text:
Talk:Hungarian prehistory

Frank Sandor and Sanskrit origins
I have just removed for the second time this fringe theory. Quite possibly we should have a section on fringe theories, but until then, or until we produce a consensus here that the idea of "Sanskrit origins of Magyar" has a toehold on scholarly acceptability, it has no place in this article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Supported. There is no place for fringe theories in this article, thus the theories on the Sanksrit, Sumerian, Egyptian, etc origin of the Hungarians can be deleted without any further notice. Borsoka (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The original express purpose of this article was to give space to fringe theories so they could appear somewhere without taking space on another article. This is perfectly acceptable since wikipedia reports on fringe, rather than brushing it under the  carpet. That is exactly why this article was created.  So I have to disagree that there is no place for fringe on this article, or that any fringe can be censored and deleted suddenly without further notice.  The main problem with the Sanskrit theory though, is that it seems to be unheard of until this year, 2012. Time will be needed to see if such a new idea will find any quarter of acceptance with other authors. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So, should we have a section in this article on "Fringe theories of Magyar origins"? As Til Eulenspiegel says, there's no lack of material. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Thank you, at least there is a discussion on this issue now. I agree that Hungarian pre-History is full of fringe theories.  The reality is though that until now ANY theory of Hungarian origins was a 'fringe' theory since no one had any concrete proof, just ideas.  The long standing popular belief of a Hungarian origin east of the Ural Mountains (accepted because of politics not science) has strongly been disproved by the lack of a genetic marker in Hungarians that marks the northern Uralic migration.  The genetic haplogroup that 60% of Hungarians belongs to is south Asian in origin.  I have spent the last three years of my life working on the linguistic origins of the Uralic languages, and I consider it very narrow minded to simply delete any idea that does not agree with yours.  I respected other views in the article even though in my opinion they are pure fiction, and left all other portions unchanged.  Does not three years of my work deserve the same respect?  In the 19th century it was proven that Hungarian and Sanskrit are the same grammatically, and is accepted by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences as fact.  Unfortunately when vocabulary was looked at only a casual resemblance was found.  I discovered that this was due to the fact that Uralic languages did not 'inherit' their words with those words changing over time.  Instead they moved into the region and adopted words based on observational qualities of the object.  For example the Hungarian word for father 'apa' is not a sound change of the Sanskrit word for father 'janaka' but is instead based on what a father does and is the Sanskrit word meaning 'the act of sowing seed', 'vApa'.  From this I was able to deduce the rules that governed the adoption of Sanskrit words, ie that all Sanskrit words are reduced to a maximum of two syllables.  If Wikipedia is going to brush under the carpet any idea that is new or does not support the status quo then it is guilty of the same outdated 19th century political thinking that gave birth to the incorrect assumption that Hungarians originated east of the Ural mountains in the first place.  I had followed the Wikipedia submission guidelines.  My entry was factual and properly cited.  Has Wikipedia decided it is the judge of what research is worthy of being published and will censor all opposing views?  Is Wikipedia only about supporting ideas they agree with?  Then the statement "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is nothing more than an advertising slogan as it has become a private club.  Frank Sandor 23.16.83.15 (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We are here to write an encyclopedia, that is, to document scholarly consensus (or disagreements) based on recognized methods. This doesn't imply that your theories are wrong, only that the time to include them in the mainstream account will be when they achieve an appropriate degree of mainstream scholarly acceptance. I look forward to their progress. In the meantime, what do other editors think of the idea of a section on fringe theories? There are several of them, and mainstream accounts do include mention of them if only to dismiss them. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

