text:
Talk:Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor

Name
Only for suggestion He was named and called "Kaiser Franz". His name by birth is "Franz" not "Francis". If WEBSTER'S say other.... will you Truth or copy Webster's? How does a visitor of Austria, "Franz II" will find, if he look up on this site? (Herbert Radke) --78.42.48.39 (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)--

Regnal names are commonly translated. That's why Queen Elizabeth II is called "Elisabeth II." in German.--MacX85 (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Was his name by birth "Franz"? He was born in Tuscany. It might be "Francesco". john k (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Since his parents would name him I bet it was Franz. But since legal documents often were given in Latin I would not be surprised if it was Franciscus.--MacX85 (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
Isn't Emperor Franz a saint in the Catholic Church now? user:J.J.

I'm going to have to go with "no" on that one. john k 22:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * "Maria Beatrice d'Este, Princess of Modena": She was born a Princess of Savoia. No such title "Prince of Modena" ever existed: "On July 14, 1814, Mary Beatrice's husband, Francis, became Duke Francis IV of Modena, Reggio, and Mirandola; he was the grandson of the last Este duke of Modena Ercole III. From this time forward, Mary Beatrice used the title "Duchess of Modena". . --Wetman 11:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

No, JJ, I think you're thinking of Emperor Charles I of Austria, and that wasn't saint, it was blessed. -Alex 12.220.157.93 14:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

A couple of times on this page it says that Franz became Emperor of Austria in 1806 after abdicating as Holy Roman Emperor. In the article Holy Roman Empire it says he became Emperor of Austria in 1804 - which is what I have seen elsewhere. KM.

move to new name
Shouldn't this article be at Franz I of Austria, considering he was the most part of his life emperor of Austria and died as such, and not as Holy Roman Emperor? Gryffindor 09:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 * If it were moved, it should be to Francis I of Austria. However, I think his status as last Holy Roman Emperor is important enough to have it as the title of the page. Charles 14:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And his status as emperor of Austria was less important? Gryffindor  15:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot be the judge of that. What I do recognise is that there is importance in the status of Holy Roman Empire. Some, but not necessarily me, may argue that the status of Holy Roman Emperor is much more important than that of Emperor of Austria. No one can really define the "Empire of Austria" anyway. Charles 00:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Given that the Empire of Austria amounted, in practice, to the residue of lands left to Franz I after the Holy Roman Empire went to pieces, I think it's reasonable to consider it more important, yes. Choess 01:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This seems an appropriate change. Francis was HRE for 12 years, and Emperor of Austria for 31.  That the precise territories meant by "Emperor of Austria" is unclear seems beside the point.  (As I understand it, anyway, "Emperor of Austria" was not meant to be a territorial title, but a dynastic one - "Emperor of [the House of] Austria".  That is to say, he was the Emperor who belonged to the House of Austria, and ruled over the lands belonging to the House of Austria.  "Emperor of Austria" did not supercede any of Francis's lesser titles - he was still, notably, "Archduke of Austria" in context of his rule over Upper and Lower Austria proper. john k 01:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is NOT up to us as encyclopedia editors to decide which is more important (reigning as Holy Roman Emperor or Emperor of Austria). All we have to do is determine what has been done in the scholarly literature; that is what we summarize here.  Unfortunately in this case, it is clear as mud.  The Library of Congress uses the subject heading "Francis I, Emperor of Austria".  However, both the Chambers and the Websters biographical dictionaries list him as "Francis II". Noel S McFerran 02:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that "last title held" is generally the rule used. We have Charles III of Spain, not Charles VII of Naples, for instance. john k 10:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with john k. And I think in terms of "realpolitik" the Empire of Austria was definetly more important during the lifetime of Emperor Franz, than the completely derelict, hollow and meaningless late Holy Roman Empire. Neither holy, nor roman, nor an empire.... Gryffindor  19:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I will try this again: it's not for any of us to decide which is more important. We go by what has already been written.  That is how an encyclopedia works.  It gathers already published scholarship.  The thing to determine is how Franz is called most frequently in written works in English. Noel S McFerran 22:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Applying "last title held" would implicitly create an ersatz rule not vetted on Naming conventions (names and titles). The rule that's already there is "Use the most senior title received by a royal or noble personage." One may be "senior" in terms of time, but I think here the term means "highest" title held (which is distinct from the matter-of-opinion notion of "most important"). But not all emperors are created equal: the Emperors of India and Brazil were not, thereby, of higher precedence than Continental kings. The "German Emperor" was, legally, the "first among equals" with respect to other German sovereigns, such as the Kings of Bavaria and Saxony. But the rulers of modern Russia, the Byzantine Empire and the Holy Roman Empire were emperors in the old sense of ruling over kings (e.g. the Kingdom of Georgia (Kartl-Kakheti) was a protectorate under the Russian empire). The Holy Roman Empire encompassed the Kingdom of Bohemia, and its Emperors were the suzerains of the Kings of Bohemia. The Emperor of Austria did not reign, in that capacity, over the Kingdom of Bohemia. Ergo "Holy Roman Emperor" is the more "senior" title. Aside from that, my sense is that Francis was and is known primarily as the last of the Holy Roman Emperors, as the man who relinquished that title lest Napoleon I take it from him, and as the man who presided over the decline of the Habsburg empire as a Great Power in Europe, of which the change from "Holy Roman Emperor" to "Emperor of Austria" was a manifestation. If no one can figure out an agreed-upon way of ascertaining which title is "most common in English" per Noel S McFerran's suggestion, then I think he should stay at Holy Roman Emperor. Lethiere 23:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The big issue here may actually be the one of ordinal. In contrast to my earlier positions, I suspect that he may be better known as "Francis II," because there was no other Francis II, and he needs to be distinguished from his grandfather.  In that manner, it might make most sense to leave him where he is. john k 00:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the title should be Franz I, Emperor of Austria or at least have a reference to this title in the title. Technically, he was not Holy Roman Emperor. He was Holy Roman Emperor-Elect. To be a fully fleged emperor and gain all of the benefits, you needed a papal coronation. Emperor of Austria is a full emperor title that had not coronation requirements. Thus, Emperor of Austria is a higher title than Holy Roman Emperor-Elect. Emperor001 01:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Technically the last real emperor has been Charles V. No one of the 15 emperors who followed Charles V. - including Charles VII. of the houe of Wittelsbach - have been crowned by a pope. Technically only 20 emperors have been crowned by the pope. Technically Maximilian I., the first emperor-elect had the papal accreditation to use this title. After that it wasn´t necessary to be crowned by the pope to gain al benefits. The emperors de facto had all benefits without an coronation after Maximilian. Only his grandson Charles V. has been crowned again by a pope, but only to humilate the pope and show his power.--88.117.85.214 (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * The title Holy Roman Emperor is certainly what was used though. It can be said that there was not even an Empire of Austria over which he was emperor. My opinion is that Holy Roman Emperor is a higher title than Emperor of (the House of) Austria. Either way, there was a Holy Roman Empire and someone at any given time fancied themselves to be the emperor. There hardly was an Empire of Austria. Charles 03:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Just a side question. If he was Francis II of Bohemia, who was Francis I of Bohemia?  Was there a Francis I of Bohemia, and if notm why not? --  JackofOz (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

 * If this is to stay at Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor based on the title being higher, rather than being moved to Francis I of Austria due to reign length, then should we not move Charles II, Duke of Parma to Charles I of Etruria? Higher title, after all. 74.132.163.46 (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

 * If my opinion means anything, I think the article title should be "Franz I of Austria." The throne of the Holy Roman Emperor was almost entirely symbolic by the time of Franz's rule, and furthermore, he voluntarily took the title "Emperor of Austria" in 1804 as a response to Napoleon becoming Emperor of the French. -- LightSpectra (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have seen history book (in the US) that called him and the later HRE after Charles V just Emperors or Emperors of Austria instead. Is this actually common in the source to call him HRE, I think many more sources would simply call him or other later HRE Emperors with no territorial distinction or simply the Austrian emperor.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

But that wouldn't be correct-all the Emperors after Charles V used the title 'Roman Emperor Elect' (Latin: Imperator Romanorum Electus) as a way of using the Imperial title and dignity without the fuss of the coronation, which due to the political situation of the time was often either dangerous, costly, or both. Oh, and no, 'Roman Emperor Elect' does not mean the same as 'President Elect'. Personally, I think the fact he was HRE was significant-he was after all the last of the Emperors of that state, and the Holy Roman Empire, with its thousand and six year life (800-1806) is arguably more important and significant, historically anyway, than the 'Empire' of Austria which only lasted from 1804 to 1918.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Early life
I've written a section of Francis's childhood and youth prior to becoming Emperor, as this was lacking in the article beforehand. Thoughts? Lec CRP1 17:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Doppelkaiser (Double emperor)
I dont know why someone put a citation needed to the word Doppelkaiser (Double emperor). In the germanspeaking Wikipedia there is no controversy about this term, as it is the appropiate description in German for someone who was twice times an emperor at the same time. During my history lessons in school (in Austria) Franz II./I. was allready named like this, and even today he is called so, see below some weblinks (unfortunately in German):
 * 1
 * 2 (German Monarchists, even when I dont support their ideology, they are a serious source for THIS question)
 * 3

-- Rfortner 17:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Successor?
Why is Frederick William III of Prussia listed as the successor to Francis II in the side box? 76.70.117.75 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Indeed, he should not be. john k (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
I am planning to revise this article and nominate it for GA. Just one note - there are multiple non-neutral statements, including one mentioning the "horrible and despicable" acts of the French Revolution.  DCI  talk 22:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

age and/or year wrong?
There is a picture whose current caption is "Francis II at age 25, 1792". The top of the article says he was born in 1768, so would not reach 25 until 1793. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

