to use an inferior method because they chose the wrong gun. It also seems like it takes it entirely too much for granted that the designer forced them to adopt a larger and more expensive vehicle just to "increase his profits". What is the source for this? Is this the explanation the man himself gave after the war? Even if you found a source where someone claims this was his motivation, I don't see how one can take a claim like that for a fact without at least including the other side of the story. Maybe someone just didn't like Rimhailo and was trying to smear him. Maybe he genuinely thought this was a better design. How could the person who made that claim know that was his motivation? They could assume it, yes, but know it? I don't see how. The comments here seem to treat it as a fact, with the only open question being "who did he bribe". There also seems to be an assumption that he forced them to use his own gun design because it meant more profits for him. Do we know this? Perhaps they needed all the standard 75mm guns for the artillery, and refused to give up any for some new-fangled assault vehicle. Maybe he went out and found an alternative source for 75mm guns because he couldn't get any other. Maybe that is why Schneider adopted the "Fortress" gun, because it was the only one he could get. that doesn't seem to me to be any more of a logical leap than to assume he was just corrupt and trying to get maximum profits.

64.222.85.235 (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Medium Mark A Whippet which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Saint-Chamond (tank)


text:
Talk:Pear

"Pear shaped" linking to an article on female body shapes
it seems strange to me for "pear shaped" (in regards to an actual pear) to link to Female body shape. it is essentially saying that a pear is shaped like a woman who is shaped like a pear, which is not that useful or accurate. Also, the phrase "pear shaped" is not at all prominent in that article. what do you guys think? Neplutondeep (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Origin of the word "pirum"
According to the current text, the origin of the word for pear is given as the Semitic word for fruit, cited as pirâ which is probably meant as an Aramaic word; the corresponding Hebrew word is pərī. But this derivation is impossible, since the [r] is original in these Semitic words, whereas in Latin it is the result of rhotacism from earlier *pisom, corresponding to the early Greek *á-pison. Thus the etymology given in Douglas Harper's Etymonline, that it derives from a lost Mediterranean language, is the best explanation hitherto. Perhaps this fact should be considered in the text? 2001:2003:F44B:2A00:500F:CD9:5150:75B4 (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Pear


text:
Luri language

Luri  is a Southwestern Iranian language continuum spoken by the Lurs, an Iranian people native to Western Asia. The Luri dialects are descended from Middle Persian and are Central Luri, Bakhtiari, and Southern Luri. This language is spoken mainly by the Bakhtiari and Southern Lurs (Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad, Mamasani, Sepidan, Bandar Ganaveh, Bandar Deylam) in Iran.

History
Luri is the closest living language to Archaic and Middle Persian. The language descends from Middle Persian (Parsig). It belongs to the Persid or Southern Zagros group, and is lexically similar to modern Persian, differing mainly in phonology.

According to the Encyclopædia Iranica, "All Lori dialects closely resemble standard Persian and probably developed from a stage of Persian similar to that represented in Early New Persian texts written in Perso-Arabic script. The sole typical Lori feature not known in early New Persian or derivable from it is the inchoative marker (see below), though even this is found in Judeo-Persian texts". The Bakhtiāri dialect may be closer to Persian. There are two distinct languages, Greater Luri (Lor-e bozorg), a.k.a. Southern Luri (including Bakhtiari dialect), and Lesser Luri (Lor-e kuček), a.k.a.  Northern Luri.

Northern Luri
Luri dialects (Northern Luri (or Central Luri), Shuhani and Hinimini) are as a group the second largest language in Ilam province (around 14.59% of the population), mostly spoken in villages in the southern parts of the province. Around 21.24% of Hamadan province speak Northern Luri.

Bakhtiari
The Bakhtiari dialect is the main first language in the province of Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari (around 61.82%), except around Sharekord, Borujen, Ben and Saman counties, where Persian, Turkic and Chaharmahali dialect predominate. Around 7.15% of Isfahan province speak Bakhtiari.

Internal classification
The language consists of Central Luri, Bakhtiari, and Southern Luri. Central Luri is spoken in northern parts of Luri communities including eastern, central and northern parts of Luristan province, southern parts of Hamadan province mainly in Malayer, Nahavand and Tuyserkan counties, southern regions of Ilam province and southeastern parts of Markazi province. Bakhtiari is used by Bakhtiari people in South Luristan, Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari province, significant regions in north and east of Khouzestan and western regions of Isfahan province. Finally, Southern Luri is spoken throughout Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad province, and in western and central regions in Fars province, northern and western parts of Bushehr province and southeastern regions of Khouzestan. Several Luri communities are spread sporadically across the Iranian Plateau e.g. Khorasan (Beyranvand and Bakhtiari Luri descendants), Kerman, Guilan and Tehran provinces.

Vowels

 * 1) // may also range to a higher // in the Northern dialect.

 * Vowels /, / may also be realized as more close [, ] within diphthongs or before glide sounds.
 * /, / can also be heard as higher [] in Southern Luri.
 * // can also be raised as [] or [] before semivowels.

Consonants

 * 1) // occurs in Northern Luri.
 * 2) Velar fricatives /, / as equivalent to uvular fricatives /, /, occur in Northern Luri.
 * 3) // occurs in Southern Luri.
 * 4) // occurs in Northern Luri, as well as in words borrowed from Persian.
 * 5) // can also be heard as a trill [] in Southern Luri.

 * // also occurs as a glide to elongate short vowels (eg. /oh/; ).
 * [, ] occur as allophones of a labiodental approximant //.

Vocabulary
In comparison with other Iranian languages, Luri has been less affected by foreign languages such as Arabic and Turkic. Nowadays, many ancient Iranian language characteristics are preserved and can be observed in Luri grammar and vocabulary. According to diverse regional and socio-ecological conditions and due to longtime social interrelations with adjacent ethnic groups especially Kurds and Persians, different dialects of Luri, despite mainly common characteristics, have significant differences. The northern dialect tends to have more Kurdish loanwords inside and southern dialects (Bakhtiari and Southern Luri) have been more exposed to Persian loanwords.

title: Luri language


text:
College of Navarre

The College of Navarre (Collège de Navarre) was one of the colleges of the historic University of Paris, rivaling the Sorbonne and renowned for its library.

