text:
Talk:Edvard Beneš

Untitled
If Wikipedia can support the page Beneš decrees, then can we move this to Edvard Beneš? Timrollpickering 19:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I've requested the change on Requested moves. Timrollpickering 12:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edvard Benes or Edvard Beneš

 * The original reason given for this location was that Wikipedia could not support the "š" in a title; however the Beneš decrees page exists. Timrollpickering 12:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Strongly opposed. The Beneš decrees article is seriously broken - š in the title is wrongly encoded as %9A, which is neither ISO-8859-1 nor UTF-8. This breaks tools expecting standard-conforming URLs. -- Naive cynic 23:32, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * See also 65. Thanks! Gangleri | [ Th] | T 10:09, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

 * Now, due to the UTF-8 conversion, both could work. -- Adam78 28 June 2005 14:35 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Supported. -- Naive cynic 28 June 2005 15:35 (UTC)
 * Supported, of course. Juro 28 June 2005 18:43 (UTC)

I've acted so. After the UTF-8 conversion there is no reason not to move. --Pjacobi June 28, 2005 18:59 (UTC)

Naming conventions: The choice between anglicized and native spellings should follow English usage.

A Google search on "Edvard Benes" (there is a bug in Google's search returns, one has to go to the last page returned to find the real numbers):
 * Web 368 of 368 English pages for "Edvard Beneš" -"Edvard Benes" -wikipedi
 * Web 571 of about 11,700 English pages for -"Edvard Beneš" "Edvard Benes" -wikipedia.
 * Books 351 - 360 of 602 on "Edvard Beneš" -Edvard-Benes.
 * Books 461 - 467 of 467 on -"Edvard Beneš" "Edvard Benes".
 * Scholar 321 - 321 of 321 for "Edvard Beneš" -"Edvard Benes" (a number (most?) of these are not in English)
 * Scholar 511 - 515 of 515 for -"Edvard Beneš" "Edvard Benes".

This page should be moved back to Edvard Benes --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That dead horse, again? Diacritics are allowed in article titles, period. - Darwinek (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes if they are the most common usage in English in this case they are not. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that assertion. — Nightstallion 22:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 * What is your evidence that "Edvard Benes" is not the most common spelling in verifiable reliable English sources? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the assertion that we should only be using diacritics if they're the most commonly used version of the word. Due to technical limitiations, until very recently Benes was almost the only *possible* spelling of his name used. The case is in my opinion not comparable to Franz Josef Strauss, where the most common English rendition *does* in fact substitute ss for the letter ß; in this case, my interpretation is that it's not a substitution of š by s but rather a commonly repeated mistake through technical limitations.
 * Either way, you did not file for a RM even though it's rather obvious that the matter is contentious (seeing as half a dozen editors *unanimously* agreed to move the article, as seen above), so if you insist that we should be dropping the diacritic, then I'd say follow established procedures. Okay? — Nightstallion 09:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Books and Scholar searches are not limited to publication that use Benes "due to technical limitiations" as you suggest. The article started out at Edvard Benes so why did you not ask for a requested move the move before moving it back again? After all if there was to be no consensus there is no reason for it to remain at this spelling which is a clear violation of the naming conventions. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk)
 * There was a clear consensus for moving it in June 2005; the consensus for moving it back right now is not evident to me. (And yes, Scholar and Books is likely LESS limited on typographical grounds, but not completely unlimited; and as you see, the fact that those people pay more attention to diacritics means that it's evened out a lot in the Google Fight department.) — Nightstallion 11:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 * You says it is because of "typographical grounds" but you can not know that. It is your opinion not a fact, the guidelines say common usage not what some editors would like common usage to be. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In case of contentious moves, there should still be a formal discussion, preferably leading to a consensual solution. I'd wager there's still a substantial number of editors interested in this article who'd agree with me that qualifying the numbers as I've described above would speak in favour of using the diacritic in this case. — Nightstallion 22:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Censorship in the article
It is well-known that Benes did not simply die, but rather he was assasinated by the communist secret police, who dumped him through the window. For a man who did such evil against hundreds of thousands of german and hungarian people and whose name remains cursed for seventy-seven generations to come, such violent ending was very fitting, and should not be supressed!

 * Assuming that you are in good faith, anon, are you sure you are not confusing him with Jan Masaryk? -- Alan Peakall 20:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Benes died of natural causes. Jan Masaryk was the one who fell through the window. Whatever Benes did to the Germans was not as evil as what the germans did to the czechs. Let's have some perspective eh!?

Here is my perspective: if Germans+Hungarians were cruel to Chech + Slovak, so we fight back twice as big? Edvard Benes was lying like hell in Treaty of Trianon: Hungary lost half million people, and claiming North Hungary. Later Slovakia was after very busy to assimilate Hungary so now we have only quarter million people. You have to admit the name Bratislava only existed from 1920, it was always Pressburg/Pozsony, with 15% Slovaks, now only 15% Hungarians. For the Hungarians - and I suppose, the Sudeten Germans - the name Benes has no good feeling. Ferenc Kato

Add 1 - Mr. Benes died due to grave disease.

Add 2 - The name Benes doesn't sound good especially for nacionalist like Mr. Kato. I have to strongly recommend Mr. Kato and other people like him to learn about historical facts. Mr. Benes was not the only person responsible for transfer of Sudeten Germans. In fact he attempted to enforce much less extensive form of the transfer. Then czech government and Allies (The transfer was partly resolution of Potsdam conference) bears main part of responsibility for the transfer.

M. Sik

Who is saying he was evil, if people commit treason, and cetainly terrorism and aiding enemy troops is very much treason, then they are lucky to face mere expulsion, in light of the attrocities they committed, the Germans and Hungraians are indebted to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.122.176 (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Succession in presidency
3rd President of Czechoslovakia was Emil Hácha. Jan Syrový has never been Czechoslovak president, nor acting. --Black&White (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not responsible for Beneš decrees?
I'm not too familiar with Czech history, but the assertion that Edvard Beneš was not responsible for the decrees informally named after him is somewhat counterintuitive. This statement needs a citation.-- Qmwne 235  23:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Beneš decrees were all legal norms with power of Act issued by the president in exile during Nazi occupation and afterwards in short interim period between liberation of the country and establishing of the Provisional National Assembly in October 1945, which subsequently confirmed them. Only a part of these "decrees" had anything to do with "Germans, Hungarians, domestic collaborators and traitors" and of course, none of these were Beneš's maverick-like actions. In fact, most of them were product of wide consensus between Czechoslovak government-in-exile and different groups of domestic as well as exiled resistance, both communist and non-communist. Of course, transfer (called "expulsion" by Germans with apparent propagandistic purpose) of German and Hungarian minorities (in case of Hungarians never realized) with exception of German and Hungarian anti-fascists was a policy backed and finally confirmed by allied powers, formally at Potsdam conference, but it was negotiated and accepted by them long time before that, practically since they recognized Czechoslovakia's goverment in exile and declared Munich agreement null and void from the beginning.88.101.177.121 (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Honza73

Beneš - an agent of Soviet Union
Pavel Anatolijevics Szudoplatov, a marshal of NKVD and KGB in his memoires ("Special tasks. The memoirs of an unwanted witness – A Soviet spymaster") writes Beneš was an agent of the soviet secret agency from 1938. Allegedly Beneš planned the killing of the yugoslavian king, to indicate an anti-german turn in politics of Yugoslavia. During the time of German occupation, he was rescued from Prague by his NKVD fellow agents, from where he travelled to Moscow, and came back home in 1945 with promises from Stalin on getting a free hand in treating germans and hungarians inside Czechoslovakia the way he liked. After this, he did what he did, not else than him is responsible for all those acts, because every nation knew - f.e. Stalin negotiated only with him and not with any other czechoslovakian politicians - Beneš was the real leader of Czechoslovakian politics, he was in the situation to make decisions. 176.63.174.166 (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

King Alexander of Yugoslavia visited France, to strengthen the two countries' alliance in the Little Entente (1934). An alliance between France, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania, against Nazi-Germany and Hitler and the fascist Hungary. France and Czechoslovakia had also an alliance with Sovjet Union. A gunman — the Bulgarian Vlado Černozemski shot king Alexander and the French Foreign Minister Bartou to death. Consequently the Little Entente fell apart and Hitler triumphed. Our Hungarian friend (176.63.174.166), knows it.

Btw. the expulsion of Sudeten Germans was determined by the Allied victors - see Potsdam agreement. Our Hungarian friend knows it too.