"Pretended to be a family man"?
I think the current editors comment that Francis "pretended to be a family man" is highly subjective and not born out by any evidence shown in the article. His inability to save an older aunt that he had never known is hardly proof he was not a family man. He had many children by the Empress, Maria Theresa, and as far as I can see he was devoted to her and to his children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Chamberlain (talk • contribs) 15:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 28 January 2018

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. See some general agreement to rename this article; however, it appears insufficient enough to call it a consensus. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors may in a few weeks or months open a new requested move in an attempt to garner consensus for the highest and best title for this article. To help in this regard, here is a gentle reminder that reliable sources are your friends. Happy Hearts Day! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there 03:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor → Francis I of Austria – He held the title of Emperor of Austria for a longer period of time that he held the title ofHoly Roman Emperor. He ruled over the Austrian Empire for 31 years, while he ruled over the Holy Roman Empire for 14 years. 2601:241:300:C930:841C:1F52:9AB4:14BE (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yet the "Holy Roman Emperor" is a more prominent title. Based on your rationale, the title of Prince Charles' article should remain "Charles, Prince of Wales" even after his ascension to the throne because he has been an heir for 60 years. When an individual is in a higher place, he will normally become known by the title attributed to that position. As a reminder, Francis was not only the Emperor of Austria, he was the King of Hungary and Croatia, King of Bohemia, and King of Lombardy–Venetia. In fact, his reign as King of Hungary and Croatia was longer than that of Austria. Keivan.f  Talk 00:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Both titles are Emperor, so one could argue that they are equivalent.
 * It's not about equality, it's about commonality and prominence. He was initially the Holy Roman Emperor and then became Emperor of Austria. And by the way, which empire was greater in power and vastness? If I remember correctly it was the Holy Roman Empire. Keivan.f  Talk 00:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 * Support We normally favour the final title. Arguing which Empire was more "prominent" is pretty pointless - the parts of the HRE not directly ruled by Vienna were effectively independent, so in terms of real power there was relatively little difference between before and after. Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we just need to find out what his common name was. How is he referred to in the reliable source? Holy Roman Emperor or Emperor of Austria? Keivan.f  Talk 16:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment For what it's worth, "Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor" brings up About 648,000 results on Google, while "Francis I of Austria" brings up About 69,500,000 results.
 * Links? Keivan.f  Talk 04:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Franz Grillparzer
Was Franz Grillparzer really censored? He was born in 1791 and the Holy Roman Empire was abolished in 1806, so he could be at most 15 years old. 217.211.210.142 (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Better primary photo
In my opinion, the current portrait of Franz II is not exactly a very 'monarchical' portrait, though it portrays him in royal attire. I believe the painting by Friedrich von Amerling: "Emperor Franz I of Austria in his Coronation Robes" would be better for this article. Below is the painting to which I refer. How do other editors feel about this?

i don't really agree. He would be too small. Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Arms of the Count of Luxembourg.svg

Requested move 3 July 2023

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor → Francis I of Austria – This move was last proposed in January 2018 and resulted in a no consensus close. That RM was opened based on the rationale that Francis was longer Emperor of Austria than Holy Roman Emperor. While this is true, it is not enough to support a move. Yet, this is lengthier tenure is reflected in reliable sources, as Francis I of Austria is more popular than Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor in Google Books. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and clear ambiguity, as Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor, was also based in Austria. The Google Books search doesn't really prove anything, as both are most likely to be referred to as simply Francis I/II or Emperor Francis I/II. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Necrothesp - Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor was never "of Austria". It was Maria Theresa who was suo jure Archduchess of Austria. Can you provide in reliable sources to show that Francis I was ever referred to as "Francis I of Austria"? estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What I said was it's ambiguous, which it clearly is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You said its ambiguous, and provided no evidence. It can't be ambiguous just because you say so. estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you can't see why it might be ambiguous then no further discussion is worthwhile. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * By your logic of someone being referred to by a title that I cannot find anywhere in reliable sources, then Ferdinand I of Austria is also ambiguous with Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor. Would you be opposed to Francis I, Emperor of Austria? estar8806 (talk) ★ 12:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally would not support "Francis I, Emperor of Austria". It is not consistent with how the pages on other Austrian emperors have been titled. I think it's not a question of ambiguity, but to determine with which title he's mostly associated. Is it the "Holy Roman Emperor" because it was more traditional and deeply rooted in history, or "Emperor of Austria" the most prominent title that he held at the time of his death? If the latter is the case, then User:Johnbod could be right and we could format his page in line with other Austrian emperors. If not, it probably should remain as it is. Someone who's really familiar with the subject could help. Keivan.f  Talk 16:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per last time. Apart from the above, we normally use the final title. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I cannot see that either numeral or title is more prominent in the sources, so it comes down to final title vs 'higher' title. I vote for the status quo. Srnec (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Germany has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Austria has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose. Unnecessary. And causes ambiguity with the earlier emperor Francis I. Walrasiad (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too much risk of ambiguity in the proposed title. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor


text:
Talk:Little Boy

More on postwar
So we have this:

 * Enough fissionable material was available by 1948 to build ten projectiles and targets, although there were only enough initiators for six. However, no actual fissionable components were produced by the end of 1948, and only two outer casings were available.

Which cites Hansen 1995 (vol 5), 116-118. Hansen's text says:

 * By the end of 1948, there were no stockpiled fissionable components for the LITTLE BOY and only two outer casings.[123]

 * There were no gun-type weapon uranium targets and projectiles in the national nuclear weapons stockpile again until 1949, although by the end of 1947, enough fissionable material had been assembled to build 10 projectiles and targets. There were only enough initiators on hand for six of these potential weapons.[124]

Footnote 124 is a document that I have, which is a report for the state of things as of December 31, 1947. It has a table relating to both FM and LB weapons, which has two columns, "Accepted" and "Under test." For LB, it has a row for "Fissionable material" and indicates 10 are "under test." It also says it has 6 initiators under test. And under "Other components (in terms of complete assemblies)" it has 0.

Footnote 123 cites an unpublished talk which seems not to be digitized anywhere (so impossible to check or use), as well as the familiar DOE stockpile report, which says 2 full non-nuclear assemblies and 0 "nuclear components."

Anyway, just documenting this. My reading of the 1947 document suggests they in fact did have 10 projectile/targets cast — I don't think "under test" means they hadn't tested them, I think it means they were in quality assurance or something like that. The document does not elaborate at all — it is just a one page table, nothing more.

I admit I am a little suspicious of the DOE stockpile numbers. The DOE numbers say that the US had 29 implosion non-nuclear components, and 13 nuclear components in 1947. But the report in question says that the AEC had _50_ implosion cores (9 "pure 49 Christy", 36 "composite Christy", and 5 "levitated composite") in the "accepted category" (with 11 "under test"), 63 initiators, 44 assembled HE components (28 unassembled), 104 "other components". I don't know how to reconcile those differences except to suggest that the DOE numbers are perhaps meaning something different than we might assume they mean. Or that there's some other confusion there — the DOE list says "Fiscal Year" where as the report is about components on hand in December 1947, which is not quite the same thing. So maybe they are rolling the December 1947 data into FY 1948 (which does list 50 implosion cores). In which case, the "0" for 1948 really means for FY 1948 and not "by the end of 1948." NuclearSecrets (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hansen cites are a little mixed up
So all of the Hansen cites claim to be for the 1995 edition of Swords. But from what I can tell they are actually the 2007 edition (version 2). At some point I will make them all the same version, because the page and volume numbers are not the same between them at all. Just a note. NuclearSecrets (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Little Boy


text:
Talk:Battle of Sari Bair

Lack Turkish POW
This battle was the ending point of the campaign and had important political effects. Yet it lacks the Turkish point of view just like all the other Dardanelles battles. Throughout the article only British Empire actions are told while Turkish forces are explained with a couple of words or short sentences. Whoever wrote this article needs to be fair with both sides of the battle. When one reads this, it sounds like the British lost the battle by itself. Nothing is known about what the Turkish have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.231.158.66 (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 2 weeks
Articles is semi-protected for a couple of weeks to stop persistent sockpuppetry from one editor. Apologies to any new contributor prevented from making legitimate edits to the article while this protection lasts; please feel free to post those legitimate edit suggestions here instead along with the edit request template. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Battle of Sari Bair


text:
Talk:President's Daily Brief

9/11 memo
Was the 9/11 memo called "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" or "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US"? I've seen it said as both. 66.72.83.61 06:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The 9/11 Commission report says "Bin Ladin". It also says "President's Daily Brief", not "President's Daily Briefing". Can someone move it? 72.40.53.121 04:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Name of PDB
Sorry I edited it very sloppily last time and didn't provide reasons.. I hope you can see what I was doing... thanks guys. Intelanalyst

 * Alright, I can see why you called it that, given your source. However, I've also heard it called the other two names (and a Google search turns up results for both). Therefore, I'm going to put them back in as alternatives. Also, the page has to be moved the proper location. Unfortunately, someone has already created President's Daily Brief as a redirect here. —Gordon P. Hemsley→ ✉ 02:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 * THANKS, appreicate the help on the editing...still sort of a newbie at that.Intelanalyst 09:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 * No problem. No need to bold things like that, by the way. —Gordon P. Hemsley→ ✉ 16:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Article moved. Please note that you can move articles on top of redirects if the redirect has never done anything but point to the place you're moving from. Make sense? -- nae'blis 06:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Director of National Intelligence is now Dennis Cutler Blair, as of 01/28/09. this needs to be updated, IF Pres. Obama is getting his PDB from him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.198.104 (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Broken link
Reference "1" returns a 404 error.