History
It was founded by Queen Joan I of Navarre in 1305, who provided for three departments, the arts with 20 students, philosophy with 30 and theology with 20 students.

The queen bequeathed part of her fine hôtel de Navarre in rue Saint André des Arts, together with lands generated rents of 2000 livres p.a. in her counties of Champagne and Brie. Her trustees decided to sell the Paris property and acquire an ample plot on the Montagne Sainte-Geneviève (rue de la Montagne-Sainte-Geneviève / rue Descartes), right in the Latin Quarter, and build the college anew. The first stone, laid 12 April 1309, was for the college chapel.

Provision was made also for the scholars' support, 4 Paris sous weekly for the artists, 6 for the logicians and 8 for the theologians. These allowances were to continue until the graduates held benefices of the value respectively of 30, 40 and 60 livres. The regulations allowed the theological students a fire, daily, from November to March after dinner and supper for one half-hour. The luxury of benches was forbidden by a commission appointed by Urban V in 1366. On the festival days, the theologians were expected to deliver a collation to their fellow-students of the three classes. The rector at the head of the college, originally appointed by the faculty of the university, was now appointed by the king's confessor. The students wore a special dress and the tonsure and ate in common.

Classes bore little resemblance to today's universities. Subjects were included that are not taught today, such as rhetoric in its classical meaning. The students were required to speak and write only in Latin and all subjects had to be learned by rote. Only after graduation were students allowed to write using their own words or discuss the subjects. At least one of the rectors, Claude D'Espence became rector before he obtained his doctorate.

The College was dissolved at the time of the French Revolution, its library dispersed and its archives lost. Its buildings were assigned to the École polytechnique by Napoleon in 1805.

Notable students or teachers
• Pierre d'Ailly

• François d'Amboise

• Jacques d'Amboise

• Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet

• Jean Buridan

• Nicolas de Caritat, marquis de Condorcet

• André Chénier

• Thomas Dempster

• Oronce Finé

• William Fowler

• Jean de Gerson

• Charles-François Lebrun, duc de Plaisance

• Nicole Oresme

• Jean-Antoine Nollet, appointed by the king to a professorship of experimental physics (the first in France) at the college in 1753.

• Armand Jean du Plessis, duc de Richelieu

• Pierre de Ronsard

• Octavien de Saint-Gelais

• George Stewart, 9th Seigneur d'Aubigny

• François Villon

• Francisco de Jasso y Azpilicueta, St Francis Xavier

• Pierre de Fermat

title: College of Navarre


text: Talk:A+

title: Talk:A+


text:
John Farey Sr.

John Farey Sr. (24 September 1766 – 6 January 1826) was an English geologist and writer best known for Farey sequence, a mathematical construct that is named after him.

Youth and early career
Farey was born on 24 September 1766 at Woburn in Bedfordshire to John Farey (1728–1798) and his second wife, Rachel (née Wright) (1732–1804), a Wesleyan Methodist. He was educated at Halifax in Yorkshire, and showed such aptitude in mathematics, drawing and surveying, that he was brought under the notice of John Smeaton (1724–1792).

After his education he moved to London, where he had relatives, and worked there for a number of years, during which time he met and married, Sophia Hubert (1770–1830). While in London they had their first child John Farey Jr. They went on to have eight more children, two of whom died in infancy. One of his children, Marianne Farey, was the mother of Sophie Gengembre Anderson, the noted artist.

Land agent in Woburn and consulting surveyor in London
In 1792 Farey was appointed surveyor and land agent to Francis Russell, 5th Duke of Bedford for his Woburn estates. After the death of the duke, Farey in 1802 moved to London, and, after first contemplating emigrating or taking a farm in the country, he settled there as a consulting surveyor and geologist.

That he was enabled to take this step was due largely to his acquaintance with the geologist William Smith, who in 1801 had been employed by the duke of Bedford in works of draining and irrigation. The duke, appreciating Smith's knowledge of the strata, commissioned him in 1802 to explore the margin of the chalk-hills south of Woburn in order to determine the true succession of the strata; and he instructed Farey to accompany him. Farey has remarked that Smith was his Master and Instructor in Mineral Surveying, and his subsequent publications show how well he had profited by the teachings he received.

In 1805, he succeeded the agriculturist Arthur Young as Secretary of the Smithfield Club. His surveying work took him all over the country and he was in much demand from landowners wishing to improve their estates, or exploit the minerals they held. His work on economic geology then was of importance in the burgeoning Industrial Revolution by locating new resources of coal and metal ores.

Writings
Farey was a prolific writer, and Professor Hugh Torrens (see references below) has traced around 270 papers by him, quadrupling the number given by the Royal Society's Catalogue of Scientific Papers. He wrote on all manner of subjects, ranging from horticulture, geology, meteorology, metrology, currency decimalisation, music and mathematics to pacifism.

He was an important contributor to Rees's Cyclopædia with articles on canals, mineralogy, surveying and a number of the scientific and mathematical basis of sound. His Canals article is the largest in the work, being some 210,000 words. He contributed similarly to the Edinburgh Encyclopedia. Various nineteenth-century biographical sources, including the Dictionary of National Biography, claimed wrongly that he wrote the Rees article on Steam. It was actually written by his son John Farey Jr.

He contributed articles on music to periodicals, as well as  around 350 articles on the topic for two encyclopaedias. They concerned the mathematical relationship of note values and musical temperament. He devised a notation which allowed a sound to be expressed by the sum of three small values Σ + f + m. He made great use of the researches of Marmaduke Overend (music theorist and organist) (c1730-1790), whose manuscripts were then in the library of the Royal Institution.

In 1809 Farey met William Martin who had published work on Derbyshire fossils, to investigate whether they could create a joint geological map of Derbyshire. Martin however was too ill to meet a second time and he died the following year.

Farey's best known work is General View of the Agriculture and Minerals of Derbyshire (3 volumes 1811–17) for the Board of Agriculture. In the first of these volumes (1811) he gave an account of the upper part of the British series of strata, and an exposition of the Carboniferous and other strata of Derbyshire. In this work, and in a paper published in the Philosophical Magazine, vol. 51, 1818, p. 173, on 'Mr Smith's Geological Claims stated', he called attention to the importance of the discoveries of William Smith.