--[User:Posp68|Posp68]] (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

This statement that Beneš was a Soviet agent is at present not referenced to an especially good source. There is a point that needs to be noted that many too people don't understand very well is the Soviets had two terms for "agents". The first was "agents" who were Soviet agents in the way that most people assume that it meant. People like Kim Philby, Alger Hiss, Richard Sorge and Colonel Rudolf Abel would all fit into this category. The second was "agent of influence", which merely described people who had friendly feelings towards the Soviet Union-the people being classified as Soviet "agents of influence" were not Soviet agents and did not see themselves in that sense. When people translate documents from Russian into English, this subtle distinction between "agents" and "agents of influence" often seems to get lost, and many of the so-called "agents of influence" merely become "agents", which palpably distorts matters and confuses things quite a bit. There have been all sorts of people whom Soviet intelligence classified as "agents of influence" in Russian who have become "agents" in the English translation, making for all sorts of hysterical headlines in newspapers written by ignorant hack journalists about this historical figure or that historical figure was a "Soviet agent". Case in point; after the Cold War, it turned out that Soviet documents described Michael Foot, the famously left-wing leader of the Labour Party in the years 1980-83, as an "agent of influence", which allowed the infamously and aggressively trashy British tabloid press to run banner headlines saying Foot was a Soviet "agent". This is what happens when documents are not handled by historians, and instead by hack journalists who don't know anything about history and are all too eager for a sensationalist headline. There is no doubt that Foot was personally pro-Soviet and many of the policies he advocated like pulling Britain out of NATO were welcomed by Moscow, but Foot was not a "Soviet agent" in the sense claimed by his tabloid journalist critics who decided they wanted to play the role of a historian.

Beneš was a Russophile and he certainly wanted better relations with Moscow. Beneš was the man who pulled the Czechoslovak Legion of the Russian Civil War in 1919 because he didn't want to overthrow Lenin, gave an interview with Pravda praising Stalin in 1935, was willing as early as 1939 to cede Ruthenia to the Soviet Union, and signed treaties of alliance with the Soviet Union in 1935 and again in 1943. Note that in 1945, the Soviets did not impose a puppet government on Czechoslovakia as they did in Poland as Czechoslovak democracy under Beneš was not considered a threat to the Soviet Union (through that changed later on in 1948). Given his feelings towards the Soviet Union, it is not surprising that the Soviets would have classified him as an "agent of influence". However, the thesis that Beneš was a "Soviet agent" really seems to rest on mistranslating the term "agent of influence" by only translating the subject, not the verb and object of the phrase. If Beneš was really a Soviet agent, then why did the Czechoslovak communists overthrow him in the "Velvet coup" of February 1948? People like General Ludvík Svoboda, the supposedly apolitical commander-in-chief of the Czechoslovak Army who really was a Soviet agent were allowed to stay on after the "Velvet coup". The people purged after the coup like Jan Masaryk, who made all sorts of pro-Soviet statements after Operation Barbarossa, which did not save him from being murdered were definitely not Soviet agents, through one could no doubt find a reference to Masaryk as an "agent of influence" owning to wartime radio broadcasts from London.

Pavel Sudoplatov's memoirs are not the most reliable of sources. Like many other old Chekists, Sudoplatov has made sensationalist claims to attract attention, improve the sales of his book and make himself seem more important historically. For example, Sudoplatov vastly exaggerated the importance of espionage to the Soviet atomic bomb programme. The Soviet Union had first-class nuclear physicists and would have developed an atomic bomb without any espionage-at most the nuclear espionage sped up the atomic bomb programme by a few years. Sudoplatov's claim that it his espionage activities that gave the Soviet Union the atomic bomb turns him from a previously obscure Chekist into a major historical figure, which must have been very flattening to his ego. Anyhow, some of the claims in the book Special Tasks are not supported by the interviews conducted by the book writers Jerrold and Leona Schecter with Sudoplatov. The Schecters are known for their sensationalist style of writing, and they took some of Sudoplatov's statements wildly out of context. This is not to say that everything in Special Tasks is lie or incorrect, but certainly parts of the book are manifestly wrong, and to base the claim that Beneš was a "Soviet agent" solely on the English version of Sudoplatov's book is  problematic. I rather suspect this the normal confusion caused by mistranslating the term "agent of influence" is the source of these persistent claims that Beneš was a "Soviet agent".--A.S. Brown (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

 * After Hitler's takeover, Beneš became more friendly towards the Soviet, but he was not a Russophile.
 * Not until 1934 did Czechoslovakia recognize the Soviet. (Britain recognized Soviet in 1924.)
 * The Czechoslovak Legion was heavily involved in the Russian Civil War fighting Bolsheviks, at times controlling the entire Trans-Siberian railway and several major cities in Siberia.
 * France was Czechoslovakia's main ally (1924) and as the consequence of Soviet alliance with France the Czechoslovak-Soviet Treaty of Alliance was signed on May, 1935.
 * At the insistence of the Czechoslovak government and Edvard Beneš (Minister of Foreign Affairs), a protocol on the signing of the treaty stipulated that the treaty with Soviet Union would go into force only if France gave assistance to the victim of aggression.
 * The Soviets did not impose a puppet government on Czechoslovakia in 1945 because of the treaty in 1943. (Non-interference in domestic affairs)
 * A54 (Paul Thümmel) a highly decorated Nazi Party veteran and a high ranking member of the Abwehr who spied for Czechoslovakia before and during the second world war, supplied Czechoslovakia with reliable information about Germany's intentions and order of battle. The same was true of another super-spy B53.
 * Both of them continued to give information to the Czecholslovak government-in-exile established in the UK. Beneš passed A54's and B53's intelligence to both MI6 and the USSR. (informing allies)

--Posp68 (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Beneš decrees not ethnic cleansing ?
I wrote: "They were a central part of the large-scale ethnic cleansing in Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe after 1945." and this has been deleted. But this is exactly what Wikipedia says in the entry on ethnic cleansing !. What should be a better term for the complete deportation of the Sudenten Germans and of the Hungarians ??

--Ft93110 (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Allied Transfers of German Populations from Czechoslovakia. --Posp68 (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Potsdam Agreement 1945

Needed Citation
"In March 1939, Hácha's government was bullied into authorising the German occupation of the remaining Czech territory."

Bullied by who? In whose opinion was there any bullying? Is this statement politically correct? This needs clarification and citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saparonia (talk • contribs) 21:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Adverb even (minor edit)
I agree that even inclines toward POV in this edit. The adverb emphasizes counter-expectation (see here) and also adds emotional explicitness and strength (see here and especially here) to the already factual statement "Czechoslovakia was not consulted ...". Doremo (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Beneš decrees

 * (Citizenship)

Decree No. 33/1945 of August 2, 1945. On the basis of this decree, the Czechoslovak State released from its citizenship those persons who, "in compliance with the regulations of the foreign occupation forces had acquired German or Hungarian citizenship".
 * No Czechoslovak (Czech) legal norm (decree, law, etc.) ever existed that would have dealt with the displacement of the German population.
 * cf. Potsdam Agreement.

Posp68 (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Potsdam Agreement 1945
 * President Decrees

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Edvard Beneš-1945.jpg

Neutrality
I have concerns about some of the recent edits made today, which seemed to be editorialising about Benes-going out of the way to say how "wrong" in his policies towards the Soviet Union. That is a common line of criticism of Beneš, but it is phased in a manner that seems to violate the neutrality rules. Anyhow of the statements here are wrong-Beneš was genuinely angry about the Munich Agreement, so to say that his criticism of Britain and France for the Munich Agreement was only an attempt to "appease" Stalin is downright malicious. Which brings us to the crux of the matter, which is the paragraph which shows that Beneš was wrong in trying to preserve his country's independence from Nazi Germany, and he just should had rolled over and accepted that having his country occupied by Germany was all for the best. George Kennan was a noted American diplomat, so I suppose there is nothing wrong about citing his views here, but Kennan should be given as the final word on the subject. There are a great many opinions about the wisdom and justice of the Munich Agreement, and Kennan is only one opinion.

Furthermore, Kennan was a Russophobe-anyone familiar with his work will note the recurring references to Russians as a stupid and brutal "Asiatic" people full of envy and hate at the superior civilization of the West. In this regard, note the admiring introduction Kennan wrote in 1989 to that classic work of Russian-bashing, The Empire of the Czars by the Marquis de Custine, which he significantly praised as a seminal work about "eternal Russia". In other words, what is he is saying here that through on the surface things have changed, but deep down nothing has really changed in Russia between 1839 and 1989, and what Custine wrote all the back in 1839 is just as relevant today. To say there nothing had really changed in Russia between 1839-1989 and there were really no importance differences between the policies of the Emperor Nicholas I and Mikhail Gorbachev requires considerable myopia and ignorance, if not downright stupidity. This whole idea about an "eternal Russia" that never changes is just as stupid as the equally popular and equally facile idea of an "eternal America" or "eternal England" that never changes. To be fair, Kennan was right about some lines of continuity between Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union, but his claim that both Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union were manifestations of essentially the same thing requires considerable distortion of the facts. To take one example, all of the Russian emperors and empresses from Peter the Great on saw themselves as Europeans, and as a part of the West, an aspect of Russian history that Kennan had no interest in because it did not fit with his prejudices. My point here is that just because Kennan says somethings does not automatically make it right.