Basesurge (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Corrected. TransUtopian (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Former Are Presidents Entitled?
The article states "Former Presidents are entitled to receive the PDB, if they so desire, but only after the current President receives his daily briefing" however there is no citation for this. This seems like a strong statement to let stand without any reference materials. I read the article about removing uncited content but I am unsure on how to proceed.

DouglasCalvert (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

 * I removed the following "Former Presidents are entitled to receive the PDB, if they so desire, only after the sitting President actually receives his daily briefing." It was added back in 2007 with no evidence for the entitlement. I cannot find any citation supporting this assertion. I would love to see one if it exists. This specious clam was added with this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President%27s_Daily_Brief&diff=prev&oldid=98608457 DouglasCalvert (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

 * "Bush inhaled the daily CIA briefings sent to former presidents" Destiny and Power: The American Odyssey of George Herbert Walker Bush, page 540 https://books.google.com/books?id=iMgOCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA540&dq=inhaled+the+daily+CIA+briefings+sent+to+former+presidents%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE5a3A4a3dAhXF6lMKHc2fBtIQ6AEILjAB#v=snippet&q=%22Bush%20inhaled%20the%20daily%20CIA%20briefings%20sent%20to%20former%22%20%22presidents%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerimiah81 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

President's Daily Brief (PDB) is given to the President each morning at 07:45
According to History Channel's The White House, the PDB is given to the President each morning at 07:45. Anyone got another confirmation of this? 2601:589:4705:C7C0:D07:7737:252D:15C7 (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nicholas Schmidle (17 Feb 2017), New Yorker gives the preferred formats of the PDB by each POTUS 41, (not 42) 43, 44, 45. I found a source for 42:
 * 41: daily text on 4-5 pages, single column
 * 42: daily oral/text
 * 43: daily oral, 15-20 pages, questioned the briefer
 * 44: daily text written down, read alone
 * 45: attends up to 3 PDBs per week

 * --Ancheta Wis   (talk  | contribs) 00:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on President's Daily Brief. 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/20130604140041/http://www.dia.mil/public-affairs/testimonies/2011-08-12.html to http://www.dia.mil/public-affairs/testimonies/2011-08-12.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Ra social memory complex
Has Ra social memory complex ever been unredacted from this brief? Is cosmic background radiation ever listed as a threat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.8.134.155 (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:President's Daily Brief


text:
Tan Kah Kee

Tan Kah Kee (also spelled as Chen Jiageng; 21 October 1874 – 12 August 1961) was a Chinese businessman, investor, and philanthropist active in Singapore and the Chinese cities of Hong Kong, Shanghai, Xiamen, and Guangzhou.

A prominent figure in the overseas Chinese community in Singapore and wider Southeast Asia during the 20th century, he was responsible for gathering much support from the community to aid China in major events such as the Xinhai Revolution (1911), the Kuomintang's Northern Expedition (1926–28), and the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–45).

Apart from donating most of his assets and earnings to aid China in those major events, Tan set up funds in Southeast Asia and Hong Kong and contributed to the establishment of several schools in Southeast Asia and China's Fujian Province, including Xiamen University.

Life
Tan Kah Kee was born in Xiamen, Fujian Province, in 1874 during the Qing dynasty of China. In 1890, at the age of 16, he travelled to Singapore in the Straits Settlements to help his father, who owned a rice trading business. In 1903, after his father's business collapsed, Tan started his own company and built a business empire from rubber plantations, manufacturing, sawmills, canneries, real estate, import and export brokerage, ocean transport and rice trading. As he was proficient in Hokkien, he achieved much success doing business in Singapore because Hokkien was the common language of overseas Chinese in Singapore throughout most of the 19th and 20th centuries. His business was at its prime from 1912 to 1914 when he was known as the "Henry Ford of the Malayan community".

Tan had a leading role among the 110 founders of Tao Nan School in Singapore. In 1919, he set up The Chinese High School (now Hwa Chong Institution) in Singapore. Earlier, in 1918, he established the Jimei Schools (now Jimei University) in Xiamen. Tan was also a member of the Anglo-Chinese College Council and had pledged S$100,000 to the proposed Anglo Chinese School College in 1919. However, when the proposal was turned down by the Government, he agreed to channel the $30,000 he had given to the Anglo-Chinese School fund for physics and chemistry. This helped to complete the Secondary School at Cairnhill in 1928. In 1921, he set up Xiamen University and financially supported it until the Nationalist government of the Republic of China took over in 1937. In 1920, Tan arranged a marriage between his daughter, Tan Ai Leh, and Lee Kong Chian, his protégé and a businessman.

Tan was one of the prominent overseas Chinese to provide financial support to China during the Second Sino-Japanese War. He organised many relief funds under his name, one of which alone managed to raise ten million Straits dollars in 1937. He was also a participant in the Legislative Yuan of the Nationalist government in Chongqing. After the Japanese invaded and occupied Malaya and Singapore in 1942, they deemed these contributors "undesirable" and conducted systematic extermination of anti-Japanese elements in Singapore through the Sook Ching Massacre. Tan survived because he escaped from Singapore before it fell to the Japanese, and went into hiding in Malang, a town in East Java province, Indonesia. He strongly rejected proposals to attempt to negotiate with the Japanese and regarded such attempts as characteristic of a hanjian (a Chinese term for race traitor). He also attempted to dissuade Wang Jingwei from such activities. He exercised considerable effort against the governor of Fujian Province, Chen Yi, for perceived maladministration.

In 1943, while he was in Java, Tan began writing his memoirs, The Memoirs of an Overseas Chinese of the Southern Ocean, which later became an important document of the history of the overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia.

Tan was the de facto leader of the Chinese community in Singapore, serving as chairman of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and helping to organise the Hokkien clan association. However, he lost this role when the Chinese Civil War divided Singapore's Chinese community into Communist and Kuomintang sympathisers. Tan Kah Kee has consistently demonstrated a keen interest in business, philanthropy, and education, with a dedicated commitment to uplifting ASEAN and his homeland, particularly in Jimei and Xiamen. He refrains from aligning with any political party but advocates for the principles of diligence and achieving commendable outcomes. The venerable individual does not concern himself with affiliations or factions and disapproves of malpractices within the Kuomintang.

In 1947 Tan founded the Chiyu Banking Corporation in Hong Kong, an intended to be a sustainable business with profits to be devoted to education in Xiamen and the rest of Fujian province in China.

After the Communist victory in China and the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949, Tan tried to return to Singapore in 1950 but was denied entry by the British colonial authorities concerned about communist influence in Singapore and Malaya. He then moved permanently to China and served in numerous positions in the Chinese Communist Party.

Tan died in 1961 in Beijing and was given a state funeral by the Chinese government. In Singapore, the Tan Kah Kee Scholarship Fund, which later became known as the Tan Kah Kee Foundation, was established in memory of this philanthropy.

Personal life
Tan's sons were:
 * Tan Chay Bing, Tan Khuat Siong , Tan Pok Ai , Tan Pok Chay , Tan Kok Kheng , Tan Guan Khai , Tan Guan Chay , Tan Kok Whye and Tan Guan Aik

Tan's daughters were:
 * Tan Ai Leh, Tan Lay Ho , Tan Ah Hui , Tan Mary , Tan Lay Choo , Tan Poh Tee and Tan Ai Eng

Many of his children maintained close relationship with or even married other prominent Chinese figures in Singapore. For example, Tan Ai Leh, his eldest daughter, was married to Lee Kong Chian; Tan Lay Ho was married to Lim Chong Kuo, the eldest son of respected merchant Lim Nee Soon.

Legacy
In recognition of Tan's contributions to education and society throughout his lifetime, there are places and establishments in China and Southeast Asia named after Tan or built to commemorate him, including: the Tan Kah Kee Memorial Museum in Tan's hometown in Jimei; the Tan Kah Kee Foundation, which offers postgraduate scholarships; the Tan Kah Kee MRT station along the Downtown MRT line in Singapore, next to the current site of Hwa Chong Institution. The schools in the Anglo-Chinese School family have houses named after Tan. Chongfu School's Main Hall is named after him. Tan Kah Kee Hall at the University of California, Berkeley, is also named after him.

