text:
Talk:Berlin Victory Column

Untitled
I assume that the statue atop the column is a goddess, but what goddess? -- Jmabel 00:51, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

It is "Germania". It was to Germany more or less that what was "uncle sam" to the U.S. (unsigned, User:Morgenstern Mar 19, 2005)
 * Meanwhile, someone has written in the article that it is Victoria, which seems equally reasonable. Morgenstern, are you saying that the article is wrong? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:16, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Link may belong somewhere, but...
I cut this link from the article. It may well belong in Wikipedia somewhere, may even merit a disambiguation page for Siegessäule and an article or its own, but it does not belong here: no one calls the magazine "Berlin victory column". -- Jmabel | Talk 05:48, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Siegessäule.de Siegessäule, the Berlin gay rights movement/magazine

Title => Siegessäule ?
I know that Wikipedia policy is to use English names for things wherever possible, but I have never heard anyone talk about the "Berlin victory column", and it is not the place of Wikipedia to invent new translations for things without English names. The original text of this article seems to have come from an automated translation, which would of course have translated Siegessäule as "victory column", because automated translators are, generally, stupid. Can we please change this article to Siegessäule? --Stemonitis 15:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion, but, yes, I have heard it called this by English speakers at least as often as I've heard them use the German Siegessäule. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would say that names of town, cities, formal or informal areas are translated if 1. the place is known in the UK (or US/Australia etc) and 2. the local name is difficult to pronounce. This goes for monuments and buildnings too, I think. And this is indeed the same in all languages. Examples:

 * Vienna - famous enough, but "Wien" doesn't work equally well. Rome & "Roma", Prague & "Praha", Copenhagen & "København" - Spain & "España", Poland & "Polska", Brittany & "Bretagne", Eiffel Tower & "Tour Eiffel". It's really about a kind of honor, but limited to how well known it is (in another language) and if the local name is difficult to pronounce. In the case of Siegessäule, at least the pronouncing part is met, so this ultimately comes down to how well known this monument is, in English (and through its history). It wouldn't surprise me if it's well known in the UK. During 19th century the British-German ties were very strong. Boeing720 (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Math on height of column
This doesn't quite add up:

 * height of merely 50.66 meters opposite the Reichstag building.

 * At the same time, the pillar was augmented by another 7.5 meters, giving it its present height of 66.89 meters.

50.66+7.5 is 58.16, not 66.89. Which of the three numbers is wrong? --Saforrest 19:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the height of the statue has not been included, i.e. 50.66+7.5+8.3 = 66.46. I know its not exactly right, but its close. 84.130.205.48 15:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

damage
The monument survived World War II without much damage

Can this be qualified in some way? I visited the monument yesterday and it appeared to me to have a lot of superficial damage. The marble is heavily pock-marked (bullet holes?!) and the bronze friezes around the base have parts missing (e.g. heads chipped away). There's also an area on the base where lettering appears to have been removed, although I wasn't able to work out what it originally said. 217.76.102.162 16:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I visited the monument in 2014 and noticed some of the same types of damage. But the fact you have to look for it to really notice I think qualifies as not much damage.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Really, Really Needs Clean-up
Since when do cannon have "pipes"? This article is clearly written by a non-native English speaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.71.197 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed for POV and One Spelling Error
It is an interesting note that the Obama rally on July 24th 2008 was designed to be a political rally and was attended well (200,000), the enthusiasm exhibited by the German people was not as overwhelming as would have been expected. The effort was more of a "rock star" like appearance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.9 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

...but then edited without signature by RakosKW — Preceding unsigned comment added by RakosKW (talk • contribs) 01:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

^^^ I would have to agree. Is this even encyclopedic? --99.149.122.219 (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the inclusion of the fact that Obama held a rally there even remotely encyclopedic???

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RakosKW (talk • contribs) 01:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC) If it isn't then the results of that rally should be included in it's edited form for the world to see! And the fact that the rally was meant (at least in Americans eyes)to evoke the memory of the two American leaders Kennedy and Reagan then why would it not be an appropriate addition to this wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratherthanlater (talk • contribs) 13:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is, we should mention that McCain's detractors referred to the column incorrectly as the Washington Monument or the Leaning Tower of Pisa and said it should not have been in his ad, that they were phallic symbols.

It seems pretty notable that a US Presidential candidate held a 200k person rally there. I'm assuming opposition to this note is political: Large gatherings of people, record crowds, notable political occurences, etc. are generally included in the location's article. -- CelestialRender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.20.216 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is perfectly appropriate to make mention of Obama's speech. It is certainly notable when an American presidential candidate of any party gives the biggest speech (in terms of attendance) of his campaign on foreign soil. Plus, it's mentioned in the German Wikipedia article, so why not in the English one? --Tsk070 (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible Error in Translation
However, several sections remain in France.

I didn't see this in any of the other language versions, as far as I am able to read those; nor is there a source for it. Could it be that it comes from a misunderstanding of the German section

Erst zur 750-Jahrfeier Berlins im Jahr 1987 kamen die Reliefs aus Paris wieder zurück und wurden in bewusst fragmentarischem Zustand, zusammen mit dem in Berlin verbliebenen Relief, wieder am Sockel angebracht., notably the "fragmentary" part?

I could imagine someone interpreted this as sections having remained in France; however what it actually says is "[...] the reliefs purposefully were not restored before re-mounting [...]", which makes sense, as neither the GDR nor France had an interest in "restoring fromer glory" of these plates even physically - rather, leaving them like that would pronounce a certain "museum character".

So if nobody disagrees, I'll change the article in this sense. 82.119.23.222 (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

GDR? The Siegessäule has never been on GDR territory. It was one of the major landmarks of West Berlin. 77.25.48.90 (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what this means
"Without a British-American veto, the French would have dynamited the monument after the war it having been located at exactly 1500 meters, length of the Roman mile, from the proposed new north-south triumphal way of the Nazis in line with the Imperial Victory Avenue in the Tiergarten destroyed by American air raids in 1945." Arthurian Legend (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Berlin had four sectors after the war, the French sector was not where the Siegessäule is. The idea to dynamite it was obviously born from hate and perhaps German troops had dynamited something in Paris when they occupied it. I haven't heard that story when I grew up in West Berlin but we were governed by the Allies. This sounds like the French suggested to dynamite the column in a meeting but the British and American allied voted against that. Open is the question if that meeting also had a Soviet delegate who'd voted for the proposal?
 * I originally came here to see if they mentioned that relocation of the column meant they numbered every brick/stone when dismantling it so it could be rebuilt properly again. We learned that in school. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:58CF:75D2:8C24:AFD2 (talk) 05:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Headline photo.
The headline photo is out of date. The column was cleaned thoroughly under scaffolding several years after that shot. The shot pre-cleaning shows an almost black stonework. Post-cleaaning the stonewoork is honey golden (see detail photo underneath). The headline photo is also crooked (there is a tilt of as much as 3 degrees), poory composed and badly exposed. the monumennt and the article deserve better than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grzillion (talk • contribs) 14:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Berlin Victory Column. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20080622011739/http://www.berlin-tourist-information.de:80/english/berlin-infos/e_bi_bezirk-tiergarten.html to http://www.berlin-tourist-information.de/english/berlin-infos/e_bi_bezirk-tiergarten.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Flag day in Poland

 * Under Communists flags were removed on May the 2nd, to prevent May the 3rd commemoration.
 * May the 2nd is a day between two feasts, so a small feast has been invented.Xx236 (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

"Golden Lizzy" ?
Goldelse is put together of Gold + Else ,and "Else" is a female name. Perhaps a shortening of Elisabet. I would say "Golden Elsie" would be better. Else - Lizzy ??? Boeing720 (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Berlin Victory Column


text:
User:Mjec

Emjek Cordover, mid-thirties, in Connecticut, from Tasmania. Software engineer. Australian lawyer but not a legal practitioner (i.e. I no longer work as a lawyer).

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

title: User:Mjec


text: User talk:152.163.253.104

title: User talk:152.163.253.104


text:
Swimming at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre breaststroke

The men's 100 metre breaststroke event at the 2004 Summer Olympics was contested at the Olympic Aquatic Centre of the Athens Olympic Sports Complex in Athens, Greece on August 14 and 15.