Kennan was a Germanophile and a recurring theme of his writings was that a strong Germany was required to keep Russia out of central Europe, which led him in the 1930s to see Nazi Germany as the lesser evil as at least Hitler was a "bulwark against Bolshevism". Kennan's commentary about the justice of the Munich Agreement as being all for the best needs to be seen in this light. Which of course brings us to the central matter: why at present does this article scream out in fury about how "wrong" Beneš was in letting his country fall under Soviet domination while saying also saying how "wrong" he was in opposing German domination of his country. So domination of the Czechs by Germany is good as it "was in the best interests of the country", but domination by the Soviet Union is bad? That strikes me as a grotesque violation of the NPOV rules. The article says that if it came to war in 1938, then Czechoslovakia would had be devastated so Beneš was not acting in the "best interests" of his country to seeking to preserve its independence. The part about a devastating war is true, but sometimes the price of freedom has to be paid in blood. In 1948, Beneš gave in to the Communists because he feared otherwise it would led to a civil war. Here, the article condemns Beneš, saying how "wrong" he was in trusting the Communists. This seems like a double standard. Note the way in which article goes out of its way to say that Beneš did not live enough to see the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, which proves how "wrong" he was. It might seem more relevant to note that he did see the occupation of his country by Germany in 1939. I think this needs to be noted that for him, Germany was the main danger, which guided his policies towards the Soviet Union in World War II and after. Talking about what happened in 1968 in the context of what was happening in 1943 is rather ahistorical. In 1943, for Beneš, what had happened in 1938 and 1939 were the things that were influencing his decisions, not something happened in 1968. This is a really obvious point that I should not be having to make.

A great deal of nonsense has been written about Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany being "mirror images" of each other. Both regimes were monstrous and inhumane, but not in the same way. For example, Stalin's hand can be seen in almost everything as there all sorts of documents bearing his signature or more commonly his initial. The same is not the case with Hitler who had an aversion to paperwork and hardly signed anything. Hitler envisioned exterminating entire peoples, most notably the Jews. Stalin carried out policies that led to deaths of tens of millions of people, but he never sought to exterminate nations. A case in point; in 1944, the Chechens were deported to Kazakhstan as a "traitor nation" and by 1946, 75% of the Chechens who were alive in 1944 were dead. This was monstrous and cruel, a horrific disaster for the Chechen people, but there is no evidence that Stalin wanted to kill every single Chechen men, women and child in the same way that Hitler wanted to kill every single Jewish men, women and child. It was within his power to wipe out the Chechens and he did not do that. The surviving Chechens were still alive when Stalin died in 1953 and were allowed to go home in 1957. My point here is that Soviet Communism was evil, but it was not a "mirror image" of Nazi Germany; these regimes were evil in different ways, not the same way. Getting back to Beneš, to say as some people say that the policies of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union towards Czechoslovakia were a "mirror image" is profoundly stupid. Had Germany won the Second World War, the majority of the Czechs living in the Reich Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia were going to be deported to a reservation in Siberia and millions of settlers from Germany were going to be brought in to replace them. Only a minority of Czechs who were willing to be "Germanized" would be allowed to stay and in case of these people, they were going have to renounce the Czech language and culture in favor of the German language and culture.

There were numerous injustices and wrongs during the Communist period in Czechoslovakia, but the Soviets never tried to deport almost entire Czech nation to Siberia while forcing the remainder to speak Russian instead of Czech. The Communist era lasted from 1948 to 1989, and the Soviets never deported the Czech people to Siberia to make way for way for millions of Russian settlers, and there is no evidence that they ever thought about doing that. Yes, during the Communist era, there was a state-sanctioned antisemitism under the guise of "anti-Zionism", most notably with the Slánský trial of 1952, but the Czechoslovak Communists never tried to exterminate the remaining Czechoslovak Jews in the same way that the Nazis did. So to say that there is no difference between German domination and Soviet domination of Czechoslovakia is wrong. What happened during the Communist era in Czechoslovak history was certainly terrible, but to make out as this article does at present that the Soviet domination of Czechoslovakia was far worse than domination by Nazi Germany shows a massive and appalling ignorance.

This comment by Kennan that is approving quoted here shows: "The benefit of the Munich agreement was that it has preserved for the exacting task of the future a magnificent younger generation disciplined, industrious and physically fit that would have undoubtedly been sacrificed if the solution had been the romantic one of hopeless resistance rather than the humiliating but the true heroic one of realism" shows that Kennan did not know much about history. If Germany had won the Second World War, most of this "magnificent younger generation" of Czechs would had been deported from their homeland to the "reservation" in Siberia that Hitler was planing to send them to. This difference between German policies towards Czechoslovakia and Soviet policies towards Czechoslovakia does much to explain Beneš's foreign policy. The British historian A.J.P. Taylor, who was a close friend of Beneš, claimed that in 1947 he had a talk with Beneš, during which the latter said that German domination meant the Czechs were going to be expelled from homeland while if his country came under Soviet domination, the Czechs would continue to live in their homeland and their language and culture would continue. This goes a long way towards explaining why Beneš considered Soviet domination to be the lesser evil compared to German domination. Beneš ended his talk with Taylor by saying he did not want Czechoslovakia to fall under Soviet domination, but if he to choose between Germany and the Soviet Union, he would go with the latter. One may object that we only have Taylor's word for this, but the views ascribed by him to Beneš are entirely consistent with what is known of his views. In the late 1940s, quite a few people in both western and eastern Europe took it for granted that the Germans would go back to their bad old ways if they had half a chance, so Beneš was by no means unique in thinking that the Germans were not going to change. Look at William Shirer's book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, published in 1960, which hints a number of times that West German democracy is not going to last, and there is a real possibility of the Germans going back to the bad old ways. As late as 1990, both Margaret Thatcher and Francois Mitterrand believed that German reunification would mean a Fourth Reich, so Beneš's fears of Germany after 1945 reflected what many people felt.

Moreover, this article goes out of its way to demonize Beneš as "wrong" and as the man who let his country came under Soviet Union because saw "the Soviet Union as a friend instead of an enemy". It is true that Beneš believed and wanted the Big Three alliance of the Soviet Union, the United States and the United Kingdom to continue after the war, and he was wrong about that, but he was far from alone in this. What Beneš saw Czechoslovakia's role was as the "bridge" that would help keep the "Big Three" alliance. So in other words, he was pro-Soviet, but this needs to be understood in the sense that he believed that the "Big Three" alliance would continue after World War II, and Czechoslovakia would play a mediating role in keeping the "Big Three" alliance going. Beneš did not think it would be necessary to choose between East and West, as he wanted Czechoslovakia to an ally of the all "Big Three" powers at once, as he failed to foresee the Cold War. So the article attacks him for not seeing the Soviet Union as an "enemy" as should have done is attacking him for being something that he was not. The real reason why the Czechoslovak Communists had such a dominant position in the Czechoslovak Third Republic is because in the elections of May 1946 the Communists won 38% of the vote, making them the largest party. The 1946 elections were free and fair elections, and if the Communists won the largest share of the vote in 1946, it is because a great many ordinary Czechs and Slovaks supported them. Whatever was a wise thing to do is another matter, but that is a fact, and that cannot be blamed on Beneš. Had another party won the majority of the vote, then the leader of that party would have named premier by Beneš in 1946. Gottwald was the leader of the largest party, and that is why he was named premier. And Gottwald abused that position to "pack" the civil service with Communist supporters.

What caused the "Velvet Coup" was that Beneš, promoted by the non-Communist ministers in the National Front, tried to stop the Communist "packing" of the police. The negative comparison this article draws between Czechoslovakia and Finland does not work. The same issue of the Communist "packing" of the police occurred in Finland in late 1940s, and the only difference is that the Finnish government chose not do anything about it for long time as would provoke the Soviet Union. And even when the Finnish government tried to restrain the Communist-dominated police, they went out of their way to assure the Kremlin that they wanted Finland to stay within the Soviet sphere of influence. And Yugoslavia is also different in the sense that the Communists did take over the state organs, but in that case, the majority of Yugoslav Communists were loyal to Tito, not Stalin. The majority of Czechoslovak Communists including Gottwald were loyal to Stalin. At present, this article is blaming everything that went wrong in Czechoslovakia between 1948-1989 solely on one man (which is neither correct nor fair), taking Beneš to task for not being a Cold Warrior, who should had pursued an anti-Soviet line, instead of hoping that the Big Three alliance would last. What Beneš should and should not have done is matter of much historical debate; for the sake of balance, one can cite historians who hold different views on this subject, which is something I strongly feel should be done, to provide the reader with the diversity of views on Beneš. But as interesting as all this is, I think the article on the whole should stick with a survey of what Beneš did and why, instead of going on at length about what he should have done.