The asteroid 2963 Chen Jiageng is named after him.

title: Tan Kah Kee


text:
Talk:Multi-booting

Linux woes

 * The following was copied from Reference Desk. Some of this information may be able to be integrated into the article. --Benc 03:10, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well I finally decided to get around to trying Linux. I decided to go for the “safest option” and run a live distribution from a cd (Morphix). I ignored the warning on the disc that read “read the instructions inside the magazine first” because I no longer had the magazine. So I just put it in the drive and rebooted. Everything went ok, I had a bit of a look around, decided there would be a very steep learning curve, and I really should look at a few books (there was no documentation on the cd at all!). Then I pressed the button on the DVD drive and nothing happened! Panic set in, as I realise that a bootable cd meant I couldn’t just switch off and on again. I has visions of prising it open with a screwdriver ( the computer is 4 days old I really didn’t want to smash it up) then I  came to my senses and thought of changing the boot order in the bios. That worked so I did boot up Windows and get the disc out, but surely there must be a way of opening it from within Linux? Also when I tried to connect to the internet, it didn't dial up (I get broadband in two weeks yeah!) how do i tell it about dial up networking? theresa knott 19:01, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think you can eject a live distribution while the OS is in use - you have to shut it down and the last thing it does is eject the CD. However, if you insist on using one, Knoppix is about the most friendly Linux distribution I have ever seen (live or on-disk). →Raul654 19:11, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * Indeed, the root filesystem is mounted off the CD, so the eject button is (quite rightly) disabled. I'd echo Raul's fondness for Knoppix. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 22:51, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't know about Morphix but Mandrake Linux (the distro I use) has a whole control center (very nice) that should recognize your dial-up modem. Problem is, it doesn't recognize my D-link DWL-520! (nor does any other distro I tried) :(. A good distro is Debian because it makes installing packages a lot easier, and it's what lindows is based on. Good luck. Ilyanep (Talk) 19:19, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First off, if you have a built in 'winmodem', generally it is not worth trying to get Linux to recognise it. All hardware modems should give you a better shot at it. How old is the CD you're using? Using the most recent one will give you a much better crack at getting it going, as Raul says, Knoppix is the best at this. As for getting the disk out, when it's running, you can't, because it is a Live CD, running from the disk. Shut it down using the icon that, I think, on Gnome, is a foot, but honestly could be anything depending on the theme. It's analagous to the start button on windows. There should be a 'log out' or 'shut down' option. Go for it, and the disk should eject. If it doesn't, turn the computer off at the power switch, and find the little paperclip hole on the front of your cd drive that hardware ejects the cd. HTH Mark Richards 20:31, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you want specific help about how to configue it to dial up, let us know what computer, and what version of Linux. Mark Richards 23:04, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your halp everyone. Now that I come to think of it, it makes perfect sense not to allow removal of the disc when the operating system is on that disc. But it does not eject when the computer shuts down :-( Anyway I found a quick way to get the disc out, by rebooting, pressing F1, watching the light of the DVD drive an opening it when it flashes. It then boots to Windows just fine. As for dialup, i think I may as well just wait a couple of weeks to I go over to braodband and try to get that to work instead.

 * I intend to run a dual boot system - what's the best way to do this let Linux shrink my Windows partition, or use something like Partition Magic? I have version 5 ( current version is 8) free on a magazine disc. Has anyone used that with XP - it says it's compatable with Windows 2000 but XP hadn't come out yet when version 5 was new. I'd rather not pay for the latest version if I can get away with an older one. theresa knott 00:29, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Unless you're strapped for cash, I'd avoid dual-boot like the plague. Partition management (of every flavour) can be a bit dicey, and windows frequently doesn't play nice with the boot sectors of other OSes (particularly when you need to reinstall XP, it'll generally write the drive's MBR, meaning your linux partition becomes unbootable, at least until you fix the boot partition after booting from some install media or live CD). If you can at all afford it, get one of those cheapo removable drive caddy things (you know, it's just a slot on the PC's front, and a regular IDE hard drive goes inside).  Then have one drive for booting windows, and another for booting linux. It's marginally less convenient than dual boot, but much safer. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 00:40, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I would like to echo Finlay's advice - dual boot is 10x more headache than it's worth. 'Tried it, *hated* it. Now I have two machines (XP for fun, Fedora Core 2 for work) and life is a lot happier. If you have an older machine lying around, put linux on that one. Just one comment - the "good" Window managers (read - friendly and intuitive) are very processor hungry. →Raul654 04:36, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

 * Dual boot isn't that hard, although I would recommend making an emergency boot disk to repair the boot loader if something happens. The Grub boot loader is fairly robust and works well either from floppy or disk.  Repartitioning is a bit dangerous, but if done right, works well.  I think getting a second disk would be much easier and cheaper than the "drive caddy things".  I sometimes install grub in the last cylinder on the disk, which windows invariably forgets to use anyway. --ssd 04:25, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, dual boot isn't such a big deal. Get a nice tool such as Partition Magic to help you. The concerns about MBRs are valid, but if you can get your preferred OS to rewrite the boot sector you want, if Win overwrites it (a boot floppy would help), you should be fine, really. Dysprosia 14:00, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Partition Magic costs $$$; if you're looking for a no-cost no-frills alternative for resizing partitions, check out BootItNG Ambarish | Talk 18:08, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have used dual boot, and found it, as others said, a pain, but not insurmountable. The solution I came up with was to make a floppy or cd boot disk that boots to a partition on the hard drive. If that disk is in the drive, it boots to linux, if not, it boots to windows. Seriously though, hard discs are not expensive, get another one and don't mess around with partitioning. Mark Richards 15:15, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * You have convinced me, I shall get another hard drive. theresa knott 19:22, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * tk, There's some preparatory mental flossing generally needed when dual booting, whatever approach one uses. Decide what sort you are, with the two choices being (at the boundaries) computer enthusiast for whom the system is the thing and the work done with a working system not, or a user for whom the whole bit (hardware, software, connectivity, ...) is just a tool. If there were squirrells inside making it all go, that would be just fine as long as nobody makes you feed them and they don't lose/damage your work. the former sort will be quite accepting of the reboot, reload, reformat, recreate cycle some software compells.
 * If you're the latter sort (even if only sometimes) then dataloss paranoia is quite appropriate. The problem (as always) is that where and how the data (=all that work you've sweated over, or acquired in other perhaps not repeatable ways) can get lost is very hard to foresee, even for the most knowledgable. Monkeying with your partition tables is quite foreseeable, of course, and the problem (even w/ Partition Magic which has a sterling reputation) is of course pilot error, common in inexperienced. The usual resort is to backups, so if lightning (fire/flood/theft/flocks of offended tits/...) does strike, the data will at least still exist (elsewhere will then be your fervent hope). In an era of 60GB disks and rather smaller data tape cartridge capacities (among those offordable by mortals w/o Gates' resources), this is not so simple as it might be. DVD burners are of course an alternative, but at 7GB or so current max, that's a lot of DVDs (and time and trouble) if your disk(s) is full. Currently the cheapest alternative is probably a second disk, but unless it's portable (and kept elsewhere, though regularly updated with the latest not-to-be-lost stuff) the second copy of your vital info might die the same dismal death as the first (in the next door drive bay).
 * There are several intro to Linux things available on the 'Net, with the Rute Guide being perhaps the most one_source of the responsible lot. There's also a lot of not so useful stuff. Check with the Linux Documentation Project for generally good stuff, though a bit fragmented, rather as the WP often is. The learning curve isn't as steep as you now think, it's just that you're hitting it pretty much flat on when you're undertaking to dual boot, or install a new operating system yourself, or, indeed, to manage your own computer. The M$ folk iterate and reiterate about ease of use, and even easier of use with the newest/latest (only a bit more $!) release, but neglect to note that 1) it's easy (whatever they think they mean by that) only for those migrating from previous versions with a back story of experience and knowledge, and 2) "you don't have to worry about system administration" is a pile of poop and a flat (and every other sort of shape) lie. Every machine -- unless you're one of those for whom data is disposable and recreatable without cost or trouble -- requires a keeper. Even kids -- who are far more self managing than these machines -- requires minders, pretty continuously. At least machines aren't motivated/driven/compelled/poossessed/drawn to get into trouble on their own hook. It's easily doable (by those with certain capabilities, a sense of caution (unless you're one of those ...), and some patience), but does require effort and perspective and a bit of prepatory mental flossing. ww 18:31, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, dual booting with two hard drives (one for linux and one for windows) is definitely the way to go. The easiest way to accomplish this is:
 * Install windows on the master hard drive. (I'm guessing you've already done this.)
 * Swap the two hard drives. I.e., make the master the slave, and the slave the master. Should be a simple adjustment of jumpers and IDE cables.
 * Install linux on the new master hard drive.
 * Set up the boot loader to enable dual boot. Both lilo and grub can fool the system into thinking that the windows drive is the master and the linux drive is the slave, making windows happy. (Windows insists on its bootloader being present in the "master" drive, or it won't boot.) Many linux distros will detect windows on your original hard drive and set the bootloader up to fool the system automatically. In case your distro doesn't, here's an example of a lilo.conf set up to virtually swap the master/slave (specifically, the part about map-drive).
 * The advantage of doing it this way is that the slave hard drive (the one containing windows) is not touched at all by linux. Even if something gets majorly screwed up with the bootloader, your windows installation is safe, and in a worst case scenario you can simply swap the two drives back and boot windows with no problems. It's saved me a couple times. Good luck. :-) --Benc 22:04, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

what about renaming this article "multiboot"?
what about renaming this article "multiboot"? why not?

 * Dual booting is the most common scenario, and it's usually referred to that way. Twinxor t 06:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Multiboot" makes sense. Also, why not a discussion of installing Linux on an external USB drive? That seems to be an unduly difficult task. The simplest way may be to unplug the internal drive(s) immediately prior to the installation, so the BIOS only sees the external usb drive, but there has to be a good way that does not involve touching the hardware. 75.180.46.42 22:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with renaming this article to "multiboot". While dual-booting is a more common scenario, it is contextually incorrect when booting three or more operating systems. I am personally planning to set up a quadruple-boot system (Gentoo, WinXP, FreeBSD and LFS) once I get enough disk space (a 750GB Seagate Barracuda should do ;), which is just as possible as having two operating systems. "Multiboot" encompasses, per definition, any amount of operating systems greater than one. The only semantically correct meaning of "dual-boot" is booting two operating systems. --Sir Link 11:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but the general term for it is dual-boot. I have never in my life before reading this comment heard of the term multi-booting. Sure, it by definition means two operating systems but it doesn't mean that it can't just have an off meaning encompassing more than 2 as well. Megamanfanx7 18:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiboot exists, as a redirect to Multiboot Specification. But "Multiboot" has other meanings, including Game Boy Advance's method of netbooting, along with RAM-based GBA programs that are compatible with netbooting. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Two (or more) operating systems on a single partition?
Since when can you install two operating systems on a single partition? Maybe on a single drive, using multiple partitions but not in the way this article is suggesting. --Mphilp 00:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. Of course you can. Boot the XP CD, choose a partition has already has XP on it, and install it to a different folder. It will ask which you want when you boot, and both work fine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.40.47.123 (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Any two operating systems which support the same filesystem should be fine. 82.17.131.125 (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

An operating system can be contained in just a few files, and inserted in the same partition as another, with minor changes to startup files. This is doable with portable OS's, and is useful for system support.