After finishing fourth in Sydney (2000), Japan's Kosuke Kitajima edged out U.S. swimmer and world-record holder Brendan Hansen to claim the gold medal by 0.17 of a second, in a time of 1:00.08. Katajima used an illegal dolphin kick during a pull-out, however he was not disqualified, and the rules were changed less than a year later to allow for a single dolphin kick after the start and after each wall. Hansen, who turned 23 on the final day, earned a silver in 1:00.25, while France's Hugues Duboscq held off onrushing American Mark Gangloff to take the bronze in 1:00.88.

Earlier in the semifinals Hansen lowered an Olympic record to 1:00.01 that had been set by his archrival Kitajima in the preliminaries by just 0.02 of a second.

Russia's Roman Sloudnov, the third-fastest man in Olympic history and the first to swim under one minute, missed the top 8 final by 0.18 seconds (1:01.54).

Records
Prior to this competition the existing world and Olympic records were as follows.

The following new world and Olympic records were set during this competition.


text:
Downfall

Downfall may refer to:

Books

 * The Downfall (novel), an 1892 book by Émile Zola
 * Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire, a 1999 book by Richard B. Frank about the last days of World War II
 * Downfall, a 2001 Dragonlance novel by Jean Rabe
 * Downfall, a 2007 novel in the LEGO Bionicle Legends series
 * Downfall (book), a 2011 book about the political career of Tommy Sheridan
 * Downfall (manga), a 2017 manga series by Inio Asano

Film and television

 * Downfall (1923 film), a 1923 German silent film
 * The Downfall (1961 film), a Greek film
 * The Downfall (1990 film), an Egyptian film starring Madiha Kamel
 * Downfall (1997 film), a 1997 Korean film starring Shin Eun-gyeong
 * "Downfall" (RahXephon episode), of the 2002 Japanese anime television series
 * Downfall (2004 film) (Der Untergang), a 2004 German film about the last days of Nazi Germany
 * Dead Space: Downfall, a 2008 animated science fiction film
 * Downfall (game show), an 2010 American game show hosted by Chris Jericho
 * Downfall: The Case Against Boeing, a 2022 documentary film about two fatal crashes of the Boeing 737 MAX and the subsequent investigations

Music

 * Downfall (band), a Californian punk rock band

Albums

 * Downfall (Solitude Aeturnus album), 1996
 * Downfall (The Gathering album), 2001
 * "Downfall", a 2015 EP by From Ashes to New
 * My Downfall (Original Soundtrack), a 2007 album by breakcore artist Venetian Snares

Songs

 * "Downfall" (Children of Bodom song), 1998
 * "Downfall" (Matchbox Twenty song), 2004
 * "Downfall" (Trust Company song), 2002
 * "Downfall", a song by Architects from their 2016 album All Our Gods Have Abandoned Us
 * "Downfall", a song by Dir En Grey from their 2018 album The Insulated World
 * "Downfall", a song by Exodus from their 2010 album Exhibit B: The Human Condition
 * "Downfall", a song by From Ashes to New from their 2016 album Day One
 * "Downfall", a song by Issues from their 2019 album Beautiful Oblivion
 * "Downfall", a song by Lacuna Coil from their 2016 album Delirium
 * "The Downfall", a song by Gardenian from their 1997 album Two Feet Stand

Other uses

 * Downfall (game), a two-player strategy game from Milton Bradley Company
 * The Downfall (mountain), in Antarctica
 * Operation Downfall, the Allied plan for the invasion of Japan at the end of World War II
 * Downfall (security vulnerability), a computer security vulnerability in Intel processors

title: Downfall


text:
Talk:Charles Groves Wright Anderson

Might be interesting to learn when and how he died. |l'KF'l| 00:57, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

wikipedia display bug
helpme

There is a solution to the wikipedia bug where the "[edit]"s are bunched rather than at the correct place, but I can't remember what it is. Can anyone else? (Thanks in advance.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

 * See How to fix bunched-up edit links. :) Avic ennasis  @ 16:47, 5 Elul 5770 / 15 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Groves Wright Anderson. 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/20070912211628/http://www.victoriacross.org.uk/ggaustra.htm to http://www.victoriacross.org.uk/ggaustra.htm

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) 07:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Charles Groves Wright Anderson


text:
Arctic Ocean Flotilla

The Arctic Ocean Flotilla (AOF) (Флотилия Северного Ледовитого океана), was a Russian military flotilla stationed in Aleksandrovsk (present-day Polyarny) near the mouth of the Kola Gulf, Iokanga, and Arkhangelsk.

History
On 2 July 1916 the official formation of the AOF began and by September was largely complete. By the end of 1917 the AOF comprised the battleship Chesme, the cruisers Askold and Varyag, 6 destroyers, 3 submarines and other ships. The AOF's operational zone included the Barents Sea - from the Norwegian border to the Kara Gates - including the White Sea. Its mission was to secure uninterrupted the sea lines of communications connecting Russia with its Entente allies.

After Bolshevik Russia's withdrawal from World War I in March 1918, the flotilla comprised approximately 90 combatant and auxiliary ships. In August 1918 Allied interventionist forces and the White Army captured the best ships of the AOF. The rest of the ships were intentionally put out of commission or destroyed.

title: Arctic Ocean Flotilla


text:
Reining

Reining is a western riding competition for horses where the riders guide the horses through a precise pattern of circles, spins, and stops. All work is done at the lope (a version of the horse gait more commonly known worldwide as the canter), or the gallop (the fastest of the horse gaits). Originating from working cattle, reining requires the horse to be responsive and in tune with its rider, whose aids should not be easily seen, and judges the horse on its ability to perform a set pattern of movements. The horse should be willingly guided or controlled with little or no apparent resistance and dictated to completely. A horse that pins his ears, conveys a threat to his rider, refuses to go forward, runs sideways, bounces his rear, wrings his tail in irritation, or displays an overall poor attitude is not being guided willingly, and is judged accordingly. If a horse jogs or breaks gait it is a 0.

Origins
Throughout the history of the Americas, dating back to the earliest Spanish settlers in what today is Mexico and the Southwestern United States, including Texas and California, ranchers needed to manage cattle from horseback. Cattle were moved, branded, doctored, sorted, and herded, often on open range without the benefit of fences, barns or other means of holding the animals. A good cowboy needed a quick and nimble horse, one that could change directions quickly, stop "on a dime," and sprint after an errant cow. The horse needed to be controlled mostly by legs and weight, ridden with only one hand and a light touch on the reins, so that the cowboy's attention could also be on tasks that could include handling a lariat (to rope cattle), opening a gate, or simply waving a hand, hat or rope to move along a reluctant herd animal. Informal demonstrations of these ideal characteristics amongst ranch cowboys and vaqueros evolved into the sport of reining, as well as the related events of cutting and working cow horse as well as several other horse show classes.

Other nations with traditions of herding livestock on vast areas, such as Australia and Argentina, developed similar traditions that have blended into the sport as it has expanded worldwide.

Movements
The reining pattern includes an average of eight to twelve movements which must be executed by the horse. Patterns require the following movements:

 * Circles: the horse must perform large, fast circles at a near-gallop and smaller, slow circles at a lope. They should be perfectly round, with the rider dictating the pace of the horse. There should be an easily seen change of speed as the rider transitions from the large, fast to the small, slow circles. Most circles incorporate changes of direction that require a flying change of lead.
 * Flying lead change: the horse changes its leading front and hind legs at the lope mid-stride, during the suspension phase of the gait. The horse should not break gait nor change speed. It can be used for as turning and direction. While completing a change at speed can improve one's score, precision is the most important factor in judging: A horse taking more than one stride to complete the change, or a horse that changes early, late, or that changes only the front feet and not the hind feet will be penalized.
 * Rundown: the horse gallops or "runs" along the long side of the arena, at least 20 ft from the fence or rail. A rundown is a required movement prior to a sliding stop and a rollback to the designated direction (either towards the judge or towards the nearest wall depending on the pattern).