And then there is a matter of this article calling the French "timid". Germany had three times the population as France did and likewise had an economy that was three times as larger. The greater size of the German economy gave the Reich a natural advantage over France, an aspect of history that does not interest at all those wanting to promote this stupid stereotype of the French as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys". The French decision to adopt a defensive strategy made in 1929 after the French agreed to pull out of the Rhineland in 1930 is by no means as stupid and "cowardly" as it often made out to be. Indeed, one might actually argue that given that the greater population size and economy of Germany that the French were actually brave in deciding to ultimately resist this colossus rather than following the path chosen by many other nations, in seeking an accommodation with the Third Reich. It is true that French leaders like Georges Bonnet did want an understanding with Germany, but he was minority, and his views did not win out in the end. In September 1939, Bonnet was against declaring war on Germany, but France did declare war on Germany. The French strategy against Germany was that of la guerre de longue durée, in which the French would fight a defensive struggle that would gradually grind the Germans down. From the French viewpoint, given the disparity of numbers between Germany with 70 million people vs. France with 40 million people, this is not as irrational and stupid as it is often made out to be. Historians who blast the French for their "cowardice" in pursuing a defensive strategy and praise the Germans for their "courage" in pursing an offensive strategy ignore the fact that Germany's greater population meant the Germans could take far higher casualties and keep fighting as they always replace their losses, an option that the French did not have. Offensive operations as a general rule involve greater casualties than defensive operations, and the French could not take losses on the same scale that the Germans could if they wanted to win the war. And of the two nations that the French really, really wanted as their allies, the United States was isolationist while Great Britain until 1939 refused to make the "continental commitment", leading the French to the entirely reasonable conclusion that they might have to take on Germany without the support of les Anglo-Saxons the next time around. Despite what they said in public, the French were well aware that they had won in 1918 because of the help from the "Anglo-Saxon" powers, and it greatly worried them that they might have to fight another war with Germany without the support of les Anglo-Saxons, which is why I think this article calling the French "timid" is way off base. Demography and the lack of Anglo-American support instead of obnoxious and false national stereotypes about the French as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" explain la guerre de longue durée strategy. If the treaty of alliance that the French signed with the United States and Great Britain in 1919 had come into effect instead of being stillborn, the French might have pursued a different strategy for they would have known that they had full support of the USA and the British Empire behind them.

The problem with French strategy was this. In the 1920s, Germany was more or less disarmed and the French were occupying the Rhineland, which served as a "collateral" for German good behavior. At the same time, the French created what they called the cordon sanitaire in eastern Europe, signing alliances with Poland in 1921, Czechoslovakia in 1924, Romania in 1926 and Yugoslavia in 1927. Where the problems started was when the French agreed in 1929 to pull out of the Rhineland in 1930. Without the Rhineland as "collateral", the French were pretty certain that Germany was going to rearm, bring in conscription and remilitarise the Rhineland, which is exactly what did happen. The decision to build the Maginot Line in 1929, which costed 3 billion francs, was a tacit French admission that Germany was going to violate Part V of the Treaty of Versailles in the near-future. The French pulled out of the Rhineland in June 1930 and by February 1932 Germany was demanding very loudly at the World Disarmament Conference the right to rearm. The problem with la guerre de longue durée strategy was the French still had the commitment to go to war if Germany attacked any of their allies in eastern Europe while they were planning to stick to a defensive strategy. The French never did work out to how to square this circle caused by their alliances in eastern Europe signed in the 1920s vs. building the Maginot Line in the 1930s. Beneš could see what the implications of the French building the Maginot Line were, and even more so after Germany remiltarised the Rhineland in March 1936. After Germany started building the West Wall in June 1936, Beneš knew the French would probably not launch an offensive into the Rhineland, which was the basic assumption made in 1924 when he signed the alliance with France. He stuck with the alliance with France because of the lack of a better alternative. That is why Beneš signed the alliance with the Soviet Union in 1935, to provide for an alternative great power to assist Czechoslovakia since the French were evidently going to stay behind the Maginot Line in the event of war. Beneš's pro-Soviet statements in the period 1935-38 have to been understood in this light. Unlike his allies, Milan Stojadinović of Yugoslavia and to a lesser extent King Carol II of Romania, Beneš was not willing to see his country enter the German sphere of influence. A great deal has been written on all this, but to call the French cowardly as this article does is really wrong. Does anyone else have any thoughts about this?--A.S. Brown (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the talk above. It seems to me that this section only offers two alternatives - war, and surrender. But to the participants at the time, there was a third, continued peace guaranteed by a strong coalition. We cannot say, for example, that the German army would not have invaded the Saar if opposed by France and Britain, but that they would have invaded Czechoslovakia in the presence of a guarantee backed by the USSR. It is possible that this would have at least delayed the beginning of the war and pushed Hitler's ambitions into other channels first. While the eventual outcome may have been similar, the possibility of peace needs to be mentioned. (user: G D Henderson) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.227.189.67 (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

There was no shortage of alliances. Czechoslovakia was allied with France, Soviet Union, Romania and Yugoslavia. France was allied with Britain, Soviet Union, Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - little Nato at that time. But Poland had a pact with Nazi-Germany, Romania and to a lesser extent Yugoslavia became Nazi-friendly and Chamberlain and Daladier was unwilling to stop Hitler. By September 1939, the Soviets were to all intents and purposes a co-belligerent with Nazi Germany, due to Stalin's fears of a second Munich Agreement with the Soviet Union replacing Czechoslovakia. In 1939 Time Magazine named Hitler: "1938 Man of the Year". 171.23.6.98 (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Freemasonry
People have been adding and removing and re-adding and re-removing the category "Czech Freemasons" to the article going back some time now, so I decided to Google if Beneš was a Freemason. According to this source, he was indeed a Mason, joining in 1927. However, I don't think that this fact is really notable or warrants mention in the article. Besides, I'm unsure where this could even be put. Do you guys have any opinions on the matter? - 212.130.152.24 (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Edvard Beneš with wife.jpg (discussion)
 * Edvard Beneš-B.jpg (discussion)
 * Edvard Beneš-C.jpg (discussion)

title: Talk:Edvard Beneš


text:
Category:Soviet politicians

 * Category:History > History of Russia > Soviet Union > Soviet people > Soviet people by occupation > Soviet politicians
 * Category:Politics > Politics of Russia > Politics of the Soviet Union > Soviet politicians
 * Category:Politics > Politicians > Russian politicians > Soviet politicians

The category of politicians of the Soviet Union (1917–1991).

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

title: Category:Soviet politicians


text:
User:Jschuur

My name is Joost Schuur and I enjoy reading about a wide spectrum of topics. Wikipedia has become part of my daily routine and I've recently begun smaller edits and corrections.

Occasionally, I'm known to maintain a personal site of sorts, and I tweet more frequently.

title: User:Jschuur


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Hatch

Laura Hatch
Laura Hatch was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was a consensus to delete the article.

Non-notable survivor of a car crash. The article reads as if it was cut from newspaper accounts. RickK 19:48, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * amazing stuff, glad she survived. Not encylopedic though, delete. Ianb 20:46, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, not all news is encyclopedic. Glad she survived, sucks that she got hurt and wow that she lived for 8 days.  But non-notable. -Vina 21:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. --Improv 03:36, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-encyclopedic news item. jni 06:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, though with good wishes to Ms. Hatch of course. — Bill 13:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * No vote. She's famous right now in the U.S.—at least the story is, maybe not the name—but then again these are just her 15 minutes, and the article is of a very poor quality, not to mention that the general tendency seems to be against including things that have only brief fame as news items. Everyking 01:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Congrats to Ms. Hatch on surviving. Delete as non-notable. Gamaliel 06:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, This is remarkable in that she survived 8 days without water - most people are gonners by day 4! Plaintext 22:06, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Note that this user appears to have been created 2 days ago, and has no edits outside of VfD. --Improv 05:36, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


text:
Chakan: The Forever Man

Chakan: The Forever Man is a Sega Mega Drive, Sega Genesis and Game Gear video game published by Sega of America in 1992. The game featured an uncommonly dark premise for the time of its release, with it released in a time in which the home console market was flooded with licensed platformers based on family-friendly media such as the Mario and Sonic series.

It is based upon a comic book of the same name, written by Robert A. Kraus, and was produced by Ed Annunziata, who met Chakan's creator at a convention and was impressed. In addition to composing, Chakan is also composer Mark Miller's only work as a gameplay and level designer.

Gameplay
The player plays as Chakan, and starts the game in a central hub stage, from which they can select one of four elemental-based "planes" of earth, air, fire and water, each with three levels for a total of 12 levels. The player advances through each platforming level until completion or death, whereupon Chakan is returned to the hub to choose a new level on either the same or a different plane. The player has infinite lives, but will be returned to the hub if he is "killed". At the bottom of the screen, an hourglass indicates how much time the player has to complete all the levels in the plane. If time runs out, the player is returned to the hub and must restart the plane from its first level. Chakan starts out with his characteristic twin swords, but acquires a new weapon in the first stage of each element, such as the Grappling Hook which allows him to latch on to hooks and climb, and the Hammer which can break through certain walls. Chakan can also collect potions in each of the four elements, which he can combine and use to grant himself temporary powers such as enhancing his swords with elemental powers or increasing his jump height.