How about some citations/references as to how this could actually happen.
Dual booting with different partitions is a pain the tuckus enough, esp. if you have any aspirations to being able to access your files. Consider, for example, the issues with sharing the files between a Win10 and Linux distro: MySQL/MariaDB, my growing collection of graphDB/XML DB/Virtuoso comparisons, Dropbox, email, Xapian and/or mlocate indexing) from both operating systems without having to have two copies of every file you ever would work with. KDE for Windows isn't a panacea, whether it is the native compilation or not-quite-ready-for-prime-time Cygwin version.  Windows is obstinately not friendly to anything other than NTFS (and maybe exFAT), unless you want to trust everything to a FAT32 file system (which chokes terribly on some of the terminology databases I use due to their >4GB download file size).

Consider the following issues

 * You have to deal with Windows. Most often, this is going to be Windows and some POSIX OS (e.g. Linux, BSD).
 * Sometimes >1 Linux distribution. I suspect that there just isn't enough standardization between the distributions I would consider (openSUSE, Arch, Fedora/Scientific Linux, Mint, Kubuntu) even if you ran update-alternatives with every boot.  Every install/update would clobber configuration files and binaries.  Btrfs would choke to death and rapidly expand a 30GB OS installation to eat your new 1TB SSD with all the deltas!
 * Collisions are going to happen, and might be significant. E.g. init vs. systemd based distributions.
 * Separation of executable application and operating system from home directories and other 'user' data is probably a good practice. I am reasonably convinced in the whole separation of data from executables (separate partitions for /home, /var/lib/mysql, ~/dropbox (then symlink the directories to where you want them in your home directory).
 * You don't want to have to have a copy of every email, document, REM album, UML model, protein-gene-disease-drug-organism ontology, etc. etc. for each operating system.
 * I think, but have not tested the theory, that you could download your email with some reasonable programs which stored it in one of the two well understood, reasonably standardized, mailbox directory formats where it could be managed by a different program under a different operating system. For example, I do like KDE's PIM suite (Akonadi, Korganizer, KMail, Kalandar, Kontacts,, etc. etc.), but it's indexing may not be to the liking (or even recognized) by Mozilla Thunderbird, or some other non-MS Outlook email program running in Windows because of the whole Akonadi thing.
 * Indexing is needed, expensive (CPU, storage), and may not be compatible between OS. If you use something to index (esp. if indexing looks inside the files) because you have a few hundred GB of crap (email, dropbox, my Evernote content, legions of downloaded journal articles as PDF & their citations, textbooks and references in Kindle and ePub format, all the additional stuff I will start to try and organize when I get MyCloud loaded on the dusty old server in the basement, my Google Drive, my Apple iCloud account, and a bunch of WikiPedia and other web pages I want to keep local copies of just so I can full text index plus NLP using standard terminology/ontology, and a bunch of huge ontologies).
 * This is hard. I am going to start w/ Recoll/Xapian since it can handle most of the document formats--I can script something together to convert other formats to something it can index if need be.  What I don't know is if it possible to have a single index of all the crap that works w/ the Windows and Linux front-ends.  Same problem for email, at least until I can figure out how to tell KMail to stop using Akonadi for full-text indexing, and have it call Xapian/Recoll (or even GMail and whatever I replace GMail with in the very near future). - unsigned, by, 5 February 2019

 * I think you missed the point of the article. Multi-booting was a real thing, regardless of how painful it was to use. Circa 1995, I used to put Win95 and OS/2 on one partition and some form of Unix on another partition). I used Grub to select Unix or other, then the OS/2 boot manager to select OS/2 or Win95 (luckily the OS/2 boot manager handled that part straight out of the box). You're right that it was a pain to use, but it solved a problem that I had applications that only worked on those operating systems and VM's hadn't arrived in the PC world yet. Today I just use a VM for each. Allowing operating systems to share data on partitions owned by another operating was fraught with danger. I worked around it by putting data on a separate data partition in a file system format that all my OS'es knew about (FAT32 at the time) but, as you said, this doesn't work for every scenario - life's tough! It worked well enough for my purposes.
 * As for details on how to do it, WP is not a how-to guide. See WP:NOTHOWTO.  Stepho  talk 11:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Multi-boot was not and is not painful to use.
 * OS/2 dual boot is not multi-boot
 * OS/2 Boot Manager is not involved in OS/2 dual boot.
 * The problems sharing data between two operating systems on the same machine are no worse than the problems involved in sharing data between the same operating systems on different machines. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 * From experience in the 1990s, multi-boot can definitely be painful if you aren't paying attention (I say this as a professional computer programmer). It can sometime work very nicely. It can also bite you in strange ways.
 * OS/2 dual boot works by booting the beginnings of OS/2 (basically using BIOS services only), presenting a menu and then if a non OS/2 option was selected it passes control 100% to the boot block of the selection. When you first setup the options it copied the pre-existing Win95 boot block from its normal position to a back-up position. Control is 100% passed to Win95 with no remnant of OS/2 remaining in memory.
 * OS/2 boot manager setup the above and executes it boot time.
 * Agreed that sharing data can have trouble in many other scenarios.  Stepho  talk 22:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Anything can be painful if you aren't paying attention.

 * They say that the memory is the second thing to go. You're still confusing dual boot with boot manager.
 * OS/2 works by using the BOOT command from the DOS or OS/2 command prompt. The BOOT command does the copy, move and rename operations before initiating a reboot. It does not require or support a menu, nd has nothing to do with Boot Manager.
 * OS/2 Boot Manager present a menu of logical drives and loads the bootstrap routine from the Partition Boot Record. It does no support selecting two different operating systems on the same drive and does not use any OS/2 code.

 * I could quote the entire page if you consider it necessary, but IMHO the first sentence is enough. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Stylized depiction of a boot manager's menu
What is the point of the image that is captioned "Stylized depiction of a boot manager's menu..."? It might as well be called an artistic impression of a menu. It's completely useless and irrelevant.

I agree. How about a screenshot of GRUB or LILO with multiple options. --165.91.51.177 16:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you help me set up VMWare to make such a screenshot? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Check that, the free second stage loaders all have screenshots already, but wouldn't putting a specific loader in the lead show a bias toward that loader? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Dual split boot
I would like to see more information about dual split boot (where every operating system has its own hard disk). --Nukeless 22:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

W2000 and Mac
I have Windows 2000. Can I install Mac on my PC? (Anonymous, unregistered.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.83.208.247 (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not if you want to honor the EULA for Mac OS/X. There are ways (often called 'hackintosh') but I don't think Wikipedia is the place to describe how-to do illegal hacks.  Try Google...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKC MD (talk • contribs) 05:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Windows does natively support multiboot systems.
By adding a line in the BCD, another operating system may be booted from Windows Boot Manager. So the paragraph in the article needs changing. 82.17.131.125 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving parts of the article to this talk page
The article is full of dubious/unsourced statements. I plan to move many of these, to this section, and post replies to them here. Lumenos (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

from "Windows and Linux" (1st)
"The partitions should be done with a Windows partitioning tool (diskpart, Disk Management), rather than a Linux tool (parted, QTparted), for the simple reason that Windows is more particular (i.e., "picky") about how the partition table is written and will occasionally complain or even show errors if it is installed to a Linux-created (or sometimes modified) partition table. Linux tools are powerful, (e.g., shrinking an NTFS drive) but Windows has particularities which must be considered. (See master boot record and extended boot record)." [Moved from article]
 * Please read Disk_Management. Lumenos (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Have there actually been problems when one standard CHS geometry was used? I think this is the best idea for multibooting, unless using a drive that is over 2 TiB (because this may require using a dynamic disk instead of an MBR). This is also the recommendation of multibooters.com. I rewrote the paragraph based on this theory. Lumenos (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

from "Technical issues"
"Compatibility problems may arise with different operating systems: one operating system may not be able to recognize the other operating system's file system and thus may try to format it to its native file system, erasing existing data. This happens more often when the file systems are in separate partitions on one disk than when they are on separate disks. Sometimes an administrator must manually configure one operating system to ignore the other disk or partition in order to allow multiple file systems." [moved from article]
 * Windows XP/2000 will generally ignore partitions that are labeled in the partition table, as a type that Windows does not recognize, for example, a Linux partition (type 83). If the partition is labeled as FAT or NTFS (type 07), in the partition table, Windows XP/2000 will give it a letter and show it in My Computer. If you select the drive, Windows will prompt to format it. When else does an operating system "try" to format a partition? Lumenos (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