Farey sequence
As well as being remembered by historians of geology, his name is more widely known by the Farey sequence which he noted as a result of his interest in the mathematics of sound (Philosophical Magazine, vol. 47, 1816, pp. 385–386).

Farey died in London. Subsequently, Sophia, his widow, offered his geological collection to the British Museum. The museum rejected the collection, and it was dispersed and broken up.

Selected publications

 * John Farey, A General View of the Agriculture and Minerals of Derbyshire, 3 volumes 1811–17. Peak District Mines Historical Society, 1989. Reprint of 1811 Edition.

 * Articles, a selection
 * John Farey, "canals", "mineralogy", "surveying" in: Rees's Cyclopædia
 * Publications about Farey and his work

title: John Farey Sr.


text:
Boring, Oregon

Boring is an unincorporated community in Clackamas County, Oregon, United States. It is located along Oregon Route 212 in the foothills of the Cascade mountain range, approximately 12 mi southeast of downtown Portland, and 14 mi northeast of Oregon City. A bedroom community, Boring is named after William Harrison Boring, a Union soldier and pioneer whose family built a farm in the area in 1856, before Oregon had received statehood.

The community was officially platted in 1903 after the Portland Railway, Light and Power Company constructed an electric rail line, which operated from Portland to Cazadero. The former railway is now part of the Springwater Corridor, a rail trail which begins in Boring and ends at the Eastbank Esplanade along the Willamette River in southeast Portland. The Boring Lava Field, an extinct volcanic field zone that comprises terrain extending from Boring to downtown Portland, took its name from the community.

Boring was a hub of the timber industry in the Pacific Northwest prior to and during World War I due to the abundance of surrounding temperate coniferous and evergreen forests, as well as its proximity to the Port of Portland. In addition to logging, plant nurseries and agriculture have also historically been major economic forces in Boring.

Boring has often been included in lists of places with unusual names. In 2012, Boring was named a sister city of the village of Dull, Scotland, and later joined Bland, Australia, in the "Trinity of Tedium."

Timeline
The land on which Boring was built was a former lava field. The Boring Lava Field, which takes its namesake from the community, is located just north of Boring. There are approximately 80 lava vents across the area, remnants of the volcanic activity that occurred there roughly 2.6 million years ago. The lava field extends across surrounding Portland and Vancouver, Washington, though the volcanic centers are extinct. The land that would later become Boring had no known inhabitants, though the Clackamas Tribe had a camp located south of Boring, near present-day Oregon City, along the Willamette River. By 1855, the remaining members of the tribe had relocated to the Grand Ronde. Settlers began to arrive in the Oregon Territory in mid-1800s via the Oregon Trail, after the establishment of Portland.

Boring takes its name after William Harrison Boring, an Illinois native and early resident who began farming there in 1874, and subsequently donated land for the community's first schoolhouse to be built. He was a Union veteran who had moved to Oregon after having fought in the Siege of Vicksburg during the Civil War. William's half-brother, Joseph, had settled in the area in 1856 prior to his arrival.

Boring was platted in 1903 as Boring Junction after the construction of a railway line by the Portland Railway, Light and Power Company. The post office was established and named Boring the same year, which builders of an interurban railway adopted as the name of the community. An electric trolley operated on the railroad line from Portland through Gresham and Boring, ending in Cazadero, which began transporting passengers in 1905. The trolley significantly reduced travel time between Portland and the communities to its east: Horse and buggy travel from Boring to Portland took an average of six hours, while a trip to Portland via the trolley system took only one hour. Though younger students in the area attended a local school built on Richey Road, high school students in Boring commuted via trolley to Gresham and Portland to attend high schools there. The early residents of the area post-settlement were mainly German and Swedish immigrants.

After World War II and the prominence of automobile ownership, the trolley ceased passenger operations to Portland, but continued to travel between Boring and Gresham. The railway went defunct in the following years, and was incorporated as part of the Springwater Corridor, a rail trail that begins in Boring and ends at the Eastbank Esplanade in downtown Portland.

In 2005, citizens of Boring applied to become one of the first legally recognized villages in Oregon. However, after many months of polarizing debate on the village issue, residents narrowly defeated the village designation in a town hall referendum in August 2006, with 293 votes in favor and 298 against.

Name and municipality pairings
The unusual name of the community often prompts its inclusion on lists of unusual place names. The name "Boring" is embraced by locals, however, and found in many local businesses, resulting in many road signs that seem humorous to outsiders. Boosters of the village designation use the slogan "The most exciting place to live."

In 2011, Elizabeth Leighton of Aberfeldy, Scotland, proposed the community's pairing with the village of Dull, Scotland, after passing through Boring on a cycling holiday. In June 2012, Boring accepted the proposal of Dull to "pair" their municipalities, in an effort to promote tourism in both places as a play on their names. Dull is a village of only 84 residents, while Boring has about 8,000.

In 2013, the farm community and former gold prospecting site Bland Shire in West Wyalong, New South Wales, Australia was added to the mix to create not a "twinned town" relationship but a "League of Extraordinary Communities" grouping Dull, Boring, and Bland as a means of encouraging travel, promoting all three communities. The same year, construction of the Boring Station Trailhead Park was completed on the empty lot that once housed the original 1903 train station, and opened to the public. The Boring Community Planning Organization also issued commemorative "Boring & Dull: a pair for the ages" T-shirts and mugs, as well as raffling off a trip to Dull.

Topography
Located at the northernmost end of the eastern Willamette Valley, Boring rests in the foothills of the Cascade mountain range, at the base of Mount Hood. The community is approximately 31 mi from Government Camp, a major resort and skiing community on Mount Hood. The community comprises approximately 30 sqmi of Clackamas County. Boring is considered part of the Portland metropolitan area, located approximately 12 mi southeast of the Portland city limits, and 16 mi from downtown Portland.

Boring's landscape is hilly, with its elevation ranging between 548 ft and 755 ft. Several creeks run west through the community limits into the Clackamas River, including Doane Creek, North Fork Deep Creek, and Tickle Creek.