 * Sliding Stop: the horse accelerates to a gallop and then suddenly comes to a complete halt, planting its hind feet in the footing and allowing its hind feet to slide several feet, while continuing to let its front feet "walk" forward. The back should be raised upward and hindquarters come well underneath. A particularly powerful stop may, depending on arena conditions, produce flying dirt and a cloud of dust. The movement should finish in a straight line, and the horse's position should not change. This movement is a crowd favorite, along with spins (see below).
 * Back or Backup: the horse backs up quickly for at least 10 ft. The horse must back in a perfectly straight line, stop when asked and hesitate a moment before the next movement. It is judged on how quick, smooth and straight the line is.
 * Rollback: the horse immediately, without hesitation, performs a 180-degree turn after halting from a sliding stop, and immediately goes forward again into a lope. The horse must turn on its hindquarters, bringing its hocks well under, and the motion should be continuous with no hesitation.
 * Spins or Turnarounds: beginning from a standstill, the horse spins 360 degrees or more (up to four and one-quarter full turns) in place around its stationary inside hind leg. The hind pivot foot remains in essentially the same location throughout the spin, though the horse will pick it up and put it down as it turns. Spins are judged on correctness, smoothness, and cadence. Speed adds to the difficulty and will improve the score of a correctly done spin. A pattern requires at least one set of spins in each direction. Horses must stop the spin in the designated place or be penalized for over or under spinning. The term Pivot is sometimes used to describe a turn on the hindquarters of up to 360 degrees where the horse has to keep a rear pivot foot stationary.  In 4-H competition, pivots of 90, 180, or 360 degrees are sometimes used in pattern classes to introduce youth riders to reining concepts.
 * Pause or Hesitate: the horse is asked to stand still for a few seconds to "settle" between certain movements in the reining pattern, particularly after spins. Pauses are not judged as a movement per se, but a horse that is ill-mannered or behaves with impatience when asked to wait will be penalized.

Scoring

Scoring is on the basis of 70 and it is an average score for a horse that made no errors but also did not perform maneuvers with a higher level of difficulty. Points for each maneuver are added or subtracted by $1/2$-, 1-, and $1 1/2$-point increments for each of the 7 to 8 maneuvers in the designated pattern as follows:
 * −$1 1/2$ for an extremely poor execution
 * −1 for very poor
 * −$1/2$ for poor
 * 0 for correct with no degree of difficulty
 * +$1/2$ for good execution
 * +1 for very good
 * +$1 1/2$ for excellent

Each part of the pattern is judged on precision, smoothness, and finesse. The "degree of difficulty" for each maneuver, typically related to speed and agility, is also assessed. Increased speed increases the difficulty of most movements and the potential for a high score. For example, a perfectly executed fast spin will score higher than an equally perfectly executed slow one. A score below 70 reflects deductions for poorly performed movements or penalties, a score above 70 reflects that some or all movements were above average.

In addition to the scores for each maneuver, a large variety of penalties may be assessed for specific infractions. Penalties may range from a half-point to five points for each infraction, and in some cases a significant error may result in a zero score for the run. Certain misbehaviors may incur penalty points beyond a poor score for a given maneuver. Significant errors, such as going off pattern or using illegal equipment, will result in a "zero score". Under NRHA rules, horses with a zero score cannot earn a placing or advance in a multi-go event, though they may be eligible for a payout if there is a small number of horses in the entire competition. Some sanctioning organizations other than NRHA may allow a horse in a small class to earn an award for last place. Major mistakes, such as failure to present the horse for an equipment check, a rider with illegal equipment or one who abuses the animal in specified ways, result in a "no score," which prevents the horse from earning any award or payout, even if it is the only horse in the class.

The horse
Reining may be performed by any horse, but the Stock horse breeds, particularly the American Quarter Horse, dominate the field. The reining horse must be agile, quick, and very responsive to the rider's commands. Powerful hindquarters are required to hold position in a sliding stop or a rollback, excellent coordination is required for proper spins and flying lead changes. Correct leg conformation is essential, as the limbs and joints are often under considerable stress in competition. The horse must also have an excellent temperament to perform with both speed and precision.

Equipment and attire
Riders must use a western saddle. Spurs are allowed, but whips are not. Bridles are western-styled, without a noseband or cavesson. The bosal style hackamore is also allowed on "junior" horses. There are very strict rules about what types of bits and bosals are legal.

For protection, horses usually wear splint boots on the cannons of their lower front legs as well as skid boots on their hind fetlocks. Bell boots, which wrap around the pastern and protect the hoof and coronary band, are also usually seen, sometimes only on the front feet, other times on all four feet. Polo wraps are also another form of protection that is used, this helps give support to the tendons and ligaments, and prevents bruising and irritation. These can be used on all four legs but if wrapped improperly can cause damage.

Reining horses are usually fitted with special horseshoes on the hind feet called slide plates. Slide plates have wider bar steel and are smoother than regular horseshoes, with even the nail heads filed to be flush with the shoe. When the horse plants its hind feet for a sliding stop, the shoes allow the hind legs to slide along the ground with less resistance. Slide plates often have long trailers to help the horse's hind legs slide in a straight path as well as a rolled toe so that the front of the hoof does not accidentally catch the ground.

Riders must wear a long-sleeved shirt, jeans, and cowboy boots. In most competitions, they also wear chaps. Gloves are optional. There has historically been less difference between men's and women's attire in reining than in most western events, though women's clothing is more influenced by fashion trends from Western pleasure competition, and thus women sometimes wear brighter colors, and are more apt to add a decorated jacket or vest, though usually not as flashy as in other horse show events. Wearing a certified equestrian helmet is permitted by some organizations,   though not commonly used.

Bit and Hackamore rules
Horses in most types of reining competition are required to perform in a curb bit. In most cases, riders with a horse in a curb must give all rein commands with only one hand.

Riders may use both hands when a horse is ridden with a snaffle bit or a bosal hackamore. However, snaffles and hackamores ridden with both hands are usually limited only to special classes for horses between the ages of three and five years old. Most of the time, with the exception of "freestyle" classes, snaffle bit and hackamore horses do not compete directly against curb bit horses, though specific details vary depending on the particular sanctioning organization. In the last thirty years, the snaffle bit is the more common headgear used on younger horses, but in the past, the hackamore was more common. Some local or regional competitions offer a non-sanctioned "novice horse" division where horses of any age who have limited experience as reining horses can be ridden two-handed in a snaffle.

Sometimes reining classes at breed shows are split into "junior horse" and "senior horse" divisions. Depending on the breed, Junior horses are either 3, 4 or 5 years old, and allowed to show in a snaffle or bosal. Senior horses who age out of the junior horse divisions at age six must be shown in a curb. The rules have changed over the years to reduce the stress on young horses. Junior horse divisions at one time were limited to horses that were only 3 and, sometimes, 4 years old. Expansion to age five parallels the standards set by the FEI and in endurance competitions, recognizing that the physical and mental development of most young horses is not considered complete until that time. Further, though many western stock horse breeds are started under saddle at the age of two, they generally are not physically or mentally ready to be entered into any type of reining competition at that age and in some cases are prohibited from entering any performance class until at least $2 1/2$ years old. Both the NRHA and many breed associations offer snaffle bit futurities, usually for three-year-old horses, which pay very large purses.

Reining competition
Reining as a sport was first recognized by the American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA) in 1949, and later by the United States Equestrian Federation (USEF) in its western division and within a number of its breed divisions. The National Reining Horse Association (NRHA) was formed in 1966 in the United States, and developed a worldwide membership as well as standardized rules and patterns that significantly influenced other organizations, including the AQHA and USEF. The sport of reining became an FEI-recognized discipline in 2000, and FEI-sanctioned reining competitions are held across the world, including at the World Equestrian Games. In 2011, USA Reining was established to serve as the reining sport affiliate for the USEF and FEI competition structure in the United States.

Individual divisions at a reining competition vary with the sanctioning organization. However, standard classes include those limited to junior or senior horses, to horses of a specific age (such as three-year-olds), classes for professional, "non-pro," or amateur riders (those who do not work with horses for pay), youth riders of various ages, adult riders over age 40 or 50, as well as open events for all competitors. Classes may also be limited by the experience level of the horse or the rider.

National
In individual nations where reining competitions are held, national organizations usually oversee the sport. Reining classes can be held at a stand-alone competition just for reiners, or as one category within many different classes offered at a horse show. For example, in the United States, the National Reining Horse Association (NRHA) creates patterns and develops judging standards, sanctioning events open to all breeds. However, the United States Equestrian Federation (USEF) and its reining discipline affiliate, USA Reining, are the national organizations overseeing FEI and high performance competition in the USA, but also work with the NRHA in non-FEI open reining competition sanctioned by the USEF, and in individual horse breed show reining competition governed by the USEF, such as Morgans or Arabians. Breed organizations that sanction their own shows, including those for Quarter Horses (AQHA), Appaloosas (ApHC), and American Paint Horses (APHA) also cooperate with the NRHA.