from "Windows and Linux" (2nd)
"Windows should be installed to the first primary drive. Though Windows can be installed to another drive, certain particularities (drive letter assignments, expected system partition number) can make such installations problematic, while Linux installations on primary or logical drives have no such problems whatsoever." [moved from the article]
 * Last I used Linux, menu.lst (different for Fedora) and fstab have to be updated, if the drive's number changes, in the partition table (the numbering as you would see from using fdisk -l). In Windows 2000/XP menu.lst is equivalent to boot.ini, and the fstab settings are equivalent to the registry keys under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\MountedDevices \DosDevices . The only differences I see here are that:
 * If the Linux system partition is in the extended partition, the number doesn't change if primary partitions are added or deleted. Lumenos (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fstab is easier to edit using a text editor from another operating system (such as a live cd). Windows registry can be edited with Offline NT Password & Registry Editor but it won't edit the registry if the drive was not cleanly dismounted, as may happen if you had tried to boot Windows when the system drive letter has changed. But there is an easier fix for this anyway, assuming you installed Windows on partition letter "C". You simply change the disk signature in the MBR and this forces Windows to re-letter all the drives. It will make the active partition "C:". You can change the disk signature with Linux hexedit from System Rescue CD. [I'm not sure what this will do to Vista. see ] This may be easier than editing fstab. Additionally, with Windows XP/2000 you can delete all the "DosDevices" drive letter keys from the registry, before backing up (or cloning) the system, so that after a restore, it will always automatically make the active partition C:, no matter what partition you restore to. With Linux I suppose you need to manually update menu.lst and fstab after cloning to a new partition number. Lumenos (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason for installing Windows as the first primary seems to be more because it is suggested to install Windows first and Linux last, in order to install GRUB to the MBR. If you created a new partition to install Linux, in front of Windows, this would require editing boot.ini and changing the MBR disk signature, for Windows to boot properly. Lumenos (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Unwanted line breaks
Apparently something to do with cutting a pasting sections (when using Wikipedia Beta) has resulted in a bunch of unwanted line breaks in the sections "Partitioning" and "XP/2003 deletes Vista's System Restore points" at the time of this revision. Lumenos (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I removed all unwanted line breaks. Lumenos (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Needs Work
I am sure the contributor has every good intention, but this article is not up to Wiki standards, IMO. In only the first few paragraphs there are grammatical mistakes. There are references to particular software with advanced instructions on how to use them which is not appropriate. The discussion under each heading is not informative to the topic; rather it is obviously written from someone who knows at least a bit about multi booting and has chosen to write about minute parts to be considered (that are not defined) and not the full subject. There are no citations (that is not major, but Microsoft has information), and acronyms such as CHS and FAT are used without spelling out the meaning (e.g. cylinder-head-sector and file allocation table). Linux and Windows are used as general catch-all names. I have no idea what a Vista paritioner [sic] is.

I would suggest a rewrite of the article. Perhaps a better collection of thought will lead to a more informative article. The author may want to include a reference, citation, or mention of: the number of partitions allowed on a hard disk drive (HDD), limitations of various operating systems (OS) with regard to placement on the partitions (maximum size restrictions) and file systems, and pros and cons of using a multiple boot computer, among other things.

Ruthe1 (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Make any changes you feel necessary. You can also label articles or sections using the tags from wp:del. Lumenos (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.multibooters.co.uk/partitions.html
I'm using the following page as a source, you know, because that's what we are (not) supposed to do here, but I'm skeptical of some of the claims on this page and am trying to evaluate its reliability here instead of consulting people with no interest in the subject at wp:RSN: http://www.multibooters.co.uk/partitions.html :

''"Vista is placing partitions on the hard drive using different starting and ending positions from the recognised conventions. This means that when most other partition altering applications are used they are likely to re-align the partition during operations to the default norms, which can change both the starting and ending sectors of that partition." http://www.multibooters.co.uk/partitions.html'' Lumenos (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ranish Partition Manager doesn't have this problem. I would suggest changing the phrase "most other partition altering applications", to "certain tools when used for resizing or imaging the Vista partition". Better yet, list what software does this and when. Lumenos (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The author may have explained what is commonly thought to be a "bug" in GParted, because most people don't know what the "round to cylinders" option does. I reported this here and here. Lumenos (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed a GParted developer has confirmed that before version: 0.4.4 (Released on 2009-04-02) GParted would move the start location to a cylinder boundary when the end of the partition was re-sized, if the "round to cylinders" option was checked. Vista was released to manufacturing on November 8, 2006 and to retail on January 30, 2007, so that was over two years before GParted became Vista "compatible" (for those who didn't know about Vista's new alignments because their partition editors do not reveal this as Ranish Partition Manager does). Lumenos (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Dual boot is not multiboot
The article describes dual boot as a special case of multiboot, but dual boot was actually something quite different.Prior to IBM's introduction of the Boot Manager for OS/2, it had special code for allowing DOS and OS/2 to coexist on the same disk. I don't recall all of the details, but it included renaming files when switching between the two systems. Needless to say, nobody used it once Boot Manager was available. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Dual booting, as it is understood outside of the peculiar jargon used in OS/2 is the special case of "multibooting" where you have exactly two operating systems to choose from; just like it says in the article. (besides, your description exactly matches the description of dual booting described in the article).80.162.60.16 (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, my description of dual boot does not match that in the article, which describes it as a special case of multi-boot. The article describes selecting, e.g., a drive, partition, logical drive, not renaming files or otherwise modifying the contents of files on the boot drive. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge with booting
I would like to propose that this article be merged with the booting article with a possible redirect from multibooting (and dual booting) to the booting article.

The reason I think this is a good idea is that the booting concept is described in the booting article and multibooting is just a special case of the booting concept (booting is booting an operating systems, multibooting is booting an operating system from a selection of such). 80.162.60.16 (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Concur. I also suggest that the text distinguish between dual boot schemes tied into particular operating systems, e.g., the Dual Boot feature of OS/2, and generic multi-boot setups where there happen to be exactly two operating system, e.g., grub, lilo, OS/2 Boot Manager. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Multi-boot → Multi-booting – To match booting. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why the past tense?
The following 2 sentences use the past tense. Why?

1)Multi-booting allowed a new operating system to configure all applications needed, and migrate data before removing the old operating system, if desired.

2)Multi-booting was also used by software developers where multiple operating systems were required for development or testing purposes. Having these systems on one machine was a way to reduce hardware costs.

Too Old (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

GPT-UEFI
The article currently discusses only booting from an MBR disk. I believe that if GPT hasn't already overtaken MBR it soon will, and that the article should discuss booting a GPT disk from the ESP. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Multi-booting


text:
Talk:The Rugby Championship

Known As The All Black
The piece states, "The inaugural Tri Nations tournament was in 1996, and was won by New Zealand – known as the All Blacks. South Africa won their first title in 1998, and Australia their first in 2000." If the All Black's name is going to be highlighted then why not the Wallabies and Springboks? This appears to be written by either a rabid All Blacks supporter, or a child. Ooops... did I actually write that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.112.128 (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Tiebreakers
The article states that "If teams end level on points the first tiebreaker is point differential," but in 2012, Australia finished second with a point differential of -36, and South Africa finished third with (twelve table points - the same as Australia, and) a point differential of +11 (other sources show the same order, as well).

I have tried to research what the real first tiebreaker is (because it appears to be something other than point differential), but had not had any success so far. I am hoping that someone with more knowledge than myself might know how ties are broken, and be able to update the article.

101.98.168.126 (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

 * All fixed up! TheMightyPeanut (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on The Rugby Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080705091655/http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news/pumas-push-for-six-nations/2007/11/08/1194329377234.html to http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news/pumas-push-for-six-nations/2007/11/08/1194329377234.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080725035928/http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news/pumas-have-to-wait-nzru/2007/12/04/1196530635733.html to http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news/pumas-have-to-wait-nzru/2007/12/04/1196530635733.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Squad lists and flags
On the squad listings for the annual tournament pages, sometimes flags are listed for the players' clubs, sometimes not. It appears they are not listed where all members of the squad play domestically, and they are listed where at least one member plays his club rugby abroad.

How did this consensus come about? Was there a discussion on a talk page somewhere for this tournament? Or a discussion on a different tournament page where the result was implemented here? The reason I ask is there is a related discussion at Talk:2018_Rugby_World_Cup_Sevens_squads_–_Men. CUA 27 (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

 * Never mind. After a bit more digging, I believe this discussion re 2015 RWC squads was the genesis for the format we see in rugby tournament articles where we don't list flags for all-domestic squads. CUA 27 (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Rugby Championship table - Cluttered and needs simplifying
The table looks an ugly mess, like an excel spreadsheet, and the winner of Rugby Championship is sidelined by other nonsense. The wooden spoon column is irrelevant between four teams and enough is said about the Freedom Cup etc. under the 'related competitions' section. (Even if not, couldn't that be expanded on instead?) Certainly no one refers to them as BS, FM etc., so it's plain confusing even to rugby fans looking at this table...

Discussion on Records and statistics of the Rugby World Cup to Remove Some Statistical Tables
There is currently a discussion on the Records and statistics of the Rugby World Cup talk related to the removal of some statistical tables. The discusssion can be accessed here. Your input is most welcome and, of course, the consensus of the community will be abided by. 79.154.65.115 (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Rugby Championship


text:
Category:Unix

This category concerns Unix and Unix-like operating systems and related software.

title: Category:Unix


text:
Paul J. Perrone

Paul J. Perrone has written numerous books  and articles  on various Java-based software technologies. He has also founded Perrone Robotics fusing open and standard software technologies with the field of robotics. He has helped push robotics into the mainstream and brought the term "popular robotics" into the public eye.