Climate
According to the Köppen climate classification, Boring has a warm-summer Mediterranean climate, characterized by warm, dry summers and cool, rainy winters. The community receives an annual average of 54.26 in of rain—significantly more than neighboring Portland, which averages 36.03 in, or Gresham, which averages 44.85 in. Boring's high volume of rainfall can be attributed to its location in the Cascade foothills, which situates it at a considerably higher elevation than other towns and cities in the Portland metropolitan area. The first frost in Boring typically occurs within the first week of November, while the last is typically in the first week of April.

Economy
After its inception as a railroad community, Boring evolved into a hub for the timber industry in the Northwest, beginning in the pre-World War I era and continuing throughout much of the 20th century. One of the first mills established in Boring was the Hillyard Sawmill, which began operations in the 1890s; the mill produced over 30000 ft of lumber per day, mostly consisting of railroad ties. Bert Jonsrud, an early resident of the area, would later establish the Jonsrud Bros. Lumber Company, which would become Boring's main lumber mill. In a 1915 survey of timber and logging camps in the Pacific Northwest, it was reported that Jonsrud mill was producing 20000 ft of lumber per day. Today, Vanport International is the main lumber company operating out of Boring. Although their main business is lumber export, they are co-located with a lumber mill actively processing timber products.

The Portland Traction Company, a now-defunct railroad, operated a rail line from Portland (near the current location of the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI) on the Willamette River) to Boring via Gresham. In the 1950s, the Southern Pacific and Union Pacific railroads jointly took over operation of the remaining portion of the line for freight operations. Much of the line has since been purchased by local governments for the creation of a long-distance rail trail named the Springwater Corridor.

The community is also home to a large number of dairy farms, plant nurseries and berry farms, including Iseli Nursery and Liepold Farms, who supplies produce to the local restaurant chain Burgerville. There are over thirty active plant and tree nurseries that operate within the community. Another Boring community staple, Mt. Hood Center, was built in Boring in 1974 and the facility is still functioning today as an equestrian center, event venue, and an equine-based schooling alternative, Mt. Hood Center Academy. Boring is also home of a campus of Guide Dogs For The Blind, Inc., the oldest guide dog training program on the US West Coast. The largest employer in Boring as of 2018 is Good Shepherd Community Church, an independent Evangelical church.

Demographics
According to the 2010 U.S. census, the ZCTA for Boring's ZIP code had a population of 7,726 in 2,875 households. This was a significant drop from the 2000 census, which had reported a population of 12,851. Males made up 50.50% of the population, while females made up 49.50%. According to this data, the population's ethnic profile was 77.3% white, 13.3% Hispanic or Latino, 2.6% Asian, .3% African American, and 4% two or more races.

32.20% of households in the ZCTA earned under $50,000 annually, while 39.80% earned between $50,000–$100,000, and 28% had reported earnings exceeding $100,000. As of 2018, the unemployment rate was 3.98%. 86.8% of residents were property owners, while 13.2% were renters. In 2015, Boring was ranked among the wealthiest ZIP codes in the Portland metropolitan area.

Law and government
Along with other unincorporated communities in Clackamas County, Boring is served by Metro, a regional government of the Portland metropolitan area, and the only metropolitan planning organization in the United States. The community is located within Oregon's 3rd congressional district, represented by Earl Blumenauer.

In 2015, Steve Bates, the former chair of the Boring planning council received over 700 signatures in favor of having the community removed from the Metro jurisdiction, due to the fact that Metro's regional boundary only includes the western half of the community, where Boring's downtown area lies. Metro responded by noting that Boring lies outside of their urban growth boundary, and that the jurisdictional boundary had no bearing on any foreseeable incorporation of Boring. According to the Clackamas County voting data from the 2012 U.S. general election, Boring somewhat favored the Republican party, which accounted for 59% of votes, while 37% favored the Democratic party. Other parties accounted for 4% of votes. In the 2008 U.S. general election, the Republican party was only slightly favored at 51%, with the Democratic party at 47%, and 2% accounting for other parties.

Education
The first schoolhouse in Boring was the Fern Hill School, built in 1883. The Kelso Schoolhouse opened two years later, in 1885. Another four-room school house called Oregonia was built in 1904. A 40 by play shed was added to the school in 1918.

Contemporarily, the community is served by the Oregon Trail and the Gresham-Barlow school districts as the community straddles the boundary between the two. Elementary schools in Boring include Naas Elementary and Kelso Elementary. Secondary schools serving Boring include Boring Middle School, Sandy High School (Oregon Trail), and Sam Barlow High School (Gresham-Barlow). Private schools in the area include Good Shepherd School and Hoodview Adventist School.

Boring is also home to Oregon Trail Academy, the only public K-12 single campus International Baccalaureate school in the Northwest. The school was established as a charter school in 2010 by the Oregon Trail School District and also serves students from Gresham-Barlow. In 2019, the school ranked in the top 15 schools in the Portland metro area and 17th in the state.

Students' test score performance in the public school system in Boring ranks at or above the national average in both elementary and middle school(s).

Infrastructure
Oregon Route 212 begins in Boring, and runs through the center of the downtown area. Its roads are maintained by the Oregon Department of Transportation.

From the 1970s until the end of 2012, Boring was within the TriMet transit district, the Portland metropolitan area's mass transit system, and was served by bus line 84, albeit with only a single round trip in each peak period. In 2011, business owners in Boring petitioned the transit district's board to remove Boring from the district, arguing that Boring was receiving too little bus service relative to the amount being paid in employer-payroll taxes. The petition was approved, to take effect at the beginning of 2013, bringing an end to TriMet service in Boring.

The Springwater Corridor, a rail trail that was originally a railroad running between Boring and Portland, begins in Boring next to Boring Middle School, and is used for running, walking, and cycling. The trail ends at the Eastbank Esplanade in downtown Portland.

In popular culture
The eponymous fictional town of the Disney TV series Gravity Falls is inspired by Boring.

In 2017, it was reported that ABC had developed a "serial killer comedy" series titled Boring, OR about a small town under siege by a serial murderer. The series is being produced by Jack Black.

In 2013, the community was home to an event hosted by Vitaminwater, in a series in which the company gave Boring and the town of Normal, Illinois, "makeovers". The event featured musical performances by Santigold, Matt & Kim, and Yung Skeeter, as well as standup comedy performances which included Amy Schumer. Boring was the subject of a 2016 promotional documentary short by Brooklyn, New York-based cinematographer Adam McDaid for Ogilvy & Mather.