International
International competitions are regulated by the International Federation for Equestrian Sports (FEI). Reining is growing in popularity around the world, including Europe and Australia. It was added as a part of the World Equestrian Games, beginning in 2002.

Freestyle
Freestyle reining allows a horse and rider team to incorporate reining movements into a three and one-half minute musical routine, akin to the KUR Freestyle competition in Dressage, but with elements that resemble the freestyle events in human competitions such as figure skating. Under NRHA rules, costumes are allowed, though not required; riders may ride with one, two or even no hands on any type of NRHA approved bit; props, within certain limits, are allowed; and the show management may allow special arena lighting. Freestyle reining competitions have no specific rules as to saddle, though humane equipment is required. Allowing "no hands" means that some competitors may perform without a bridle, which increases the difficulty of the movements. The rider must include a specified number of spins, stops and flying lead changes in a performance. Rollbacks, rein backs and dressage type maneuvers such as the half-pass may be added and scored. Competitors are judged on technical merit and artistic impression. At some competitions, an applause meter is added and may contribute to the artistic impression portion of the score.

College Level

Equestrian is a Division 1 and Division 3 sport recognized by the NCAA. single discipline teams are in Division 3, only competing in English, and Division I teams consist of English and western, including reining, horsemanship, flat, and jumping.

title: Reining


text:
Hame

Hame or hames may refer to:

Places

 * Häme, a geographical region of Finland
 * Häme (constituency), a Finnish constituency represented in the Parliament of Finland
 * Häme Province, a former province of Finland
 * Hame, Debar, a village in North Macedonia

People

 * Hamé (born 1975), French filmmaker and rapper
 * Hame Faiva (born 1994), New Zealand-born Italian rugby union player
 * Hame Sele (born 1996), Australian rugby league footballer

Other uses

 * Antidesma platyphyllum, a species of flowering tree in the leafflower family
 * Hame, a fictional planet in Isaac Asimov's Foundation series; see Trantor
 * Hames, part of a horse collar; see Horse harness § Parts

title: Hame


text:
Talk:President of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

I would like to move the article List of Presidents of the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to this location, and so this page should be deleted so that that can happen


text:
Talk:British Indian Army

Page Name
Hello .. I can see it might be useful to disambiguate between the Indian Army (pre-1947) and the later Army, But it very offensive to describe the pre-1947 Army as the 'British' Indian Army. Many people (for example, Wallace Breem!) joined the Indian Army in preference to joining the British Army because of that very distinction.

May I suggest a title such as: 'Indian Army (pre-1947)' or 'Indian Army (19xx-1947)'? mfc 19:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I considered calling it Indian Army (British) but because so many pages on the internet already exist (google "British Indian Army" returns 2,810) it seems like a sane name. After all there is already an article called "British Raj" which has a redirect from "British India". And all the pages in Categories: Military ranks which mention the British Indian Army eg Naik used the words before I made the change from British Indian Army to British Indian Army.

 * I am not hard set on the name, but I am set on a seperation. I think it is a better name than your suggestions for anyone who is not a military buff. As more than 50 years have gone by, I think the Indians are entitled to the page for their modern army without lots of historic bagage. With the new page name the Pre 1947 page can be expanded. So much to do...  PBS 01:04, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the separation .. excellent work. It's just that all the historical references refer to the 'Indian Army'. Wallace Breem for example, was proud that he joined the Indian Army and not the British Army; the difference was (and, I suppose, still is) important – because of its independence. It really wasn't British; hence my mutterings about the name you have chosen.

Now I look at your Google list ... most (all?) of those seem to refer to the British army in India ... which is separate from the Indian Army at the time, and the latter's school for officers, for example. In short, and generalizing: the Indian Army had units composed of Indians, the British Indian Army had units composed of British. These are very different. mfc

 * That's incorrect. Pre-1895 "Indian Army" meant the "army of the government of India" and included British and Indian (sepoy) units.  From 1895 to 1902 "Indian Army" was a collective term for the armies of the presidencies; the Bengal Army, Madras Army and Bombay Army.  Post-1902, following Kitchener's reforms, "Indian Army" was, to quote the Oxford History of the British Army, "the force recruited locally and permanently based in India, together with its expatriate British officers." and was separate from the British Army in India (the two together made the "Army of India").

 * Yes, I over-simplified—the officers of the Indian army were British (Wallace Breem, of course, being an example of that). But the men were 'locals', which is the important distinction. mfc

 * The thing is, the Indian Army described by this article was a British institution, hence British Indian Army to distinguish from the post-independence Indian Indian Army. There would be units of the British Indian Army that came from what is now Pakistan, Nepal and, probably, Bangladesh.  My only alternative for a name would be Indian Army of the British Empire.  Geoff/Gsl 05:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Since this is all historical information, why not call it "History of the Indian Army". Then you can subdivide it as appropriate by period.  You could also include a smaller history section (maybe only a paragraph) on the modern "Indian Army" article with a reference to the larger "History of the Indian Army" article. — Mike 04:13, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Geoff would I be correct in saying that a Regiment of the British Army in India would be a British Army Regiment on a posting to India. They could be posted from there to Sudan, or South Africa (etc) or back to Blighty?

 * That's correct. British Army regiments in India didn't have permanent postings but usually stayed longer than the term of service for the soldiers.  Up until 1861 there were also separate British East India Company units (predominantly European troops) but they disbanded or transfered to the British Army following the mutiny. Geoff/Gsl

I think that "History of the Indian Army" is not a good idea as it confuses 2 different institutions, which is why I made the break in the first place.

As to the other comments please have a look at Gurkha which includes references to the British East India Company army, The British Indian Army, The Indian Army and the British Army. I think the distinction between the four works better than the other options proposed.

One final point. If a none American see a reference to an article called the "Civil War", most would not be surprised if it turned out to be about the "American Civil war" because they know that this is what American, from none southern states, tend to use as a short hand name. If an English person puts together a "List of Civil War Generals" most Americans would be surprised to see Prince Rupert and Cromwell in the list, so the list would normally be qualified with "List of English Civil War Generals" Just as a none American will correct "List of Civil War Generals" to "List of American Civil War Generals" ;-). In the same way if you are into British history the "Indian Army" tends to be thought of as the pre-1947 outfit. But for people who are not versed in British history the name "British Indian Army" is much clearer. PBS 13:21, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I think we all agree that a distinction between the pre- and post-partition Indian Army is useful, and indeed necessary. My objection to calling the pre-partition IA the British Indian Army is that this is a new, non-historical name for it, and further, that term is already widely used as a more general description of the Army in India, as the Google search shows.  Hence it is confusing, as it loses the essential distinction from the British Army in India.

Geoff's Indian Army of the British Empire describes exactly what it was and is correct. Or if just talking about a certain period of that, one could use name(s) such as Indian Army (1902-1947), as originally suggested. Or, to keep the 3-word count: Indian Army (British), which you originally considered. How about that last one, for a compromise? :-) mfc

 * I honestly don't know what's best. I could live with any of them but I see flaws in them all.  I guess "Indian Army (1902-1947)" is the most explicit and, perhaps, least contentious.  I think "Indian Army (British)" is too sneaky if people (like me) use the pipe trick whereas using the pipe trick on the (1902-1947) version is OK if I'm linking from, say, a WWI article.  I haven't tried looking at what's used via Google but a quick scan of my WWI books shows "British Indian Army" used.  The Australian WWI official history (published in the 1930s) just uses "Indian Army". Geoff/Gsl 07:55, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would have expected a book pre 1947 to use the Indian Army because when published there had only been one Indian Army! The only problem I see with Indian Army of the British Empire is a bit of a mouth full and personally I would shorten it to British Indian Army. After all the term "British Empire" is short hand for a very long frequently changing list (Berwick-upon-Tweed was missed of the list at the end of the Crimea War and did not make peace with the USSR, which was the inheritor of Russia's obligations, until the late 1960s!)). The trouble with the title Indian Army (British) is that it is no more or less explicit than British Indian Army and in pages like Naik one would end up with British Indian Army (British)| Indian Army which seems over complicated.