In addition to robotics software for personal and professional use. Perrone was the team lead for Team Jefferson, a 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge team, and a DARPA Grand Challenge (2007) team.

He has been a frequent presenter at Sun Microsystem's JavaOne conference, namely James Gosling's keynote sessions presenting an autonomous dune buggy (Tommy), an unmanned helicopter, an autonomous Scion Xb (Tommy Jr) , and Lincvolt, an energy-efficient vehicle owned and spearheaded by rock star Neil Young. He received a Duke Award for Tommy, and a Golden Duke and Lifetime Achievement Award for Lincvolt.

He is featured in a documentary about a robotic car entered into the historic 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge and was featured in a Discovery Science special called "RoboCars" for his robotic car entered into the 2007 DARPA Urban Challenge.

In 2010, he was also one of 25 individuals living in Charlottesville, Virginia who are well regarded in their respective fields.

title: Paul J. Perrone


text:
Strigolniki

The strigolniki (стригольники; стригольник) were followers of a Russian religious sect which appeared in the mid-14th century, known as strigolnichestvo (стригольничество). They first appeared in Pskov before spreading to Novgorod and Tver. By the early 15th century, they had disappeared. Along with the Judaizers, they were one of the major sects in medieval Russia.

The origins of the name remain unclear. Some historians believe it has something to do with handicrafts that the first strigolniki were engaged in, such as cloth-cutting or hairdressing (it appears that the word strigolnik derives from the Russian root strig-, which connotes cutting or trimming). Others think the name comes from a special initiation ceremony (a specific haircut, or strizhka), performed by a deacon named Karp – a supposed founder of the sect (together with deacon Nikita), yet others think it could mean that these people refused to either grow a beard or cut their beards when they entered churches.

Active participants of the sect were tradespeople and low-ranking clergy. They renounced all ecclesiastic hierarchy and monasticism, sacraments done by Russian clergy due to recognizing the Orthodox priesthood as illegitimate: priesthood, communion, penance, and baptism, which had been accompanied by large fees ("extortions", in their view) to the benefit of the clergy. Criticizing and exposing the venality, vices, and ignorance of the priests, the strigolniki demanded the right to a religious sermon for laymen. Their sermons were full of social motifs: they reproached the rich for enslaving the free and the poor. They were opposed by a number of high-level Russian bishops.

Beliefs
There is some debate if the strigolniki were "heretical", if they were a proto-Protestant movement among Orthodox Christians, being similar to Lollardy or the Hussites, or if they merely opposed the priesthood. The strigolniki movement has been suggested to have had iconoclastic tendencies, though it is not clear if they came out against the use of icons, it is clearer that they came out against monasticism.

The strigolniki opposed the ruling church, refusing to recognize its bishops and priests, and rejected going to Orthodox churches, instead gathering at separate meetings. They are also known to have criticized Orthodox priests whom they called "drunkards". They also repudiated ordainment, believing that simple laymen could perform church service, and the established church rituals. They also criticized the feudal order. The nature of the movement is seen from the words of Stephen of Perm: "Of the strigolniki illiterate people say: those neither steal nor collect wealth".

Karetnikova suggested that the strigolniki were a response to changes in the Russian Orthodox Church, wanting to return from ritualism to the simplicity of New Testament Christianity, emphasizing the spiritual meaning of the sacraments and basing their views primarily on scripture, seeing it as their ultimate authority. Petrushko on the other hand argued that in the attitude of the strigolniki about the church and church hierarchy, though there are some similarities with Bogomils and Cathars, based on surviving sources they did not have a dogmatic system of theology and did not disagree with the church about Christology and on soteriology, instead most of their disagreements being with ecclesiology. Petrushko, judging by the fact that Photius believed it possible to return the strigolniki to the church, their disagreement with Orthodox dogma was not as dramatic as the Heresy of the Judaizers.

M. V. Pechnikov argued that the strigolniki merely rejected the Orthodox priesthood, simony and confession to clergy, while not denying the sacraments of the church nor most dogma.

Obolensky has instead suggested that the strigolniki were born from Bogomil or Cathar missionaries in Russia during the times of Kievan Rus'.

Stephen of Perm mentioned that the strigolniki did not confess their sins to clergy but instead to the ground; however, the meaning of what Stephen meant is not clear.

History
According to an epistle by Stephen of Perm, Karp "began to tell the people: it is neither dignified to sing over the dead, nor to mention them; nor to bring offerings for the dead to the church; nor to have feasts; nor to give alms for the soul of the departed".

Deacon Karp found many followers in Pskov, but had to move to Novgorod to avoid persecution. Some scholars argue that the archbishop of Novgorod, Vasily Kalika (1330–1352), ignored the heresy, but that his successors, Moisei (1325–1330; 1352–1359) and Aleksei (1359–1388), took firm measures against the heretics. Beginning in 1382, the sect was opposed by Archbishop Dionysios of Suzdal. In epistles addressed to the clergy and the inhabitants of Novgorod and Pskov, the leadership of the church attempted to discredit the movement and prove its right to earn its income. The strigolniki faced persecution, being driven from towns or simply killed.

In 1375, enraged citizens of Novgorod threw three heretics from the bridge into the Volkhov River. According to the 16th-century Nikon Chronicle, the justification for this was a literal interpretation of the Gospel (Matthew 18:6): "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it were better for him to have a great milestone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depths of the sea". The chronicles mention that "the heretic strigolniki were beaten; deacon Nikita and Parishioner Karp and a third man with them were thrown from the bridge".

Stephen of Perm wrote a letter to Nilus of Constantinople in 1382 about the strigolniki.

However, the teachings of the strigolniki lived on. They spread widely in Novgorod, in Pskov, and also in Tver, where bishops Feodor Dobry and Yevfimiy Vislen came forward with support for the movement. In the early 15th century, Photius, Metropolitan of Kiev and all Russia, denounced the teachings of the strigolniki.

The strigolniki disappeared in the early 15th century due to persecution, as well as due to disagreement among the strigolniki. The last mention of the strigolniki was in 1487.

title: Strigolniki


text:
Talk:Las Vegas Raiders

Shouldn't the alternate uniform be displayed in the current uniform picture?
The team is using three jerseys, using the alternate jersey as recently as the Oct. 4 Chargers game.--Jeff (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit request
These paragraphs have been bothering me for a few weeks:

"Max Winter, a Minneapolis businessman was among the eight proposed franchise owners in the American Football League. In a move typical of the NFL owners who were frightened by the prospect of competition and continually obstructed the new league, they offered Winter an expansion franchise in the NFL. This was after the NFL had rejected Lamar Hunt's feelers, saying they were not interested in expansion. One of many obfuscations put forward by the NFL in its attempt to derail the AFL.

After the AFL's first draft, in which players were selected for the then nameless Minneapolis franchise, Winter reneged from his agreement with the AFL owners and defected to the NFL with a franchise that started play in 1961 and was named the Minnesota Vikings. The Vikings were never an AFL team, nor did they have any association with the AFL. Many of the players (including Abner Haynes) that had been assigned to the UNNAMED and defunct Minneapolis AFL franchise were signed by some of the seven loyal remaining members of the AFL's 'Foolish Club'."

Clearly biased language against the NFL that has remained untouched, for some reason, for years. I'd edit it myself, but I forgot my password and foolishly did not tie my account to an email. 2607:FEA8:3BA0:4220:B523:74E5:4916:3931 (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Raiders uniform update 1-03-2017.png

Nevada Residents Set To Sue State Over Las Vegas Raiders
Las Vegas Nevada residents are demanding accountability from the State for misappropriation of funds that should have gone to school system. 4.35.33.4 (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Raider nation, official or not?
According to this page "The Raider Nation is the unofficial name for the fans of the Las Vegas Raiders."

According to the link to Raider Nation that this page links to "Raider Nation is the official name for the fans of the National Football League (NFL)'s Las Vegas Raiders"

Which statement is accurate?2A02:C7C:5F61:5000:5D61:2863:54D8:935A (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2023
Under Division championships, there are two 1970 listings. The one for the 12-1-1 season should be 1969. 174.45.48.197 (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tollens (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

"Raiders (NFL Team) (2020-present)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raiders_(NFL_Team)_(2020-present)&redirect=no Raiders (NFL Team) (2020-present)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Las Vegas Raiders


text:
Robert Finch (politician)

Robert Hutchinson Finch (October 9, 1925 – October 10, 1995) was a Republican politician from La Canada Flintridge, California. From 1967 to 1969, he served as the 38th Lieutenant Governor of California. Following Richard Nixon's presidential campaign in 1968, he was appointed Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1969. He was the Counselor to the President from 1970 until 1972. During the 1976 California United States Senate election, he lost in the Republican primary to S.I. Hayakawa.

Early life and education
Finch was born in Tempe, Arizona. He was the son of Robert L. Finch, a member of the Arizona House of Representatives, and his wife, Gladys Hutchinson. Finch was enlisted in the Marine Corps during World War II. He married the former Carol Crothers on February 14, 1946; they had three daughters and one son: Maureen F. Shaw, Kevin Finch, Priscilla Finch and Cathleen F. Morser.

After serving in the Marines briefly during World War II, Finch entered Occidental College in Los Angeles, where he graduated in 1947 with a bachelor's degree. After the graduation from Occidental College in 1947, went to Washington, D.C., where he worked as an administrative aide Congressman Norris Poulson, representative from California. During this time, he met and became friendly with freshman Congressman and future president Richard Nixon. Partly at Nixon's suggestion, Mr. Finch returned to California to study law at the University of Southern California, where he took his LL.B. degree in 1951.