In 2018, the Netflix web television series Everything Sucks! is set in the town and focuses on students attending the fictional "Boring High School."

Notable people

 * Bob Amsberry (1928–1957), original member of The Mickey Mouse Club
 * William H. Boring (1841–1932), Union soldier; founder of town
 * Ryan Crouser (1992–), shot putter, discus thrower, Olympic Gold Medalist
 * Alex Hirsch (1985–), storyboard artist, writer and producer at Disney
 * Charis Michelsen (1974–), actress, model, and makeup artist
 * Ben Musa (1905–1974), Oregon state legislator
 * Maria Thayer (1975–), actress and comedian
 * Brian Wilbur (1986–), American football quarterback

Sister cities
Though not recognized by Sister Cities International, Boring is paired with the following municipalities:
 * 🏴 Dull, Perth & Kinross, Scotland, United Kingdom
 * 🇦🇺 Bland, New South Wales, Australia

title: Boring, Oregon


text:
James Albert Manning Aikins

Sir James Albert Manning Aikins (December 10, 1851 – March 1, 1929) was a politician in Manitoba, Canada. He was the leader of the Manitoba Conservative Party in the provincial election of 1915, and later served as the province's ninth Lieutenant Governor.

Aikins was born in Grahamsville, Toronto Gore Township, Peel County, Canada West (now Mississauga, Ontario) and educated at Toronto's Upper Canada College. His father, James Cox Aikins, was a prominent Canadian politician, serving as a cabinet minister from 1869 to 1873 and 1878 to 1882, and serving as Manitoba's Lieutenant-Governor between 1882 and 1888.

The younger Aikins was educated at Upper Canada College and the University of Toronto, receiving his B.A. in 1875. He subsequently moved to Winnipeg with his father, and remained in the western city after the elder Aikins returned to Ontario.

From 1879 to 1896, Aikins was counsel with the federal Department of Justice. In 1880, he was part of a committee that investigated the administration of justice in the North-West Territories. Aikins was appointed counsel to the Manitoba government in 1900, and was responsible for drafting the Temperance Act passed by the government of Hugh John Macdonald. He also served as president of the Law Society of Manitoba, and was a solicitor for the Canadian Pacific Railway from 1881 to 1911.

In the 1911 federal election, Aikins was elected as a Conservative candidate to the House of Commons of Canada, for the riding of Brandon. The Conservative Party won this election, and Aikins served as a backbench supporter of Robert Borden's administration.

Aikins left federal politics in 1915, amid unexpected circumstances. The provincial Conservative government of Rodmond Roblin was forced to resign amid scandal in May 1915. Aikins served as chair of the provincial party's convention in July, and accepted the position of party leader on July 15 when no other candidates came forward. He resigned his federal seat, and led the provincial party into a new election.

The new Liberal government of Tobias Norris was extremely popular, and portrayed Aikins as the tool of more sinister figures in the Conservative Party. The Liberals won 40 seats in the election, against only five for the Tories. Aikins was resoundingly defeated in Brandon City.

The following year, Aikins was appointed Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba on the recommendation of Prime Minister Robert Borden. He served in this largely ceremonial position from August 5, 1916, to October 25, 1926. Although his initial appointment was greeted with skepticism, Aikins proved to be a popular office-holder. Even the pro-Liberal Winnipeg Free Press approved of the continuance of his appointment on the recommendation of Prime Minister Arthur Meighen in 1921.

Aikins gave the Norris government permission to continue in office for a few weeks after losing a vote of confidence in 1922, such that important legislation could be passed before the next election.

Aikins was the first president of the Canadian Bar Association, holding that office for 13 years. He was the first of five lawyers from the Aikins firm to serve as president of the CBA, the others being his son Gordon Harold Aikins (1942–1943), John MacAulay (1953–1954), A. Lorne Campbell (1970–1971), and Guy Joubert (2008-2009).

Aikins died on March 1, 1929.

title: James Albert Manning Aikins


text:
User talk:Liblamb

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Sweet sorghum
Greetings. I think my revert of your edit should stand. See my comments in the discussion. Peace. deeceevoice 10:52, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

sweet potato external link
Hello, Liblamb. I am a gardener living in Missouri and I have been growing purple-fleshed sweet potatoes for many years. In the sweet potato section of wikipedia, I added the link to my home page, where I documented photographs of the leaves and roots of the purple-fleshed sweet potatoes I have grown. This was not spam, as you speculated. Please revert the external link as I added. If you can find a better link to purple sweet potato examples, please do so, but leave my addition intact until then. Thanks.

Doug Younkin

PekWM
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article PekWM, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of PekWM. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 17:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Liblamb


text:
Talk:Char 2C

This is fascinating information. I have read a great deal about Estienne and the French Tanks of the First World War, but some of these details are new to me. I should like to hear from the author if he can tell me some of his sources for this article. Please contact me if you can.

James Reeve.

Manchester, England.

Most of the information is simply from Jeudy's Chars de France and Mili doc numéro 2: le Char 2 C. Of course these data are here presented under a rational interpretation, that is, without following the standard creation myth - so Estienne is neither some superhuman hero (he was in fact not closely involved in the technical development of any French tank, not even the FT-17) nor a fool (so it is assumed he was consistent and rational in his attitude towards the Char 2C). That the name Lorraine is the later one (pace Jeudy) can easily be proven by the photographic evidence in even his own book.

However, some of the details (and probably the more fascinating ones) are at best hinted at in the publications mentioned. Why this is so I will disclose in private to mr Reeve.

MWAK--217.122.44.226 11:26, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Estienne, etc.
Thanks for replying. I have read Col. Ramspacher's biog of Estienne, and it is, to say the least, uncritical. There is no suggestion that the General might have been the slightest bit Machiavellian.

I have now read Jeudy's account, and, unless my French is even worse than I suspect, he seems to suggest that it was Louis Renault who gave Gen. Mouret a "consideration" in return for a contract to build the engines for the 2C. I should be very interested to hear more about this.

James Reeve.

I'm sorry I haven't been able to answer you yet - and I'm even more sorry to tell you it will take more time still :o). But I hope to inform you in a week or so.