I wrote a stub of an article on Thomas Henry Burke an Irish politician. But there was already an article on a Thomas Henry Burke an American politician. So I put in his entry under Thomas Henry Burke, (1829 – 1882) and thinking that that was a good idea put in a couple of other entries the same day with date of birth and death. I was jumped on by several people who moved the entries to other names. One of them posted the following to my talk page:
 * ''As a general note, I have never seen name (date - date) as an article title on Wikipedia. It makes searching very hard. I am moved the articles listed by that a listing the redirects on redirect for deletion. Burgundavia 07:29, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

So although technically accurate I do not think that using dates is a good idea. PBS 11:51, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Well I guess ironically "British Indian Army" is the least ambiguous option then. "Indian Army of British India" might be another option, rather than "British Empire".  I don't have a problem with a long article title as long as it's correct, but I'm not sure what "correct" is.  Geoff/Gsl 23:33, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that the dates approach is perhaps not the best, and it's cumbersome, too. But 'British Indian Army' remains confusing, as that term is usually used to talk about the combined Indian Army + British Army in India.

Therefore, 'Indian Army (British)' seems to be the best option, and is very much in the general style of naming Wikipedia articles. It reads better too, with the important adjective (Indian) first and the modified/distinguishing adjective (British) suitably parenthetical. mfc

 * PBS 23:04, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC) :The Current British Mod seems to be happy with the name "British Indian Army" see: http://www.atra.mod.uk/atra/rmas/tour/iamr.htm
 * ''After the break up of the British Indian Army in 1948, the room became the Indian Army Museum and, in 1970, the Indian Army Memorial Room. The stained glass windows, the central chandelier, the crests hanging on the walls and the display of medals, portraits and other artefacts all commemorate the loyal service of the Gurkha Regiment and other regiments of British Indian Army.

Poll on Page Name
Enough said. Please see the discussion immediately above. Since there is no "official" term, we could use any. However there seems to be 5 options for a Page Name in the discussion. In alphabetical order these are: PBS 16:46, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

British Indian Army
 * 1) PBS 16:46, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm comfortable with this... Geoff/Gsl 05:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

dates as in Indian Army (1857-1947)

Indian Army (British)
 * 1) This is way Wikipedia usually applies disambiguation, and is therefore ptobably the best term (in Wikipedia) for the Indian Army pre-1947. mfc

Indian Army of the British Empire

Indian Army of British India

Comments or second choices

 * ''Since there is no "official" term, we could use any.
 * Yes there is, it is 'Indian Army'. We are just disambiguating, here. mfc
 * British Indian Army
 * This is OK for referring to the the British Army in India. Some of the uses in articles are of that nature.  It cannot be used for the Indian Army for reasons cited above; the term is already in use. mfc

Democracy

 * Hooray for democracy! Geoff/Gsl 23:35, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah .. looks like we've ended up with both names :-( mfc 05:50, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As User: Quota did not change any of the links to the page, I've moved it back. His main interest seems to be changing quotes on pages to annoy computer scientists. I am not sure why he chose to move a page on which there had been a poll, because there are no quotation marks of the type with which he is concerned. As he says he is the the pedantic alter ego of a regular Wikipedia contributor perhapse he would like to join this conversation as himself PBS

India/British India
I amended a link from India (the current republic) to point to British India. It seems more appropriate: hope this is ok. Folks at 137 18:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Battleboxes
Several battleboxes (eg, Operation Compass) refer to "India" or "British India" as a separate participant. Some editors argue that, as India was not independent at the time, its forces should not be shown separately from Britain's. Individual Indian formations could be identified in the text. Any thoughts? My amateur-2p-worth is that the Indian Army of the time was separately organised and distinct from the British Army in a way that those from Ceylon or the West Indies were not - so separate entry is appropriate. There's been debates about this issue here and here. Folks at 137 18:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 * India at the time was not a separate participant, it was governed directly via the Foreign Office as a normal part of the empire - the princely states however were technically IIRC protectorates.

 * The Indian Army was very well respected and liked within the overall British forces and indeed many non-Indian British officers and men were well pleased to be associated with it.

 * IIRC, after the Indian Mutiny it was decided that the Indian Army henceforth would consist of at least a third of attached normal British Army officers and personnel, regiments, etc., so as to ensure that the mutiny would not happen again. Whether this still applied at the relevant times for WW I and WW II I don't know, but although termed 'Indian' it usually had a sizeable British Army contingent attached.

Name
Just a thought: shouldn't this be renamed Indian Army (United Kingdom) under the new naming policy? Grant | Talk 02:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Percentages
One sentence reads: "The Indian Army comprised of 65% of Sikh Officers and 20% of Infantry/foot soldiers". Besides being gramatically incorrect, the sentence makes no sense, it seems to be taken out of context or something. If taken literally it means there were 3 times as many officers as soldiers.

Name again
The problem with this article being British Indian Army is that it has not correlated with the formations and units of the pre-1947 Army. In titling the divisional articles the convention of prefixing with British eg. British 8th Indian Infantry Division has not occurred since the first vote years ago. In fact the usage has has gone terribly wrong with either 8th Indian Infantry Division (United Kingdom) or 8th Infantry Division (Indian). I would suggest the article be moved to Indian Army (British) to disambiguate from the national Indian Army--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 12:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

 * perhaps Indian Army (British Raj) which would match with the wiki article British Raj. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

 * The official name used in primary sources is (India Army). British Raj was a position occupied by a person.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 13:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, I've been uncomfortable with this for some time. "British Indian Army" is clear enough, but it is not a term that was ever formally used as the name, and we seem to be implying it was. (This is the reason we dropped Nationality Xth Division - pagenames should be proper nouns where possible with disambiguation adjectives in brackets) Indian Army (pre-1947) might be the cleanest term? Shimgray | talk | 12:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

How about "Indian Army (British Empire)" if we want to avoid dates in the heading as suggested above. The term "British Raj" is completely unofficial, the term used was Indian Empire which was part of the British Empire. Dabbler (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

 * It was brought to my attention that the official name under which India was admitted to the United Nations before its Independence was the Indian Empire.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 00:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * After 1857 when the British government took over the administration of the British Indian possessions, they decided that "legally" they did so as a direct replacement of the last Mogul Emperor who they had deposed. Queen Victoria was given the title Empress of India and the land they ruled was known as the Indian Empire until independence. I suppose that the article could be called Imperial Indian Army, if that wouldn't be confused with the Mogul armies. Dabbler (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on the Mughal forces, but they would be (Mughal Empire)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 02:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

 * There is some confusion here. British India was transferred from the administration of the East India Company to the control of the India Office and the government of the Governor-General of India. British India did not include the Indian Princely states, more than 40 per cent of the area of India, many of which had their own military forces. There were "Imperial" bodies which related to the whole of India, but they did not include the Indian Army. As it happens, it was almost twenty years after the departure of the last Mughal emperor that Queen Victoria was declared Empress of India, but even then India itself was only rarely called "the Indian Empire". In any event, we have only just escaped from the invented name of "British Indian Army" - surely better not to invent another! I am happy with "Indian Army", with a suitable qualification, but "1858-1947" isn't the right one - please see the thread below. Xn4  ( talk ) 07:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Name and content
I suggest that this article deal with the Indian Army (1895-1947) (i.e. from when the Indian Army officially existed until independence), and be titled "Indian Army (1895-1947)", with a separate page (or pages) dealing with the presidency armies, which were separate entities. Since the modern Indian Army is an institutional continuation of the pre-independence army, i think it makes sense to name this page Indian Army and then add dates in brackets. Mesoso2 (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I completely agree with the above, except that we already (luckily) have articles on the Presidency armies, the Bengal Army, the Madras Army and the Bombay Army. The military organization of India was very formal, and it's a mistake to invent an army retrospectively which didn't exist at the time. Also, I'm afraid that some of the text of this article has wandered some way from the facts, failing to match what is revealed from reliable sources in other articles.  Xn4  ( talk ) 06:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Following this discussion, I've now renamed the page Indian Army (1895–1947) and also made some corrections in the text. Xn4  ( talk ) 01:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rank System
I have restored the Rank titles and the section on King's Commissioned Indian Officers

Requested move March 2010

 * 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 consensus to move to British Indian Army -- PBS (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Indian Army (1895–1947) → Indian Army (British) — We do not usually use dates for disambiguation and as few if any readers are going to know the dates to search for an article on the Indian Army of the British Empire, it is better if it is moved to a more descriptive name. Originally the name British Indian Army was chosen for this page and confirmed using a poll that pre-dates the WP:RM page! It was moved to the current name without a WP:RM, but it has been at that name for some time hence this request rather than a bold move. -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Much of this talk page involves threads about the name of this page. Please read the previous debates to save the need to repeat the debates in this section. -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Agree - British Indian Army is descriptive and easy to understand and just as accurate. Dabbler (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support British Indian Army, not Indian Army (British). -- Redtigerxyz Talk 03:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am happy with British Indian Army if that is what the current emerging consensus -- PBS (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2010 (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.