Career
He had worked on the Norris Poulson election campaign in 1946, and on Nixon's campaign in 1948. He returned to Southern California and earned his LL.B at the University of Southern California Law School in 1951.

He was a Marine officer during the Korean War from 1951 to 1953. He ran for the Congress unsuccessfully in 1952 and in 1954 against Democrat Cecil R. King, who practiced law in Pasadena, and was the chairman of the Los Angeles County Republican Central Committee, from 1956 to 1958. He returned to Washington as Vice-president Nixon's aide in 1958.

He was Nixon's campaign manager in the 1960 presidential campaign, against Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy.

In 1964, Finch managed U.S. Sen. George Murphy's victorious campaign over Pierre Salinger. In 1966, Finch was elected the 38th Lieutenant Governor of California. He received more votes than Ronald Reagan, who was elected Governor at the same time. In 1968, Finch was the senior adviser in Nixon's presidential campaign and was appointed Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. In 1970, Finch left the HEW to be Counselor to the President. He left the White House on December 15, 1972, to practice law in Pasadena, and he stayed involved in the Republican politics. Even though Finch had no involvement in the Watergate scandal, references to it dimmed his efforts for elective office.

He was an unsuccessful primary candidate for U.S. Senate in the 1976 California election against S.I. Hayakawa, who went on to win the general election.

During the 1968 presidential election, Finch was Nixon's first choice as his vice presidential running mate, but Finch declined and Nixon then chose Governor of Maryland Spiro Agnew. A Nixon-Finch ticket was possible because, although Nixon was born in California, and had represented California in Congress, during the 1968 election he was a resident of New York, so California's electors could have cast their votes for both men. If both had been California residents at the time, California's electors could have voted for only one of them.

Following Nixon's election, Finch was given his choice in the new Cabinet, and he selected Secretary of HEW because of his long interest in health and education issues. Finch was more liberal than Nixon, especially on social issues, but political differences never affected their long and close relationship, with the two staying in contact until Nixon's death in April 1994.

Death
Finch died of a heart attack, in Pasadena, California, on October 10, 1995, a day after his 70th birthday. He is interred in Forest Lawn Memorial Park, Glendale.

title: Robert Finch (politician)


text:
UEC Saturn

UEC NPO Saturn, PJSC (ОДК-Сатурн НПО) is a Russian aircraft engine manufacturer, formed from the mergers of Rybinsk Motors and Lyul'ka-Saturn (after Arkhip Mikhailovich Lyulka) in 2001. Saturn's engines power many former Eastern Bloc aircraft, such as the Tupolev Tu-154. Saturn holds a 50% stake in the PowerJet joint venture with Safran Aircraft Engines. The company, founded by Pavel Soloviev, has its headquarters in the town of Rybinsk.

History
UEC Saturn was established in 2001, following the merger of Rybinsk Motors and Lyulka-Saturn.

Rybinsk Motors was established on 20 October 1916 as the Russian Renault automotive plant. In 1917 it started producing aviation engines for the Ilya Muromets aircraft. The company was nationalized in 1918.

Rybinsk was originally known as the Kolesov Engine Design Bureau. Kolesov took over the organization from V.A. Dobrynin who founded it in the late 1930s or early 1940s. Under Kolesov's direction, the bureau designed turbojet engines for the Myasishchev M-50 Bounder experimental supersonic bomber, turbojets for the Tu-22 Blinder medium bomber, RD-36-35FVR lift engines for the Yak-38 Forger, RD-36-51A supersonic engines for the Tu-144 SST, RD-36-51V engines for the Myasishchev M-17 Mystic, and lift engines for the Yak-141 Freestyle.

Lyulka-Saturn was named after its founder, A. M. Lyulka.

Following the 2014 Crimean crisis, the Ukrainians refused to supply the Russian Navy with marine gas turbines from Zorya-Mashproekt, and so Saturn has been commissioned to design new engines for the Admiral Gorshkov and Admiral Grigorovich-class frigates. USC forecast these new engines will be available in 2017-18, allowing ships to be commissioned from 2020.

UEC Saturn announced in April 2017 that Saturn's marine turbines are now in production and undergoing sea trials prior to delivery. This is the first venture by a Russian manufacturer into the production of large marine gas turbines, aimed at completely replacing the earlier Ukrainian equivalents.

Turbojets
Saturn makes the AL-31 turbojet which powers China's Chengdu J-10 multirole jet fighter aircraft.
 * AL-7
 * AL-21
 * AL-32

Turboshaft

 * Saturn RD-600V (1500 hp)

Turboprop

 * Saturn/Lyulka AL-34
 * Saturn TVD-1500B

Turbofans

 * AL-31 series
 * AL-32
 * AL-41
 * 36MT (TRDD50) and 37-01E, developed for the Kh-59M Kh55 Kh65 Kh101 KhBD family of air-launched tactical missiles and UAV UCAV use
 * 37-03 37-04 for cruise missiles, UAV, UCAV

 * AL-146 or SD146 PowerJet SaM146 (50/50 with Safran Aircraft Engines), along subcontracted CFM56 with Safran Aircraft Engines since 1998
 * AL-55
 * D-30K/F

Saturn VMF

 * M70FR FRU (D090/DO90 UGT15000 M70) 10 14 MW unit M27 M7N1, M70RU (6 8 to 14,8 MW)
 * M70FRU2 (DP71 DM71 UGT6000) 6 8 MW unit M35 ; M75RU Gas Turbine (5 7 to 8 MW), M75FR (5.2 to 5.4 MW)
 * E70/8RD (within 8.48 MW or little more, derived from M70FRU and SaM146)
 * M90FR FRU (UGT15000R+ M90 DA91)unit M55R (20.2 MW, max 26 28 )
 * M90RU and M85RU (14 16 to 18 24 MW DO90 DA70 DA80 DA90 DA91 DT59 DN59 D090)

 * M80RU FR FRU (DA80 M80 DN80) (25 to 28.6 MW)
 * D049R, DO49R, D055R
 * AL-31ST 16 MW at UMPO along AL31STN and other GTs
 * AL-31STE 18 MW at UMPO
 * GT-25PU (25 26 MW)
 * AL-41ST-25 25 MW UMPO
 * GTD-110 GTD110M (110 MW)
 * GTN-25-1 25 MW built at Tjumen Engine Plant TMZ and Ural Turbine Plant UTZ at Ekaterinburg
 * Baltika-25 (SGT-600 ) unit with 25 MW engine GT-10 built at AVV Nevskij (Saint Petersburg)
 * GTE45 (TeploEnergoServis with Engineering Center of Gas Turbine Production) (45,4 MW)
 * GTU32 (MS5002E) "Ladoga" built at NZL plant Saint Petersburg
 * GTU86 (6FA 6F03) 82 MW (GTU52 6F01 54 MW) at RGT, Rybinsk
 * GTE-180, GTE-160, further, along SilMash, GTT, KTZ and UTZ
 * GTN-25 UTZ Gas TurboGenerator 25 MW GPA-25/76 at Nevsky Zavod, GPA25 GCP25 Iskra Perm
 * GP2 (PS90GP2) (15.2 MW, GP3 20 GP4 25), GT-12PU 12.4 MW GTU-12PG-2 12.3 MW
 * GTD-6/8RM, DO49, GTD-4RM, GTD-10RM, GTD-6,3RM
 * M7N1 unit made by 2x UGT16000 (DT59) 16.48 MW and 2x UGT6000 (DS71) 7.45 MW
 * so M90FR 20.58 MW or M70FRU with M70FRU2 (or M90FR with M75RU layout)
 * M36 unit have 4 DT59 (16,7 MW), comparable unit would be 4x M90FR or 2x M90FR with 2x M70FRU
 * M55 unit 2x DA91 + 2x diesel (2x M90FR + 2x diesel or M70FRU or 4x M90FR to 40,5 MW 54400 hp), M3N, M8
 * M5N unit 4x DN59 2x DS71 92000 hp, M9B unit 2x D090 2x DT59 74000 hp, M27 2x D090 2x DS71, M10 M16 1x D71 2x D050
 * M25A unit 2x DA80 2x diesel 92000 hp, M44 2x D090 1x diesel, M73 2x DP73 M35 5x DP71, M10D 2x D050 DT59
 * M21A unit 4x DT59 2x DS71 2x Steam Turbines 110000 hp 82 MW (4x M90FR 2x M70FRU2 or M75RU 2x Steam, 4x M90FR 2x M70FRU 2x M70FRU2 or M75RU)

 * PGU-165/325/495 Steam Gas units respectively 165 325 and 495 MW electric power.

Turborus

 * (at Production)

 * M3N M5E M8 M10, M15A M15-B M15V, M35, M7K, M7N M7N1, M9, M21A, MT70, DT4
 * DT 59, DK 59, DN 59, DE 59, D063, DR77 DS 77 DN 77, DD 50, DO 75, DM 71 DR 71 DP 71 DS 71, DR 76, DM 76, DA 90, DO 90, DA 91.

Rocket engines

 * LREs
 * Vernier, other

Snow mobile
"Russkaya Mekhanika“ company is the manufacturer of snowmobiles Tajga and Buran, Approximately 10,000 are produced annually. It is a 100% affiliated company of NPO Saturn. The snowmobiles have been produced in Rybinsk in the Yaroslavl Oblast. (approx. 400 km north of Moscow) since 1971.

title: UEC Saturn