MWAK--217.122.44.226 08:54, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

2.9.2004 Message received. Most intriguing. Thanks very much. JR

I`m interested about the B-1 bis Char de Bataille, but I havent found it even in the list of French tanks. Am I wrong with the designation, or it will be put there after the whole page is finished?

 * It's understandable you're interested in this vehicle; it's after all one of the most remarkable AFV's ever built! :o) Sadly, there are no articles about it on Wikipedia yet, apart from a very small German one. The lists are not supposed to reflect already written articles only (as can be seen by all those red links :o) but they are, at least in this case, not defective either: the vehicle is listed under the more including designation "Char B1", as there are three subtypes (B1 proper, B1 bis, B1 ter) that are so closely related they probably (but we'll see) won't get separate articles. When this will happen is hard to say. I myself am Dutch and I'm in the slow process of creating on the Dutch Wikipedia a full range of exhaustive articles on all French tanks (the first time ever for that language any easily accessible information has been made public about this subject). After some time I then create a smaller English version of each article. At current speed within 30 months I will cover the Char B1 also. I kept it for last because it will be the most extensive one: some 50 KB monster in Dutch, I fear (and hope). Should you not have the patience to wait that long ;o), there's plenty information to be found if you speak French, among which the most beautiful book ever written about any tank: Stéphan Bonnaud's Chars B au Combat and several websites, the best of which is http://www.chars-francais.net/. The few English books about French tanks contain many factual errors and tend to give a completely distorted view of pre-war French tank tactics and organisation. There are many common myths about the Char B1 in particular: that few had radio sets (all in principle); that the ventilation grille was a weak spot (nope); that the 75 mm gun for the horizontal plane was mounted completely rigidly in the hull (slight traverse was possible); that no AP-rounds were available for that gun (many a German tank crew learned the fatal truth of this matter); that it had inferior sights compared to German tanks (if anything, better) and even that it was the expression of some defensive attitude (in its day it was the only effective breakthrough tank and thus the offensive weapon par excellence). So if you're not versant in French you have the choice between remaining uninformed or being misinformed :>(.

--MWAK 07:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

As it happened my hand was forced: there now exists an article on the Char B1 :o).--MWAK 13:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thnx for the article and Thnx for the info. (applause, cheers, girls` bra-s flying your way, spectators waving, lighters are lit, we want more we want moreis heard. 8o)

Veljko Stevanovich 13. Nov. 2005 22:55 (UTC+1)

 * Within 27 months there will, deo volente, be more ;o). Meanwhile you might find http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=79218&highlight=char interesting or other contributions of David Lehmann on this forum. Keep in mind he can be dead wrong at times, as all of us. And then there are only so many French tanks on a given timeline...--MWAK 10:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Keeping a Neutral Point of View
I tried to put a more neutral tone (WP:NPOV) to this article a while back in keeping with Wikipedia policy, but someone has overwritten much of that work. It seems that there is a lot of unsupported speculation and critical point-of-view in some of the text especially about the Phases of development. Clearly this tone seems to come from the author of a source publication, but hopefully the text is not just lifted verbatim, as that would be plagiarizing. This material should be referenced preferably with footnotes and should stick a bit more to the facts, as Wikipedia is not the proper forum for expressing opinions. I've nominated this for a NPOV review to make sure that I'm not misperceiving the situation. Kevin Murray 04:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, have you read Mili doc numéro 2: le Char 2 C? Or could you give any modern sources contradicting the text? I haven't overwritten much of your work, mostly changes that were clearly factually incorrect, such as the claim "Petain supported the FCM 1A" or that "Joffre wanted pontoons" (I assume the latter was an inadvertent error on your part :o), and many reductions in factual information given, such as the fact that Pétain was High Commander. And now again you delete the fact that the FT-17 was a (revolutionary) light tank. I understand that someone without proper knowledge of the subject might believe "revolutionary" was an unsupported value judgment instead of simply reflecting informed consensus, but why omit that it was light? I agree that the tone of the article was rather flippant, but then a slight ironic detachment from the subject might be quite appropriate, given the circumstances. It would be highly deceptive to give the reader the utterly false impression the course of events had been straightforward, proper and rational, wheras the real history of the Char 2C was one of personal gain, political strife and stark dissimulation. One could say the tone is simply that of present French writers on the subject of French tank development: one naturally becomes ironic when faced with events ;o). Nevertheless, I'd better rewrite and expand the whole... And give those references.--MWAK 07:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your understanding. I agree that I'm not an expert in this field, but we seem to share the concern of the "tone" problem. The information is overall good, but I think you see my point as I see yours.  These are some tough paragraphs to write with concise clarity.  Kevin Murray 08:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I'll make an effort. :o) This article is merely a shortened translation of one I did for the Dutch wiki and there's plenty of background information available to improve the narrative.--MWAK 10:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

 * MWAK expanded on my edits and has produced a much more neutral tone while restoring the historical accuracy, and much better readability. I think that my critisism of the NPOV is no longer warranted, so I removed the tag.  This is really a facinating saga. Kevin Murray 19:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

 * And there's more to come after Christmas! I was a bit lazy when I first created the article...--MWAK 08:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Biggest tank?
In what sense? Dimensions? The Tiger was still heavier though.

-G

 * Obviously in regard of its dimensions. That is what "big" means, after all. The Tiger II was about the same weight. It's difficult to make comparisons. E.g. over the years the accumulated paint layers alone probably brought the Char 2Cs above the 70 metric ton limit. Certainly the uparmoured Lorraine was heavier than any Tiger II.--MWAK 09:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this needs a clearer mention of the fact that the Panzer VIII Maus was over 2.5x the mass, although it was only prototyped. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 * OK. When I come to it :o).--MWAK 10:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Don't worry about it--I'll just change "largest" to "largest (in physical dimensions)" --The Centipede (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

question
The article says this was the first tank to have stroboscopic cupolas. So, what is a stroboscopic cupola? Does our writer merely mean crew were able to use periscopes? Geo Swan (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * No, it was a construction consisting of an outer and an inner cylinder, both pierced by vertical vision slits. Rotating them created the stroboscopic illusion that the copula disappeared, leading to a better perception of the surroundings, while the head was still more or less protected.--MWAK (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