Upon defeating the three levels and the enemy bosses for each plane, Chakan clears the "terrestrial plane" and embarks upon a quest to defeat four "elemental planes of evil," each consisting of another three levels and a boss each for fire, earth, wind and water. These levels are considerably harder than the initial four sets of planes.

Plot
The game follows the tale of Chakan, a warrior who is so confident in his swordsmanship that he declares even Death cannot best him in battle. Death appears and challenges Chakan: if Chakan can defeat him, he will be granted eternal life. However, if Death wins, he will become Death's eternal servant. The battle rages on for several days until Chakan emerges as the victor. Death grants him his reward, but additionally condemns him to wander all of existence until all supernatural evil is destroyed.

After he has slain the supernatural evils of Earth, Chakan is shown stabbing himself with his sword in anticipation of his promised death. Death replies that every star in the universe contains a planet filled with supernatural evil, so Chakan's curse remains unlifted. The player is given a single attempt to defeat one such cosmic supernatural evil as a final boss in the game; if unsuccessful, Chakan states that "rest will come another day". If Chakan defeats the boss, an hourglass background used in the plot exposition screens appears without any text, and after fifteen minutes a single line of text appears saying "Not the end".

Reception
The game is known for its unusually high difficulty level for its time of release, but it, like many early 90s games, still retains a dedicated cult following.

Sega Pro magazine gave the game an overall score of 76/100, praising the game's graphics as "well animated sprites [and] the backgrounds are detailed and atmospheric" and the game music as "deep, booming and atmospheric", concluding, "This could've been a classic game based on a novel scenario, but it's let down by the complete lack of action."

Mega Action gave the game an overall score of 88%, describing the game as an "excellent mix of cutesy and platform ingredients".

Related games
A Game Gear game by the same name was published by Sega. It features very similar gameplay, but different level layouts and other changes to accommodate the weaker hardware. It does have a title screen synthesized voice: "Chakan, the Forever Man" which the Genesis version did not.

A sequel was planned and developed somewhat by Ed Annunziata's studio AndNow, but no new information about the project has been released since 2001. It was planned to be released for as many current platforms as possible, according to Ed Annunziata himself in an interview during May 2001.

Some Legacy of Kain fans have claimed that much of the work on the Chakan sequel was later absorbed into the 2002 game Blood Omen 2, although this is unconfirmed and the only concrete link between the games is the presence of director Steve Ross. Ross and colleague Jon Miller both publicly attributed the similarities to a common look of Ross' work than any intentional reuse.

title: Chakan: The Forever Man


text:
Le Grand-Pressigny

Le Grand-Pressigny is a commune in the Indre-et-Loire department in central France.

There is a Chalcolithic flint mine located in the commune. It produced an unusual caramel-coloured stone which appears to have been highly prized across Europe with examples found in the Pyrenees, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Blocks of flint and unfinished blanks were traded, as well as finished tools.

title: Le Grand-Pressigny


text: Talk:Nolan Bushnell

title: Talk:Nolan Bushnell


text:
Talk:Three Rivers Stadium

Capacity
I'm looking for a good written source for the capacity of Three Rivers Stadium, but I know it is way higher than 38,000. Most sources I have found put football capacity at 59,000 - 61,000. How could a stadium that only seats 38,000 seat 65,000 for a Bruce Springsteen concert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jungledrew64 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The star quarterback gently caressed the nervous rookie football player. "Hey guy. You'll do fine." "I know, star quarterback. I'm just nervous." "I know what helped me my rookie year. A couple of the older guys introduced me to the subtle joys-and pleasures- of a man's touch." "What! I like woman, man!" "Thats groovy" the star quarterback replied "We all do. Sometimes a man knows what a man likes." "Well you did look strong in that football game. I sometimes have feelings that I can't explain. Like when we're in the shower together." "Come over here rookie. I'll make you feel better."

Is there documentation that such a sexy conversation *didn't* happen at 3 rivers? I mean really.

01:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)grandadd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandadd (talk • contribs)

Maulers
I grew up in Pittsburgh, but I was never much of a sports fan. I can probably count the number of times I visited Three Rivers on two hands. Still, I couldn't stand the sub-stub version. I'm hoping somebody will run with what I've just thrown together. One thing I left out because I'm unsure: did the Pittsburgh Maulers play at Three Rivers? Ventura 19:50, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)
 * Yes, for one season. Citation added.  Black  ngold29   16:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Another photo
Here's a free photo of this stadium from an angle not depicted in the article yet:. If anyone feels like importing it. --W.marsh 15:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Today
What is in the area where the stadium stood today ? /Cygnus78 14:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, PNC Park was built right across the street... I haven't been in PNC Park yet, so I couldn't say. I think they have a memorial up for it, as most of us were devastated to see it go, which oddly enough was on my birthday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.250.122 (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Clean up
I think some clean up is needed! There are no in-line citations or clear references, and there are definitely some POV problems (see WP:NPOV, and consider lines like "The stadium did have its moments of glory and drama" and, later, hosted "arguably the greatest NFL team of all time"). Anyone have any good sources? --Midnightdreary 22:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.  Black  ngold29   16:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The House That Clemente Built??????
With deference to Mr. Gershman's book, which I have not read, I would like to know what oriface he pulled that out of (as his book is cited as the source). I don't recall it ever being called that, even in small circles. If it was ever called that by anyone, it certainly was not by any stretch of the imagination mainstream or common, nor was it in Pittsburgh's vernacular. I love Roberto Clemente as much as any Pirate fan (even attended the last home game of 1972 as a little baby when he got his 3000th hit). I just believe Wikipedia should not list obscure references as if they are/were mainstream. Like I already said, this is the 1st time I ever heard that in my life & I used to go there a lot for Steelers and Pirates games (had season tickets for both teams for several years). If anyone ever called it that, I suspect it was near the stadium's demise. Of another note, the stadium was in the planning stage as early as the 1950's and Clemente died after the 1972 season (Not even having played there for 2 full seasons as they moved there mid-way through the 1970 season). The House Clemente Built indeed! As much as I do not like the Yankees.....try to be original (e.g. The House That RUTH Built). Willie Stargell was a GOD there far longer than the brief time Clemente played there (and he was a superstar by 1970 when the stadium opened), so I guess it was "The House That Pops Built" too! LOL In short it was never known as either (unless someone wants to pull something out of that oriface that I mentioned earlier.  Or, if I can find a person or two that called it "The House That Pops Built," does that meet the requirements for inclusion (as it wouldn't be any less obscure than "The House That Clemente Built," aside from the fact that I lack any knowledge of it having been printed in any book......though I'm sure I can find a book or two that says that Lyndon Johnson had Kennedy killed....guess that should be included as fact in both of those articles too since it's printed in a book somewhere....LOL...of course it shouldn't).   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.178 (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Though I'm a life long Pittsburgh sports fan, I wasn't alive during Clemente's life; the first time that I saw the nickname was in the book as well. The book does state that the nickname was "little-used". It seems that the "House that... built" is used quite often and I'm sure the Pens's new Arena will be called the House that Crosby built, etc. Like you said it is cited to the book and therefore verifiable, that does not however mean that the book is infallible, so it's up to the individual to evaluate the source.  black ngold29  20:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

 * That and "Blast Furnace" seem a little iffy to me. There are sources available for both, I'm sure, but "The Blast Furnace" was mostly just a contrived attempt in the 1990s to affix a nickname to the place in a manner similar to the Steelers' divisional opponents at the time, Houston ("House of Pain") and Cincinnati ("The Jungle"), as well as Cleveland's "Dawg Pound" area. It never really caught on. The only nickname I can remember being associated with the place is simply "Three Rivers", if that counts as a nickname. It's possible that the Clemente nickname was before my time. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Official Website
Aside from asking the obvious question as to why the "official website" is still up, does the fact that someone apparently forgot to take it down (and the copyright date is 1998.....well before it was last updated even) make an abandoned website worthy of being listed (it clearly was not updated since 2000, right before the auction that took place to sell many items from the stadium). I'd like to think that it is not. It looks like it was a pretty lame site (even bv 2000 standards) to begin with, with very limited information. I wonder who is paying to keep that site up on a server somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.178 (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * From an historical perspective, which is the actually the entire perspective of the article, I think it is worth leaving up. And if the link ever breaks, it can be updated with the Internet Archive link. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy of Article
I'm not a Wikipedia expert, just a guy from Pittsburgh who was checking out this page for no reason really. I never edited articles before, but here's a couple quotes from the present version of the Three Rivers Stadium article that I would question:

"The Pittsburgh Pirates played their home games at Forbes Field, which opened in 1909,[5] and was the oldest venue in the National League (Chicago's Wrigley Field was next-oldest, having been built in 1914)."
 * Shibe Park in Philly was as old as Forbes Field, and Crosley Park in Cincinnatti was built in 1912, and both of them were still being used in 1970, the Pirates' final season at Forbes.