Size
According to Stephen Badsey, the BIA was the largest all-volunteer force even during WWI and remained so until the end of WW2. This differs from what our article says. He appears to be a reliable source. The statement can be see here - can't give a page number, alas. - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

 * There was no conscription in India and AFAIK the same applied to all the Empire countries that had non-white 'native' populations, in these only white inhabitants, i.e., the actual colonists, settlers, etc., were liable to be called up. For the other populations joining the armed services was IIRC entirely voluntary.

Martial Race
martial race and Punjabinization of Army here are omitted. Any one please add them.Ovsek (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Final Command
After the end of WWII and before partition, there was one more military action, the last action in which Indian troops were sent into action under British command. I don't remember what it was, specifically, but it would be a good addition to this article. Anyone know? The Sanity Inspector (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that there were at least two campaigns that Indian Army troops were involved in after WWII. They were involved in fighting the Viet Minh in Indochina after the Japanese surrender and before the French reestablished colonial government and similarly in Indonesia against the republican Indonesians partly to protect the interned Europeans held by the Japanese who were being attacked by Indonesians opposed to the possible return of Dutch rule. They also undertook retaliatory attacks in response to the assassination of a senior British officer who had been negotiating with Sukarno. Dabbler (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 * See here: First Indo-China War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.135.170 (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Uploading pictures
Hi, I have an old picture of FF Rifle Training Staff from British Indian Army at Small Arms School Sagor India (from 1945-46) Could someone please indicate where I should upload it? My father is also in this picture with a British Colonel and a British Captain.

 * See File_Upload_Wizard for how to upload images etc. Also you should sign your posts on Talk pages by putting ~ at the end. This automatically puts in a signature block with date and time like this Dabbler (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on British Indian Army. 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/20090909172657/http://orbat.com:80/site/history/historical/india/army1914.html to http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/india/army1914.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061116203948/http://indianarmy.nic.in:80/arhist1.htm to http://indianarmy.nic.in/arhist1.htm#British%20Era

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Indian Army. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://indianarmy.nic.in/arhist1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050901003914/http://defencejournal.com/sept99/martial-races.htm to http://defencejournal.com/sept99/martial-races.htm

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) 03:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Questionable use of Bangladeshi army
Question: Bangladesh Army was not from the division from the British Indian Army. It came into existence from the Pakistan Army in East with 14 Infantry Division established by Pakistan, not British. Bangladesh owes its very existence to Pakistan (they are not going like it, but you cannot change the past). It is recommendable that the Bangla Desh's reference must be removed in this page. This page only concerns India and Pakistan since they were born in 1947, Bangladesh came to world's picture in 1971, not 1947. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeerBaba (talk • contribs)

Soldiers of the British Indian Army: Secondary sources of information
I am working on a Draft article Draft:Vijey_Kumar_Ghai, an officer of the British Indian Army who served during WW2. I have disclosed COI on my talk page. I would appreciate any sources of data that keep records of officers who served in the British Indian Army such as him, to corroborate service during WW2. Please feel free to add any such references on that page. Since I see discussion on this page about the name of this page, I believe British Indian Army is the accurate description as it was known at the time. WikiCpa (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Wikicpa

Captain Mit Singh and Copyright
Baja244, you have classified the photo of Captain Mit Singh as your 'Own Work'. Is this true or were you trying to bypass wikipedia's copyright restrictions? IronBattalion (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2021 (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) 03:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sardar Bahadur Captain Mit Singh.jpg

Nomenclature
From the 'First World War' section:

"...some 50,000 in auxiliary battalions. They felt that any more would jeopardise national security. More than four divisions were eventually sent..."

I accept that almost nobody today understands the concept of a 'nation', but this is gratuitous. The administrators of India in ~1910 were not West Wing-brained and did not think or speak in terms of 'national security'. You could just say 'jeopardise the security of India' or similar, without invoking a hypothetical 'nation' of India that existed during the Raj.

Incidentally, it's dubious even today to assert that the sovereign state of India constitutes a 'nation'. 73.69.253.197 (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:British Indian Army


text:
Gotse Delchev (disambiguation)

Gotse Delchev was a Macedonian Bulgarian revolutionary.

Gotse Delchev or Goce Delčev may also refer to:
 * Gotse Delchev (town), a town in southwestern Bulgaria
 * Gotse Delchev Municipality, Bulgaria
 * Goce Delčev, Gazi Baba, a village in North Macedonia
 * Gotse Delchev Brigade, a military unit during WWII
 * Goce Delčev Square, a town square in Strumica, North Macedonia

title: Gotse Delchev (disambiguation)


text:
CogPrints

CogPrints is an electronic archive in which authors can self-archive papers in any area of cognitive science, including psychology, neuroscience, and linguistics, and many areas of computer science (e.g., artificial intelligence, robotics, vision, learning, speech, neural networks), philosophy (e.g., mind, language, knowledge, science, logic), biology (e.g., ethology, behavioral ecology, sociobiology, behaviour genetics, evolutionary theory), medicine (e.g., psychiatry, neurology, human genetics, imaging), anthropology (e.g., primatology, cognitive ethnology, archeology, paleontology), as well as any other portions of the physical, social and mathematical sciences that are pertinent to the study of cognition.

CogPrints is moderated by Stevan Harnad. The archive was launched in 1997 and now contains over 2000 freely downloadable articles.

Some cite CogPrints, along with the physics archive arXiv as evidence that the author self-archiving model of Open Access can work—although under the influence of the Open Archives Initiative and its OAI-PMH, the emphasis in self-archiving has since moved away from such central repositories in the direction of distributed self-archiving in Institutional Repositories. CogPrints was first made OAI-compliant, and then the software was converted into the EPrints software at the University of Southampton by Rob Tansley who then went on to design DSpace. EPrints is now maintained by Christopher Gutteridge at Southampton.

title: CogPrints


text:
Xev

Xev, XEV or xev can refer to:
 * XEV, vehicle manufacturer
 * Xev Bellringer, previously Zev Bellringer, A fictional character from a sci-fi TV series Lexx
 * Stockholm Central Station (IATA airport code XEV)
 * XEV-AM, a radio station in Chihuahua that is now on FM as XHV-FM

title: Xev


text:
Talk:History of Toulouse

Volcae Tectosages
"In the 3rd century BC there came, from Belgium or southern Germany, a Celtic Gallic tribe called the Volcae Tectosages, the first Indo-Europeans to appear in the region. They settled in Tolosa and interbred with the local people..." All the mentions of the Volcae Tectosages in Caesar's Gallic War put them in the east of Gaul, nowhere near Tolosa. I'm putting this excised sentence here, for anyone to put back if they can find a reference connecting this tribe with Tolosa. Wetman 01:12, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * There are so many references that it is impossible to list. In France, it is such a well known fact, it's like saying that the Iberians were in Spain. It is the first time I hear someone saying the opposite. Plus I think the sentence itself answers your question: they indeed were in the east of Gaul (Belgium, Germany), but then moved to southern Gaul. Cesar most often referred to gallic people in a narrow way, citing the name of their local oppidum (town) as their name, so the Volcae Tectosages are always called Tolosates by him. He did not have the scientific appraoch of making larger categorizations as we do today. I think it is modern scientists who can determine that Tolosates were indeed Volcae Tectosages, notably by studying coins, etc.