We've been trying to unpick the stroboscopic cupolas recently on the Landships forum. The FCM 2C wasn't the first tank to have a stroboscopic cupola - it was the FCM 1A retrofitted with a cupola in 1919. The FCM Char de Bataille prototype of 1923 certainly had a stroboscopic cupola (Char Francais website) and in the US an experimental cupola fit was done on a Mark VIII (Hunnicutt's book on heavy tanks). It seems as if the stroboscopic cupola on the FCM 2C was an inner frame with triplex glass vision blocks surmounted by an electric motor that drove the outer cupola at about 300 rpm. The outer part of the cupola seems to have been a 30mm thick nickel-chrome steel housing with 45 2mm slots. Charlie Landships (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Well, it at least was the first operational tank with such a device. Interesting that research is ongoing. But the openings were surely two centimetres wide, not millimetres?--MWAK (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Since the idea is to create the same effect as when seeing through a plank-fence when going past it, it isn't necessarily a typo with millimeters.BP OMowe (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Well, those blue-prints and pictures that I have seen, gave me the impression the slits were much wider. Also forty-five slits of two millimetres each would have equalled only nine centimetres for the total circumference. A person would have got a very dusky view of the surroundings in such a system.--MWAK (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Much delayed but there is an article on stroboscopic cupolas at: http://landships.info/landships/tank_articles.html?load=tank_articles/stroboscopic_cupolas.html. In this article there is an image of the FCM Char 2C stroboscopic cupolas dismantled - the slots are quite narrow.Charlie Landships (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks! You are quite right of course. Mayet has a little chapter on the subject and he clearly states that they were two millimetres thick, as test had shown that above 2.5 millimetres spall would get through.--MWAK (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Char 2C. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040603084305/http://www.chars-francais.net:80/archives/fcm_2c.htm to http://www.chars-francais.net/archives/fcm_2c.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Controversy
Reason for revert:

1) Four identified tanks show off 10-25 penetration holes; no explanation was provied since Aug. 2016 on how they were performed or how they appeared on these tanks. 2) If the Germans performed penetrations tests, how it was possible to perform it under a brigde and with another tank in front of it without unloading? 3) Can a aircraft be 100% excluded from a possible attack? Certain is, the event was exploited by German propaganda. 4) The Char 2C played also a big part in French propaganda; were the tanks really destroyed to prevent capture, or were their self-destruction only a intented excuse to obfuscate their previous battle-damage and possible loss? Performing a penetration test by a time of a major attack, even without unload the tanks - seems highly unrealistic, too many obstacles occlude with these tanks to have a clear shooting range for weapon tests.

Since so many questions rises about the event, only a brief NPOV description should be made. Theowslao (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I trust you have read Mayet by now ;o), so you must be aware that there are detailed and much more modern sources contradicting the German propaganda, and explicitly exposing it as a lie. There are no sources claiming "there are detailed and much more modern sources contradicting the German propaganda, but the propaganda was right anyway". So under WP:Undue Weight, in principle the only course of action open to us is to follow the French sources. Now, if the French sources claimed something that was utterly unbelievable like "it was never the Germans that did us in, no, it were little leprechauns with dainty pick-axes that disabled our glorious tanks" then we would be rightly justified to disregard their claims. However, far from being implausible, the French narrative is about as down-to-earth as you can get. A large percentage of French tanks were scuttled by their own crews during retreats (the French army retreating a lot in 1940). To the contrary, it is very hard to find evidence for any French tank being directly hit by a German dive-bomber. So, if no data on this case were available apart from some pictures showing wrecked tanks, the null-hypothesis would be that they had been scuttled. The inescapable conclusion is that the French sources represent the latest research on this subject and are plausible and that therefore it is mandatory for us to at least mention their content.

 * You are right that there are as yet unexplained aspects to this case, not mentioned by the sources, in that some pictures show clear penetration holes in the tanks' frontal armour. However, there are no unequivocal indications linking these holes to any airforce action. There are, however, indications that they were not caused by aircraft. The holes are indiscernible from known penetrations by AP tank rounds. They clearly differ in diameter. We know that a German armour unit, the 8. Panzerdivision, was at the time in the neighbourhood. No operational German aircraft at the time carried guns of a calibre sufficient to cause such large holes. AP-bombs would have inflicted even larger holes, did not have the required precision and were probably not used against trains in any case. So, the aircraft hypothesis, although it cannot be for 100% ruled out, does not offer a good explanation for the known data. It is true that the tank round hypothesis has its difficulties too. It's an interesting subject that clearly merits further historical investigation. However, it is not our task to carry it out. All these considerations do not make the French sources utterly unbelievable. And even if new published research would refute them, they would still have to be mentioned!--MWAK (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Again, you are to fixated with the idea that only an Aircraft could make the damage. The only aircrafts operating in that area was the Regia Aeronautica Italiana, its therfore impossible that a Ju 87 could be involved in that event, even if German propaganda claimed it otherwise. Its also impossible for another tank to shoot at these when they are loaded on the train!

 * For me, the only plaussible explanation for these penetrations are that these tanks were not operational when loaded at station of Landres on 13 June. These penetrations probably originated from a previous battle. Its simply impossible to perform a weapon test on a tank loaded on a train like this! However, four tanks show off penetrations marks, there have be a reason for it! I don't think Mayets account on this event is definite, and neither based on a generally accepted state of knowledge. If a source is too vague about an event, it should not be taken to make any final conclusions. Mayet does at no time address this issues and its therefore logical, not to mention the cause of the loss. The French wiki article follows that NPOV direction. Theowslao (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say rather that what editors make of what those RS sources say. If Mayes is reliable, then his words can be used. If what is being included goes beyond what Mayer says, then cut it back to what he does say. You could possibly say that there do exist photos of Char 2C with holes in them, because that is verifiable but you should be wary to claim that these were taken at any particular time in the tanks 'life' if you don't know. And you shouldn't claim they invalidate what Mayer does say, that requires an RS. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I fully agree that no aircraft were involved. Indeed, it is most likely that the penetrations were made by AP tank rounds. This also means that Mayet's account of the scuttling of the tanks, and of the German propaganda being propaganda can be largely followed in any case. In principle it's possible that there had been a previous battle but this hypothesis faces some daunting problems. French nor German sources mention such a battle and it is highly improbable that the deployment of such conspicuous materiel could have escaped notice. Furthermore, such a large number of penetrations would almost certainly have immobilised the vehicles and it would have been exceedingly difficult for the French to salvage them. What might have been possible is that the train convoy was at some earlier time intercepted by an advance-guard of 8. Panzerdivision that enjoyed themselves by hitting the Char 2Cs that then nevertheless managed to be transported away. But that's a long shot :o). The picture of the Char 2C with the track thrown is hard to reconcile with it being hit at that particular spot. But it might be a tank that, having been captured by the Germans, had already been transported by them over some distance, after which the track, provisionally repaired by a German crew, failed again and forced the train to halt.