"The bullpens were moved to multiple locations throughout the stadium's history; however, their first position was also their final one—beyond the right-field fence."
 * I went to my first Pirate game in the early '70s, and continue to attend games today. I never remember the bullpens being moved at Three Rivers. One was down the left field line, and the other was down the right field line, near the foul poles.

"The sight lines were more favorable to football; almost 70 percent of the seats in the baseball configuration were in foul territory."
 * I don't understand how these two sentences are related. It is agood thing to have most of the seats in foul territory, the problem with Three Rivers was they were so far away, and not always pointed towards the best direction.

Just some meaningless stuff, I suppose. Maybe somebody could clean the article up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.178 (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

One other note is that in the article it states that the new site was in a part of downtown. The site was across the Allegheny river in the Northside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.143.151 (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of succession box for Pitt Panthers
Succession boxes exists for all tenants. One editor insists that only the Pitt Panther succession box should be removed because it falls under the authority of the College Football Wikiproject. No authority exists for any one Wikiproject nor does such a policy exist across Wikipedia. Removing the box leaves the Events and Tenants listing incomplete. Please leave your commentary about whether it is appropriate to remove the Pitt Panthers or other succession boxes for this article. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Three Rivers Stadium. 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/20090312100201/http://www.steelers.com:80/article/40508/ to http://www.steelers.com/article/40508/

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 23:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy of cost figure
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette from 1997 lists the cost of Three Rivers Stadium as $35 million. Where does the $55 million figure come from? Thanks, Fractalchez (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2017 (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) 00:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Three Rivers Stadium 1999.jpg

70% of seats in fair territory?
The article as it exists today (19 September 2023) states that for baseball, 70% of the seats were in FAIR territory. That doesn't make sense to me, in any ballpark. Shouldn't it be 70% of the seats were in FOUL territory? I also notice that an earlier comment above (from 18 July 2010) says "foul" territory. Also, it's not clear to me why this is bad. I assume that the percentage of seats in foul territory should be higher? I assume yes, as that would probably be the case if a stadium was not fully enclosed. 57.140.28.26 (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Three Rivers Stadium


text:
Category talk:Argentina

ARGENTINE OR ARGENTINIAN ?
Of course "Argentinian" is in the dictionary, so it's difficult to say that it's wrong. However, The U.S. Department of State lists "Argentine" as the preferred form. I have included a link below th their site/page.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/26516.htm

More info on Argentina vs. Argentine
'More info on Argentina vs. Argentine 'http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=8674

Wasn't it "Argrentine" for things and "argentinian" for people? —Argentino (talk/cont.) 03:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeap, if you go furhter in the forum you'll see this: "In the UK "Argentine" is the word almost always used by official bodies like the government and in BBC reports". Mariano (t/c) 07:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, when searching for Argentinian, Google says "Did you mean: Argentine?". Mariano (t/c) 09:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Argentina


text: User talk:68.33.244.164

title: User talk:68.33.244.164


text:
Rover 400 / 45

The Rover 400 Series, and later the Rover 45, are a series of small family cars that were produced by the British manufacturer Rover from 1990 to 2005. The cars were co-developed as part of Rover's collaboration with Honda. The first-generation 400 was based on the Honda Concerto, and the Mark II 400 (later the Rover 45) was based on the Honda Domani/Civic.

Honda petrol engines were used in some Rover models, while the market competitive Rover L-series diesel engine was used from the mid-1990s in Hondas, before they designed their own diesel engine.

Rover 400 (R8; 1990–1998)
The original 400 Series, launched in 1990 as a four-door saloon, was a saloon version of the second-generation Rover 200 Series hatchback, both sharing the codename R8 during development. The 200 Series had been launched six months earlier. Like the 200, the model was designed in collaboration with Honda (who produced the corresponding designed for Europe Concerto model) and both models would share production lines at Rover's Longbridge facility. It used the same core structure and mechanicals as the Honda, but the rear-end redesign of the glasshouse and body were unique to Rover. Interior trim and electrical architecture were all shared with the R8 Rover 200. An estate — or station wagon — version was subsequently developed by Rover Special Products and introduced in the summer of 1994. Badged as the Rover 400 Tourer, this remained in production alongside the second-generation 400 until 1998, as no estate version of the latter car was built. Many of the 400 Tourers were exported to Japan.

The R8 Rover 200 and 400 were the first applications of Rover's K-series family of engines (appearing in 1.4 L (1,396 cc) twin-cam 16-valve form).

The 1.6 L (1,590 cc) version used either a Honda D16A6 and D16Z2 SOHC or D16A8 DOHC powerplant, while the 2.0 L M-series unit from the 800 Series followed soon afterwards (1991) in the sportier versions.

The Rover-engined models drove the front wheels via jointly developed Peugeot/Rover R65 gearboxes (1.4 litre) and Rover PG1 for the 1.6- and 2.0-litre versions. The Rover 420 GSI turbo and GSI Sport turbo, produced in limited numbers, were equipped with the turbocharged 197 bhp (147 kW) Rover T-series engine. Also available were two PSA (non-electronically controlled Lucas CAV injection pumps) Indirect injection diesel engines, with the choice of naturally aspirated 1.9-litre XUD9 or turbocharged 1.8 XUD7T engines. The Tourer eschewed the 1.4, naturally aspirated diesel, and the turbocharged petrol-engined options.

These engines were installed instead of the non-electronically controlled Bosch HPVE Direct Injection Rover MDi / Perkins Prima used in the Austin Maestro and Montego, as that engine, with its noisy combustion but lower fuel consumption, was deemed too unrefined for the new models.

A mid-life facelift in September 1993 (also applied to the Rover 200) saw the reintroduction of the Rover grille, which first reappeared on the R17 facelift of the Rover 800. This change was achieved without significant change to the remaining structure, but provided a more distinctive Rover "family look" and established a certain distance from the Honda Concerto.

Rover 400 (HH-R; 1995–1999)
The second-generation 400 Series, codenamed Theta or HH-R, was launched in 1995 as a hatchback and later as a saloon. It was based on the Honda Domani, which had been released in Japan in 1992, and was sold as part of the European Honda Civic range in five-door hatchback form. It was no longer as closely related to the 200 Series, which was revised independently by Rover but still shared many components with the 400. It would prove to be the final collaborative model between Rover and Honda, ending a partnership that had begun with the Triumph Acclaim in 1981.

Power came from 1.4- and 1.6-litre K-series, 1.6-litre Honda D-series SOHC (automatic gearbox only), and 2.0-litre Rover T-series petrol engines, as well as a 2.0-litre L-series turbodiesel borrowed from the larger 600 Series.

The Rover 400 might have been marketed as a small family car, as it compared closely in size and engine range with contemporary models such as the Ford Escort and Vauxhall Astra. Instead, Rover priced the car to compete with vehicles like the Ford Mondeo and Vauxhall Vectra. This was because Rover's only offering in the C/D segment at the time was the ageing Montego, and this gap in the company's line-up needed to be filled. A saloon version was later introduced for the 400.

The related Honda Civic was not sold as a saloon in the UK, although a four-door version was available in other markets. This helped to expand the appeal of the Rover model into the executive car segment, and to better differentiate the two cars.

The second-generation 400 was initially popular, being one of Britain's best-selling cars between 1995 and 1997. However, within three years it was being outsold by traditionally poorer-selling cars, such as the Volkswagen Passat and Renault Laguna.

Rover 45 (1999–2005)

The Rover 400 was given a facelift in 1999, becoming the Rover 45. It was repositioned and priced to compete with the Ford Focus and Vauxhall Astra, rather than larger cars like the Ford Mondeo and Vauxhall Vectra. From 2001, a re-engineered hot hatch version of the Rover 45 was launched and sold as the MG ZS.

The 1.4- and 1.6-litre K series petrol and 2.0-litre L series diesel engines were carried over from the 400 Series, along with the introduction of a 1.8 K series and a 2.0-litre V6 from the larger Rover 75 (replacing the 2.0 T series four-cylinder petrol unit) – although this power unit was only available on saloon versions. The 45 came equipped with the better seating of the 75 and whilst the 400 models handled very well, the suspension was tuned to give much better controlled ride characteristics with quicker steering. The 45 was available with Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) supplied by the German manufacturer ZF Sachs AG which had previously been used in the MGF. This particular design of CVT consists of an oil cooled laminated steel belt (with external oil cooler) running on variable pulleys. The revised model boasted improved equipment levels, comfortable interior and reduced prices, compared with the preceding 400-badged models. While the asking price was now in line with other small family cars, the Rover 45 began to lose market share, its chances of success not helped by its aged design. Therefore, the 45 was never able to seriously compete with more modern designs, such as the Ford Focus and Vauxhall Astra in terms of popularity. It was also outsold by the likes of the Peugeot 307, Fiat Stilo, Volkswagen Golf and Renault Mégane.