 * Anyway, among thousands of other sources (mostly in French I'm afraid), here is one excellent source (in French): http://www.occitania.fr/hist/origin/celte/detail/dr4.htm

 * According to them, the Volcae divided in two groups, the Tectosages near Toulouse, and the Arécomiques near Nimes. They also say that one group of Volcae Tectosages settled across the Rhine in Germania (maybe the one you read about?), and later settled in the Danube valley, then they fought in Greece, where they captured Delphi. This created confusions among historians, and some enthusiastic 19th century historians were commenting on Toulouse people conquering Delphi!! But modern historians reckon the Volcae Tectosages from Toulouse never left Toulouse, and are not the same as the Volcae Tectosages that conquered Delphi.

 * I put back the sentence. Hardouin 21:21, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gothic?
Why systematically replacing the word Germanic with the word Gothic? Gothic people are just a subset of Germanic people after all. The majority of people is quite familiar with the word Germanic, but I fear that many people may not know the word Gothic, or may simply confuse it with the Gothic architecture of cathedrals, or even the "Gothic" subculture of modern teenagers in Europe!! I think we should always leave the terms that are the most generic and that anyone can understand. I am in favor of reverting to Germanic, but I will wait for comments before doing so.

Also, I wonder why deleting the fact that the kings of Castile and present-day Spain descend from the Visigoths. It helped showing the long-term trends of European history. I remind people that the last Visigoth rulers took refuge in Asturias during the Arab conquest, then were rulers of Asturias, then kings of Leon, then kings of Castile, then ultimately kings of Spain. King Juan Carlos can trace back his ancestry to the Visigoth rulers. Hardouin 22:01, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Late Middle Ages and beyond
Hello, I am the author of the site http://www.corendal.com. I have completed the Middle Age part with the content of my site, which is also available on the French wikipedia. Edits are welcome, my English is not the best.

I like the content of the first paragraphs, up until the 11th century. However, I find these paragraphs a bit too long, I'd like to split them in smaller pieces. That's what I did in my site, with far less details I admit. I am not a good judge as I am certainly vested in my work, so I'll let outsiders do it if they feel the need. Tdanard

Toulouse in the 19th and 20th centuries
Did nothing interesting happen in Toulouse between 1814 and 2001? Nothing between those dates is mentioned in the article. --Angr/undefined 16:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The article is a work in progress. I wrote everything from beginning to year 1000 after Christ. Then another user added info for period 1000-1800, although there is still more to say about this period. For 1800 till 2000, info will have to be added. Come back in the months and years to come. Hardouin 12:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The French version says that industrialization only began in Toulouse in durning the Great War. There is some interesting stuff there about the beginning of their aero-industry in the 20's. I would assume that as a major river-city competition form the rail network was unkind to Toulouse and the history kind of passed it by.
 * Back-of-the-envelope: Between 1801 and 1911 Toulouse's population grew at an annualized rate of 0.99% (this drops to 0.35%! if you start from 1861). Compare this to Paris ~ 1.9%, Marseille ~ 1.4%, Lyon ~ 1.5%, Lille ~1.2%, Strassberg ~ 1.2%, Mülhausen ~ 2.4%, Nancy ~ 1.3%, Nantes 0.72%, Bordeaux ~ 0.95%, Montpellier ~ 0.82%.  72.49.112.235 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Kingdom of Aquitaine
The section Carolingian Franks and Kingdom of Aquitaine is very long and too detailed for a general article on the history of Toulouse. The content of the section is mainly about the Kingdom of Aquitaine. I was quite surprised there isn't already a separate article on the Kingdom of Aquitaine. It is usually considered a highly significant topic in French history with whole books devoted to the subject. On Wikipedia, it seems there is a demand for such an article judging by how often the Kingdom of Aquitaine is already mentioned elsewhere and the redlinks to Kingdom of Aquitaine.

I think the existing section in this article could be usefully shortened and the original content moved into a separate Kingdom of Aquitaine article, putting a link at the top of the section. It's such a notable topic, I think it really deserves its own article. What do other editors think? If anyone is feeling bold, please create a stub article (I can't) and I'll fill it out. 85.94.166.25 (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The fear of repression obliged the notabilities to exile, or to convert themselves?
Out of curiosity, was this article google translated from the French version and then copy-pasted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.81.13 (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Visigothic Kingdom of Tolosa
There is info at the AfC that could be merged here. If done, ping me and I will look at a history merge. Dloh cierekim  08:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:History of Toulouse


text:
Talk:Donald Anderson, Baron Anderson of Swansea

Untitled
If you are not versed in British politics, you have no idea whether that man is Tory or Labour or whatever. A common mistake, but could someone clarify that please? |l'KF'l| 01:14, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

I have removed everything that was a clear cut and paste. That BBC url will be great as a source, but I think we were just a little way over the line there... Telsa (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * hmm, compare and contrast if you will http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2174292.stm
 * Oopsies - let's see if we can paraphrase that a little better ... Chris talk back 12:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


text:
Climate Change Levy

The Climate Change Levy (CCL) is a tax on energy delivered to non-domestic users in the United Kingdom.

Scope and purpose
Introduced on 1 April 2001 under the Finance Act 2000, it was forecast to cut annual emissions by 2.5 million tonnes by 2010, and forms part of the UK's Climate Change Programme. The levy applies to most energy users, with the notable exceptions of those in the domestic and transport sectors. Electricity from nuclear is taxed even though it causes no direct carbon emissions. Originally electricity generated from new renewables and approved cogeneration schemes was not taxed, but the July 2015 Budget removed this exemption from 1 August 2015, raising £450m/year.

Rates
From when it was introduced, the levy was frozen at 0.43p/kWh on electricity, 0.15p/kWh on coal and 0.15p/kWh on gas.

A reduction of up to 90% from the levy may be gained by energy-intensive users provided they sign a Climate Change Agreement.

Revenue from the levy was offset by a 0.3% employers' rate reduction in National Insurance. However, the Finance Act 2002 subsequently increased that rate by 1%, reversing the reduction. The revenue used to fund a number of energy efficiency initiatives such as The Carbon Trust. However, revenue recycling was removed at the Spending Review 2010, with the revenue going to the Exchequer.

In the 2006 budget it was announced that the levy would in future rise annually in line with inflation, starting from 1 April 2007. In the 2018 Budget, it was announced that the rates of the Climate Change Levy would be adjusted until 2022 so that the gas rate reaches 60% of the electricity rate in 2021 to 2022.

Rates have changed as tabulated below.

title: Climate Change Levy


text:
Renewables Obligation (United Kingdom)

The Renewables Obligation (RO) was designed to encourage generation of electricity from eligible renewable sources in the United Kingdom. It was introduced in April 2002, both in England and Wales and in Scotland albeit in a slightly different form: the Renewables Obligation (Scotland). The RO was later introduced in Northern Ireland in April 2005. In all cases, replacing the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation which operated from 1990.

The RO placed an obligation on licensed electricity suppliers in the United Kingdom to source an increasing proportion of electricity from renewable sources, similar to a renewable portfolio standard. In 2010/11 it was 11.1% (4.0% in Northern Ireland). This figure was initially set at 3% for the period 2002/03 and under current political commitments will rise to 15.4% (6.3% in Northern Ireland) by the period 2015/16 and then it runs until 2037 (2033 in Northern Ireland). An extension of the scheme from 2027 to 2037 was declared on 1 April 2010 and is detailed in the National Renewable Energy Action Plan.

The RO closed to new generation in March 2017, and was replaced by the Contracts for Difference scheme.

The Renewable Obligation scheme
Suppliers meet their obligations by presenting Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) to Ofgem. Where suppliers do not have sufficient ROCs to cover their obligation, a payment is made into the buy-out fund. The buy-out price suppliers pay is a fixed price per MWh shortfall and is adjusted in line with the Retail Prices Index each year. The proceeds of the buy-out fund are paid back to suppliers in proportion to how many ROCs they have presented. For example, if they were to submit 5% of the total number of ROCs submitted they would receive 5% of the total funds that defaulting supply companies pay into the buy-out fund.

ROCs are intended to create a market, and be traded at market prices that differ from the official buy-out price. If there is an excess of renewable production, beyond the supplier obligation, the price of ROCs would fall below the buy-out price. The price of ROCs could approach zero if renewable and non-renewable generation costs became similar, when there would be little or no subsidy of renewable generation. If there is less renewable production than the obligation, the price of ROCs would increase above the buy-out price, as purchasers anticipate later payments from the buy-out fund on each ROC.

Obligation periods run for one year, beginning on 1 April and running to 31 March. Supply companies have until the 31 August following the period to submit sufficient ROCs to cover their obligation, or to submit sufficient payment to the buy-out fund to cover the shortfall.