 * Anyhow, Mayet's text can be summarised here. You might want to write this yourself.--MWAK (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Something wrong here
"The first engines were of the Chenu type, of 210 CV (150 kW) each. In 1923, these were replaced by captured German 6-cylinder 200 CV (150 kW) Mercedes engines"

200 and 210 cannot both be exactly 150kW. Idumea47b (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

 * They had a comparable output of about 150 kW in modern terms.--MWAK (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Char 2C


text:
High Bridge, Kentucky

High Bridge is an unincorporated community and census-designated place in Jessamine County, Kentucky, United States. As of the 2010 census it had a population of 242. It lies along the lower reaches of the Kentucky River across from the confluence of the Dix River with the Kentucky. The community is part of the Lexington–Fayette Metropolitan Statistical Area.

History
A post office was established in 1879 in the community then known as "North Tower". In 1888, the town was renamed for the landmark High Bridge, a 275 ft railroad bridge over the Kentucky River. The first bridge was planned by John Roebling as a suspension bridge, but ultimately built as a cantilever bridge. The current bridge, the second one on these foundations, is the highest railroad bridge in the United States over a navigable river. The Kentucky River runs through the Kentucky River Palisades for much of the lower portion of its length. Most of the bridges over it in the area are relatively high ones.

High Bridge was opened in 1876 and was the first cantilever bridge in North America. Standing 275 ft over the river between the Palisades, it first carried both passenger and freight trains. The American Society of Civil Engineers has designated it a National Historic Civil Engineering Landmark. The 1876 bridge was replaced in 1911 by a more robust bridge in the same place. This is the current bridge, which stands 308 ft above the river. Freight trains of the Norfolk Southern Railway still use this bridge several times a day.

The Palisades were a popular spot for picnics and dances, as breezes from the river gorge kept it comfortable. An open-air roofed ballroom was built there for community dances and has been preserved. A small playground and park adjoin the Palisades property.

A brand of bottled water named for the community depicts the bridge on its label. Highbridge Springs water is well known to the University of Kentucky Wildcats. The Wildcat mascot is used on the bottle label to show support for the team. The bottle name is "Swish".

Bethel Academy, the first Methodist school west of the Appalachians, was established in the High Bridge vicinity in 1790.

Geography
The High Bridge census-designated place consists of the community of High Bridge as well as rural land comprising the inside of the bend on the Kentucky River where the bridge is located. Kentucky Route 29 leads northeast from High Bridge 4.5 mi to Wilmore, and Nicholasville, the Jessamine county seat, is 10 mi northeast of High Bridge.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the High Bridge CDP has a total area of 6.0 sqkm, of which 5.6 sqkm are land and 0.4 sqkm, or 6.36%, are water.

Demographics
As of the 2020 census, there were 268 people, 120 housing units, and 51 families in the CDP. The racial makeup was 93.0% White, 0.3% Asian, 0.7% from some other race, and 6.0% from two or more races. Those of Hispanic or Latino origin made up 4.1% of the population.

The ancestry of the CDP was 79.3% American, 3.4% Irish, and 2.3% German.

The median age was 59.2 years old. The average family size was 1.97 people per household. The median household income was $30,750. 17.2% of the population were in poverty.

title: High Bridge, Kentucky


text:
Talk:O-fuda

Untitled
I am not a native Japanese speaker, but I believe the word is properly "o-fuda" (お札) --Anon. 23 July 2004

Cleanup
This article needs to better distinguish between the use of ofuda in real life and in Japanese popular fiction. Tagging. --Julian Grybowski 07:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Done. It now covers most of basics.--Revth 02:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:O-fuda


text:
Sidney Davidoff

Sidney Davidoff (born July 18, 1939) is an American lawyer who was one of 20 people on Nixon's Enemies List.

Life and career
Born in Brooklyn, New York, Davidoff graduated with a bachelor's degree from City College of New York in 1960 and earned his J.D. from New York University in 1963. He was admitted to the New York Bar that year.

Davidoff was administrative assistant to New York Mayor John Lindsay for seven years. Hendrik Hertzberg called him "the Mayor's burly troubleshooter".

He served as President of The New York Young Republican Club from 1967 to 1968.

In 1968, when students took over Hamilton Hall at Columbia University and held dean Henry S. Coleman captive, Lindsay sent Davidoff as one of the mediators to broker the dean's release. He likely caught the attention of Nixon staffers following a street fracas between pro- and anti-war demonstrators, where Davidoff re-lowered the American flag to half-mast in honor of the four demonstrators killed at the Kent State shootings after opponents had raised it in defiance.

On Nixon's list, Davidoff was described thus: "Lindsay's top personal aide: a first class S.O.B., wheeler-dealer and suspected bagman. Positive results would really shake the Lindsay camp and Lindsay's plans to capture youth vote. Davidoff in charge."

Davidoff was a Chubb Fellow at Yale University, as well as a lecturer to the Root-Tilden students at New York University School of Law. Davidoff is currently a senior partner in the firm Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP, which he founded in 1975. The firm is recognized as one of the top lobbyists in the state of New York. He later went on to form the New York Advocacy Association, a "lobbying group for lobbyists," designed to counter strict and complicated lobbying laws in the State of New York. He is a member of the Metropolitan New York Board of Governors for the United States Olympic Committee.

Davidoff has also had roles in television shows, including the ABC comedy Spin City, and The Sopranos.

title: Sidney Davidoff


text: Category:Volvo vehicles

title: Category:Volvo vehicles