A 2004 facelift was MG Rover's last effort to boost sales of the Rover 45, with a new front and rear-end styling, a redesigned interior with refreshed dash, centre console and new switchgear, revised suspension settings, improved equipment and lower prices. Some of these changes were necessitated by the end of Domani production in Japan, as Honda refused to continue the supply of certain parts.

Production of the car stopped in April 2005, due to MG Rover's bankruptcy. Honda swiftly terminated the licensing agreement with MG Rover - (thus ending the last vestiges of the alliance between the two companies that had begun in 1980 with the Triumph Acclaim) and removed the remaining tooling and assembly lines for the car from Longbridge prior to its sale to Nanjing Automotive, which meant that no versions of the Rover 45/MG ZS were ever produced by Nanjing Automotive.

Security Ratings
Rover 45 models were tested on three occasions by Thatcham's New Vehicle Security Ratings (NVSR) organisation, and achieved the following ratings:

Powertrain
These were the engines available for the Rover 400 (1995–1999) and Rover 45 (2000–2005):

R30
During the end of the 1990s, replacements for the Rover 25 and 45 models were developed by Rover Group under the codename R30. Intended for launch in 2003 as the Rover 35 and 55, these would have been based on an all new platform. At launch, these would have used K-series engines, but new Valvetronic engines were anticipated to be introduced by 2006. The R30 Project was cancelled, when BMW divested its ownership of Rover Group in March 2000.

It is possible that some of the development work may eventually have benefited the BMW 1 Series.

RD/X60
Following the termination of the R30 Project, from 2001, MG Rover planned to replace the 45 with a model range based on the Rover 75 platform. Collectively referred to as the RD/X60 project (sometimes also written RDX60), the range was intended to comprise the following variants:
 * RD60: Rover hatchback
 * X60: MG hatchback
 * RD61: Rover saloon
 * RD62: Rover "tourer" estate

A preview of how the RD62 "Tourer" might appear was given at the 2002 Geneva Motor Show in the form of the Rover TCV (Tourer Concept Vehicle) concept car.

During the design process, MG Rover's design partner Tom Walkinshaw Racing (TWR) went into administration. MG Rover lost access to most of the computer aided design work for their new vehicle. Efforts were made to reclaim these from the administrators, however, the resulting uncertainty and delays made it impossible to progress with the project.

The abortive SAIC Deal of August 2004 was to have included bringing a replacement for the ageing 45 to market, and the RD/X60 was a likely candidate for this. Ultimately, no such joint venture was entered into. After MG Rover's collapse, SAIC bought some of the company's intellectual property, and released a concept called the Roewe W2. Like the RD/X60, this was partly based on the platform of the Rover 75. The W2 entered production in April 2008, as the Roewe 550.

A hatchback derivative of the 550 was announced in November 2009, as the MG6.

title: Rover 400 / 45


text:
Michael Graham (radio personality)

Michael Graham is an American conservative media personality and commentator based in Boston. He is a political editor for NH Journal, a columnist for the Boston Herald and a CBS News analyst.

Career
Graham was born in Los Angeles, California, and raised in Pelion, South Carolina. A graduate of Oral Roberts University, he worked as a stand-up comedian before beginning his political career as a statewide coordinato r for Pat Buchanan's Primary campaign in 1992. This experience led to his working in various Republican campaigns over the next few years. One of his candidates included Harold Worley, a Republican challenger to Senator Strom Thurmond in 1996.

In 1998, Graham moved to the talk radio circuit. Living up to his self-proclaimed description of being "loud, obnoxious and frequently fired," Graham held positions at seven stations in seven years, including stints in South Carolina, WRVA in Richmond, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., as well as Rightalk.com, an Internet radio outlet previously hosted by Accuracy in Media.

In 2002, Graham released his first printed book of original material, Redneck Nation: How the South Really Won the War through Warner Books.

Graham appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher. In addition, he made a number of appearances during 2005 on The O'Reilly Factor, Hardball with Chris Matthews, and Fox & Friends pertaining to his "America is at war with Islam" controversy. Graham also appeared as a panelist on the local Washington, D.C., television program Eye on Washington, until his dismissal from WMAL in August 2005. In November 2005, Graham joined the lineup of Boston's WTKK; his show, dubbed "The Natural Truth," aired from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. His contract was not renewed and he parted ways with the station in December 2012, just before the station announced that it was abandoning the all-talk format and switching to music only.

Since 2005, Graham airs a weekly guest slot on the Monday edition of George Hook's drive time show, The Right Hook on Ireland's Newstalk. Speaking from an American right-wing perspective, many of Graham's views are often controversial to European audiences. In August 2009, Graham travelled to Dublin to present the show for three days while regular host George Hook was away.

On February 11, 2013, Graham began hosting a talk show on WCRN in Worcester, Massachusetts; the program was also heard on WBNW in Concord, WESO in Southbridge, WPLM in Plymouth, WXBR in Brockton and WCCM in Salem, New Hampshire. On August 5, 2013, his show premiered on the Boston Herald's new online radio station. Graham left the Boston radio market at the end of April 2014 and spent two years in Atlanta at Cumulus-owned radio station WYAY (All News 106.7). He left that station in May 2016 following an on-air segment where he accused fellow talk show host Kim Peterson of using drugs and insinuated that Peterson engaged in bestiality.

Controversy
Graham has been involved in various controversies over his career.

 * In July 2005, Graham used Islam and terrorism as the basis for a multi-day discussion on his WMAL talk radio show. A number of Graham's comments prompted over one hundred complaints to the station and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued action alerts to its subscribers encouraging them to contact WMAL to urge that "Graham be reprimanded for his anti-Islam statements," ultimately prompting WMAL to suspend him.  After 28 days, WMAL elected to terminate Graham stating that he violated station policy and disregarded "management direction" to redress the situation. The situation prompted angry editorials from Graham as well as appearances on nationally televised news programs to discuss the firing.
 * Graham attended a rally to protest the Real ID Act, sponsored by CASA de Maryland in May 2005. He was photographed in an INS shirt, and was blocked from entering the event even as he showed ABC Radio credentials, with officials citing public safety. An altercation ensued, and police were called, with a second altercation occurring following their arrival.  After questioning, Graham was allowed to enter the event with his shirt turned inside out.
 * Graham was fired from his first commercial talk-radio job at WBT in Charlotte, North Carolina, after comments he made on-air in the wake of the Columbine massacre in 1999. Just hours after the shootings he said that the killing of athletes at the school was "one minor benefit of this otherwise horrible story."
 * Graham drew criticism from blogs across the political spectrum for comments about Bill and Hillary Clinton made on CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck Show on June 20, 2007. Referring to a Clinton campaign ad based on the final episode of The Sopranos, Graham said "...didn't you at some point want to see, like, Paulie Walnuts, somebody come in here and just whack them both right there? Wouldn't that have been great?...Come on! Where's "Big Pussy"? Come on! Let's make it happen...I wanted that." Beck did not agree with Graham's comments.

 * During a debate on the Irish radio channel Newstalk on May 28, 2010, the future President of Ireland, Michael D. Higgins, accused Graham of indulging in "the radio of hysterical ignorance" and urged him to "be proud to be a decent American rather than being just a wanker whipping up fear."

Books

 * Banned From Public Radio – Pinpoint Press (1995) ISBN 0964855305
 * Clinton & Me: How Eight Years of a Pants-Free President Changed My Nation, My Family and My Life – Pinpoint Press (2000) ISBN 0964855321
 * The Dumbest Generation – iPublish (2001) e-book
 * Redneck Nation: How the South Really Won the War – Warner Books (2002) ISBN 0446528846
 * That's No Angry Mob, That's My Mom: Team Obama's Assault on Tea-Party, Talk-Radio Americans – Regnery Publishing (2010) ISBN 978-1596986190

title: Michael Graham (radio personality)


text:
Washington Township, Warren County, Ohio

Washington Township is one of the eleven townships of Warren County, Ohio, United States. Located in the east-central part of the county, it is the only one of the eleven that does not contain a municipality. The population was 2,752 at the 2020 census.

Geography
Located in the eastern part of the county, it borders the following townships:
 * Massie Township – north
 * Adams Township, Clinton County – northeast
 * Vernon Township, Clinton County – east
 * Harlan Township – south
 * Salem Township – southwest
 * Turtlecreek Township – west, across the Little Miami River
 * Wayne Township – northwest

It was wholly within the Virginia Military District and was surveyed under the metes and bounds system.

The township is the home of Fort Ancient, a prehistoric earthwork built by the Mound Builders 2,000 years ago.

Name and history
Named for President George Washington, it shares its name with forty-two other Townships statewide.

Washington Township was created by the Warren County Commissioners on June 27, 1818.