The cost of ROCs is effectively paid by electricity consumers of supply companies that fail to present sufficient ROCs, whilst reducing the cost to consumers of supply companies who submit large numbers of ROCs, assuming that all costs and savings are passed on to consumers.

Percentages and prices by year
Sources:

Certificates
A ROC is the green certificate issued for eligible renewable electricity generated within the United Kingdom and supplied to customers in the United Kingdom by a licensed supplier. ROCs are issued by Ofgem to accredited renewable generators (or in the case of generating stations subject to a NFFO (non-fossil fuels obligation), Scottish Renewables Obligation or Northern Ireland NFFO contract, to the nominated electricity supplier). It is worth noting that the Scottish Renewables Obligation was superseded by the Renewables Obligation (Scotland) in 2002.

The default is that one ROC is issued for each megawatt-hour (MWh) of eligible renewable output. Some technologies get more, some less. For instance, offshore wind installations receive 2 ROCs per MWh; onshore wind installations receive 0.9 ROCs per MWh and sewage gas-fired plants receive half a ROC per MWh.

ROCs are issued into the ROC Register and so are electronic certificates. Normally, a renewable generator will transfer the related ROCs through Ofgem's electronic registry when it sells power to an electricity supplier.

The legislation
The Utilities Act 2000 gives the Secretary of State the power to require electricity suppliers to supply a certain proportion of their total sales in the United Kingdom from electricity generated from renewable sources. A Renewables Obligation Order is issued annually detailing the precise level of the obligation for the coming year-long period of obligation and the level of the buy-out price. The Renewables Obligation (England and Wales) was introduced by the Department of Trade and Industry, the Renewables Obligation (Scotland) was introduced by the Scottish Executives and the Northern Ireland Renewables Obligation was introduced by the Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment (DETINI). The Orders were subject to review in 2005/06 and new Orders came into effect on 1 April 2006. The relevant pieces of legislation for the period April 2006 – March 2007 are:

 * The Renewables Obligation Order 2006 (Statutory Instrument (SI) 2006 No. 1004)
 * The Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Order 2006 (SI 2006 No. 173), and
 * The Renewables Obligation Order (Northern Ireland) 2006 (SI 2006 No. 56).

All pieces of legislation are published on the National Archives legislation site.

Ofgem's role
Ofgem is the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets in Great Britain. The Orders detail Ofgem's powers and functions to administer the Renewables Obligation. These functions include:

 * Accrediting generating stations as being capable of generating electricity from eligible renewable sources
 * Issuing ROCs and revoking these as necessary
 * Establishing and maintaining a Register of ROCs
 * Monitoring compliance with the requirements of the Orders
 * Calculating annually the buy-out price
 * Receiving buy-out payments and redistributing the buy-out fund
 * Receiving late payments and redistributing the late payment fund, and
 * Publishing an annual report on the operation of and compliance with the requirements of the Orders.

Ofgem also administers the Northern Ireland Renewables Obligation (NIRO) on behalf of the Northern Ireland Authority for Energy Regulation (NIAER).

Types of energy eligible
The following sources of electricity are eligible for ROCs:

 * Biogas from anaerobic digestion
 * Biomass
 * Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
 * Hydro electric
 * Tidal power
 * Wind power
 * Photovoltaic cells
 * Landfill gas
 * Sewage gas
 * Wave power

Co-firing of biomass is also eligible. Not all technologies which are eligible will actually be supported due to cost. Some renewable sources of electricity are not eligible for ROCs (e.g. larger hydroelectric schemes which were in operation before April 2002).

Banding
The Renewables Obligation represents the UK Government's main policy measure for stimulating the growth of electricity generation from renewable sources. The Government envisages that 30% of electricity demand will need to be generated by renewable sources in order for the UK to meet a legally binding EU target of obtaining 15% of energy from renewable sources by 2020.

The Renewables Obligation is a market-based mechanism designed to incentivise the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources over more traditional alternatives at a reasonable cost.

When it was first introduced in 2002, each form of renewable energy technology received the same level of support, namely one ROC/MWh of electricity generated. This was a conscious decision as the Government was keen to promote a market-led approach, emphasising competition between technologies to minimise cost, and did not want to distort the market by appearing to place the importance of certain technologies above others.

As a result, whilst being ostensibly technology-neutral, the Renewables Obligation in its original form in fact favoured the deployment of the more established, near-market technologies such as landfill gas and onshore wind, those which were most economically efficient, over less well developed technologies that were further from commercial viability.

A review of the performance of the Renewables Obligation was announced in 2003. Modelling of future deployment scenarios indicated that targets would not be met with current levels of support due to constraints on the availability and deployment of the most established technologies. A significant contribution would therefore be required from less mature technologies which lacked sufficient incentive to develop into feasible alternatives under the original scheme.

The Government announced its intention to reform the Renewables Obligation in 2006. Banding was introduced in 2009 to provide differing levels of support to groups of technologies depending upon their relative maturity, development cost and associated risk. Whilst increasing the incentive for technologies in the early stages of development this also allowed the level of support for well established technologies to be reduced to avoid over-subsidisation.

In reforming the Renewables Obligation in this way, and scheduling regular future reviews, the Government recognised that the market would not deliver the mix of renewable energy generation required to meet the targets if the incentives remained technology-neutral. It was therefore necessary for the Government to perform a continuing strategic role and retain the capability to intervene if necessary. The introduction of banding allowed the Government to steer industry towards investment in less well developed forms of renewable energy to enable them to contribute to meeting the long-term targets, rather than concentrating investment in technologies that are economically favourable in the short-term.

The Government has reviewed the banding levels for appropriate incentives for the period 2013–2017. These bands include a reduction in the tariff for onshore wind to 0.9 ROCs/MWh and an increase for small wave and tidal stream projects, under 30 MW, to 5 ROCs/MWh.

Government review
The obligation was reviewed by government following a consultation period that finished in September 2007. The document at the centre of the consultation set out an amended form of the RO which will see different technologies earn different numbers of ROCs. This has not yet been adopted as policy.

On 22 January 2007, Ofgem called for the Renewables Obligation to be replaced, claiming that the scheme is a 'very costly way' of supporting renewable electricity generation. In particular they are concerned that electricity customers pay for renewables projects even if they are not built due to problems obtaining planning permission, and the failure of the Renewables Obligation to link financial support for renewables to either the electricity price or the price of renewables in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme.

The British Wind Energy Association, whose members are major beneficiaries of the existing scheme, claims that Ofgem is partly responsible for the costs because it has failed to prioritise work on the National Grid which would allow more renewable capacity to be connected. They also stressed the need to maintain stability in the marketplace to maintain the confidence of investors.

The concerns of both bodies seem to be shared by the Renewable Energy Association.

The Scottish Wind Assessment Project has criticised the scheme for rewarding reductions in renewable electricity output: two electricity suppliers, Scottish and Southern Energy and Npower, down-rated several large hydro-power stations in order to qualify for Renewables Obligation Certificates.

Electricity market reform and future
The UK Government proposed wide-ranging reforms to the UK electricity market which saw feed-in tariffs with contracts for difference (CfD) replace the Renewables Obligation as the main renewable generation support mechanism. Unlike ROCs, CfDs will also be available to generators of nuclear electricity.

Other than with respect to large scale (>5MW) solar photovoltaic power projects and onshore wind power projects, the Renewables Obligation remained open to new generation until 31 March 2017, allowing new renewable generation that comes online between 2014 (when it is anticipated the CfDs will start) and 2017 to choose between CfDs and ROCs. After that date, the government intends to close the Renewables Obligation to new generation and ‘vintage’ existing ROCs, meaning that levels and length of support for existing participants in the Renewables Obligation will be maintained.

However, the government subsequently announced that it would bring forward the deadline for Renewables Obligation accreditation for large scale (>5MW) solar photovoltaic power projects, to 1 April 2015. The government further announced on 18 June 2015 that it intended to close the Renewables Obligation to new onshore wind power projects on 1 April 2016 (bringing the deadline forward by one year).

In addition to the introduction of feed-in tariffs, the UK Government's proposed electricity market reform included two further initiatives to encourage the decarbonisation of electricity generation: a Carbon Price Floor and an Emissions Performance Standard.

title: Renewables Obligation (United Kingdom)