Government
The township is governed by a three-member board of trustees, who are elected in November of odd-numbered years to a four-year term beginning on the following January 1. Two are elected in the year after the presidential election and one is elected in the year before it. There is also an elected township fiscal officer, who serves a four-year term beginning on April 1 of the year after the election, which is held in November of the year before the presidential election. Vacancies in the fiscal officership or on the board of trustees are filled by the remaining trustees.

Public services
Most of the township is in the Clinton Massie Local School District, but parts are in the Little Miami Local School District and the Lebanon City School District. Telephone service is provided through the Lebanon, Clarksville, Morrow, and Waynesville exchanges. Mail is delivered through the Clarksville, Lebanon, Oregonia and Waynesville post offices.


text:
Michael Perry (software engineer)

Michael D. Perry, is a United States software engineer. He is the founder of InterCommerce Corporation.

Originally a programmer and software designer, he founded Progressive Computer Services, Inc., which published utility software for the IBM PC market. The company was best known for EZ-Menu, a utility that was declared PC Magazine "Editor's Choice", PC Home Journal "Best Product", and Personal Computing Magazine H "Publisher's Pick". Perry was the principal designer and architect of the prototype online yellow pages system for Bell Atlantic, an environmental database for the United Nations and an online hotel reservation system acquired by hotels.com.

Perry founded the e-commerce company InterCommerce Corporation, of which he is CEO. The company provides advanced e-commerce and Internet technology solutions through networks in the United States, England and the Isle of Man. it handles over US$2M in online transactions a month.

During the 1990s Perry developed many dot-com portal projects including Survey.net, an early online polling system, the Virtual Order Engine, one of the earliest online shopping cart systems available on the Internet. He also registered a number of common domain names such as folk.com, nerd.com, wisdom.com, humankind.com and others. In 2000, Perry sold wisdom.com for US$475,000. At the time this was the third-highest cash sale for any domain name.

Perry is currently involved in a number of projects including a new content management system and a wine-tasting portal LaWineclub.com.

He contributed a chapter to HTML & CGI Unleashed, and contributed to The PC User's Survival Guide.

He resides in New Orleans and was a survivor of Hurricane Katrina. He also runs a recording studio, Wisdom Studios.

title: Michael Perry (software engineer)


text:
Talk:List of board games

Untitled
This classification systems seems rather incomplete. Why only ' European race games' what happened to North America and Asia. Lumos3 19:55, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. I had a bit of trouble categorising Afrikan tähti, whose article I wrote. It's an European game, and has a race element involved, but it's not as linear as Ludo or the Goose Game. It doesn't eliminate players either, but it is won by one of the players successfully bringing the diamond back, and not at some neutral deadline. The categories should be explained better. 7:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * How about the following:
 * games of mental skill
 * two player
 * abstract strategy
 * classic
 * modern
 * games of chance
 * multi-player
 * with elimination
 * without elimination
 * racing games (i.e. first to victory condition)
 * scoring games (i.e. highest score at end of game)
 * games of physical skill
 * children's games
 * It's fairly similar to what's already there, but at least you can work out where pretty much any game goes.
 * I think we can drop generic game sets, since the ones listed aren't board games! Percy Snoodle 13:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, I've retitled the sections and put it at User:Percy Snoodle/List of board games. I'm in the process of checking the multi-player games against BoardGameGeek, and then I'll move it here, unless anyone shouts. Percy Snoodle 14:35, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you a werewolf?
For what I understand, Are_You_a_Werewolf? is not a *board* game. Shouldn't it be deleted from this list? Manuelcorrea 12:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a board game. Slice it. Chris Stangl 20:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ludo - multiple entries
I've noticed that Ludo appears twice in the lists; possibly other games do to. Is that OK, or is it not? In the case of Ludo, one of the listings is under the heading "Children's games", which from a systematic point of view is a silly category. I've just been around four adults who played a ludo turnament over several nights. While the rules are rather simple (though not as simple as in some far more difficult games), with four players, sometimes all just trying to win, but occasionally forming alliances to prevent one particular player from winning, it's not so trivial. Remember that whenever you have two pieces on the move (or one on the move, and a die roll of 6), you have a choice as to what to do with your die roll.--Niels Ø 08:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Mozaic?
Why is this on the list? It's not a game.

Mozaic is a game. Produced in 2003 by Games Above Board. Hopuk (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This list vs. the board games (and board game stubs) categories?
With the category system in full swing, I'm seeing some disparities between this list and the category listings... I don't know enough about most of these games to place them in the list. The real question is, will the category system make this list (and perhaps others like it) obsolete?

Dan 04:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad links
Both "Serenissima" and "Vernissage" linked to entirely irrelevant pages. I've deleted the links, but maybe some checking should be done to see if they really are board games. Jon Rob 14:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Both Serenissima and Vernissage are board games. In fact I own Serenissima. Hopuk (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The links have been fixed. J I P | Talk 06:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

new list?
should we have another list: List of spinoff board games? Ragnaroknike 02:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Connect 4
This game should definitely not be under Childrens Games based solely on chance. There is no chance involved at all. It is all skill, comparable to Chess or Checkers. (unregistered user 19 June 2007, sorry, I don't know how to sign properly)

Peg Solitaire - single-player board game
This page has no provision for single-player board games - such as peg solitaire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peg_solitaire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.225.92 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Red links?
I notice that a lot of the games listed here are red links. Generally in articles like this that are just lists, red links are discouraged (the article should be created first then the link added). Sometimes there are good reasons for leaving red links in so I thought I'd check to see if that's the case with this article before deleting all of them. SQGibbon (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been a week so I deleted them. SQGibbon (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Typically, we allow red links for notable topics, to encourage users to create the missing articles. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is Cluedo listed twice?
Why is Cluedo currently listed twice, both under "Multi-player elimination games" and "Multiplayer games without elimination"? Can't be both can it? I think the confusion comes in when, per Cluedo's rules, a player makes an incorrect accusation: he cannot win the game but he still needs to continue participating in the game and showing his cards to other players making suggestions. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good timing. Looks like the duplicate was removed a few seconds before I posted this comment. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hooop!
Should Hooop! be listed at List of abstract strategy games? I mean, it's a completely deterministic game with absolutely no random element, and players know the entire state of the game from one glance (provided they remember what cards they and their opponents have used, but this is public knowledge, as there are a limited number of cards and they are played openly, and anyway the cards are a very minor element in the game). The thing is that the article says "Two-player abstract strategy games" but Hooop! is for two to four players. J I P | Talk 20:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't break the ice
Shouldn't Don't Break the Ice be classified as a skill game, seeing that it is based around precision of physical motion?--96.240.11.231 (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

What to do with redlinks?
has been changing redlinked entries to plain text, i.e. removing just the wikilink but keeping the name in place. Before I do anything, I would want to ask the community's opinions on what to do with redlinks. J I P | Talk 08:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Leave the article as it is, with the entries without articles as plain text?
 * Revert Xcalleyfornia's actions, turning them back into redlinks?
 * Remove the entries without articles entirely, to make the article contain only bluelinks?

Skip-Bo?
Skip-Bo is listed in section Two-player games. I had once the game, and there are only cards, somewhat like Uno. Is there a reason why it is listed in "List of board games"? I also searched rules with Google, and found it is a card game for 2 to 6 people. The "Main article" List of abstract strategy games seems to have almost every game in the list, but somehow it does not include Skip-Bo. 109.240.219.96 (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this list even encyclopedic?
Having a list of board games is a potentially infinite list. What makes a certain game noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion? What's even the point of this list? Personally I think this should be deleted, but I'm open to hearing reasons for keeping it. Xx78900 (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be limited to significant games only. You can take it to WP:AFD and ping me there and we will see what happens, but I think a better solution would be just to decide on the inclusion criteria, like winning awards, or being described by reliable sources as 'significant/influential'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hasn't it been pretty hard to agree on inclusion standards for modern board games? Everyone agrees that Shogi and Monopoly should be on a list like this, but what about recent hits like Spirit Island and Root? Online resources tend to include BGG, publisher websites, and board game blogs which are less than ideal. Ungulates (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Italics
I don't understand the italics. Why are some games listed in italics and some are not? J I P | Talk 16:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Wooper
Two Player Board Games -> Wooper redirects to the Pokemon from Generation II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.236.125 (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wooper has been removed, and I also removed Zingo! as the article had been deleted. J I P  | Talk 16:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 26 November 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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

List of notable board games → List of board games – User:I am RedoStone moved this article to "List of notable board games" without any discussion, claiming "That board game you made when you were nine years old will not be on this list". Now I feel this is unnecessary. It is already established that Wikipedia is not for things made up at school one day so it should go without saying only notable board games are included. It's not like other list articles have to especially claim they only list notable things either. J I P | Talk 20:48, 26 November 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.
 * Support per Naming conventions (lists).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, and limit entries to board games which have Wikipedia pages (and thus are de facto 'notable'). Randy Kryn (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of board games