 * First of all, I fully agree with the idea that there is no room for censorship in WP. On the other hand, we should follow VP guidlines, including WP:NOR and WP:SOURCES. Yes, of course, we can assume that Hungarians descended from Sumerians, Egyptians, Sanksrits or from any nation of the world or the Galaxy, but when editing WP we can only use reliable sources. Reliable sources do not support these theories, therefore they are to be deleted at once. For example, if we think that the Hungarian language is a variant of Sanksrit we can write of our theory in a reliable source, and afterwards the theory can be included in a WP article, otherwise it cannot be included. This is not censorship, this is racionality: without these rules, for example, any of us could create long articles of our own views on evolution, God, history, politics, neighbors, friends, teachers or we could write articles on our favorite teddy bears, jeans, flowers: "Borsoka's thoughts on evolution", "Borsoka's view on the pancake Aunt Rozália's sister-in-law made sometime in the 1990s or maybe in the the late 1980s". So I still suggest, that first our views should be expressed in academic works, than they can be included in the relevant WP article. Borsoka (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Thank you for mentioning WP's policy on "No Original Research", Borsoka. Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit struck by the comment on the "east of the Urals popular belief" and talk about presenting fringe theories. I was the editor who modified WP in this and maybe a few other articles to the "west of the Urals" theory based on sources, not beliefs. I don't know where the "east of the Urals" view comes from yet I had left it in this article when I expanded the Urheimat section because I thought it important to give readers a sense of the debates occurring about the article subject. There are no simple answers about Hungarian prehistory. That said, I would not really be in favor of a fringe theory section because it would become a listing of them all. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I see the point, but on the other hand they are notable in themselves, especially in the context of Romantic nationalism, and we probably should list them all somewhere. Setting up another article for them would rightly be deprecated as a POV fork. Could I ask you to reconsider? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I am afraid these theories even together do not qualify notable enough to make up a separate article. I am soure that Hungarian historians would be offended, if these "theories" were mentioned in any article connected to "Hungarian historiography". Therefore, maybe the little information on these "theories" can be added to a general article of "fringe theories in history". Of course, first of all we need reliable sources based on which these theories can be mentioned in any WP article. Borsoka (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Richard, here's my recollection of the history of this article and some of its content. It was pretty much a dumping ground for fringe stuff that editors didn't want put into other Hungarian articles. It had been continuously marked as totally disputed or had other templates marking sections as controversial or unsourced, etc. See this old version of it:. In 2007, I began improvement of the article and several related articles (like merging Levedia into it, correcting the "east of the Urals" belief in the Hungarian people article, etc.). A few other editors participated in that effort. The fringe theory stuff ended up becoming a section on historiography. It was eventually removed by other editors, even though I didn't fully agree with that. There was also an examination of the disciplines/sciences used to arrive at all the theories. Most of that content got put into another article on Sources for Hungarian prehistory. That eventually got deleted too. So while this article may have been created expressly as a dumping ground for one particular editor's POV, there hasn't been any effort to re-add that old stuff back into the article by the original protagonists for it. I'm not seeing why we should invite it by creating a separate section for it. Certainly not this new Sanskrit theory, but the Sumerian-Hungarian theory is notable both as a manifestation of Hungarian nationalism (which means it is more appropriate in that article) and as part of the historiography of Hungarian prehistory (see also Historiography and nationalism). Actually, if you look around WP, there _are_ separate articles for notable fringe theories. As for Sanskrit, wouldn't that be more appropriately placed at Hungarian_language, where the Sumerian theory is also found? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly. OK, if any secondary literature on the Sanskrit idea turns up, we should put it in Hungarian_language. Thanks for the helpful discussion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am very pleased to see a reasonable discussion taking place on this topic. If you don't want any reference to my entry that is fine.  But I feel you are greatly misinformed if you think there is no scholarly work done on a connection between Hungarian and Sanskrit.  Here are just some brief suggestions for you to consider.  Sandor Csoma in the 19th century was the first to suspect a link, the Asiatic Society recorded in a letter: (Since he has lived in Calcutta, Mr. Csoma has studied the Sanskrit language with great diligence, having found in its structure and in those of some present-day languages originating from it a close relationship to that of Hungarian. ) http://www.archivum.kcst.hu/dictionary/terjek_csoma-life.html.  This past spring the Mansi Government (also an Uralic language) posted the following on “The Ob-Ugrian Peoples’ Theatre” website. (...It is scientifically proved that a number of corresponding words in the languages of Ob’ Ugric peoples and old tribes of India is extensive, among them there are numerals, cattle-breeding terminology, names of animals and plants.)  They explained the connection by citing the work of the Indian linguist Rahul Sankrityana.  You might also find this article of interest.  http://www.members.tripod.com/~INDIA_RESOURCE/indian-languages.html

While a Sanskrit - Hungarian connection is only recently gaining acceptance by linguists as a viable possibility it is far more accepted than the term "fringe theory" would imply.Frank SandorMagyarOrigins (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to two books that discuss the relationship between Finno-Ugrians and early Sanskrit speakers. The first is by the Hungarian linguist Janos Harmatta The Emergence of the Indo-Iranians. http://en.unesco.org/silkroad/sites/silkroad/files/knowledge-bank-article/vol_I%20silk%20road_the%20emergence%20of%20the%20indo%20iranians,%20the%20indo%20iranian%20languages.pdf Harmatta shows extensive contact between Finno-Ugrians and early Sanskrit speakers lasting for at least 3,500 years.

The second is an award winning book by Russian archaeologist Elena E. Kuz’mina (2007) The Origin of the Indo-Iranians https://archive.org/details/TheOriginOfTheIndo-iranians Kuz’mina concludes that not only did the Finno-Ugrians and early Sanskrit speakers have close contact but that the Urals are the homeland for these early Sanskrit speakers. Kuz’mina's credentials can be found here http://www.cr-journal.ru/en/journals_en/57.html&j_id=4 To quote Kuz’mina "Taking into account Chinese evidence and the localization of the Finno-Ugrians in the forest zone of Eurasia, the Indo-Iranian homeland should be placed in the Urals and Kazakhstan, and the hypothesis of a migration from the Near East should be rejected because the Bactrian camel was unknown there."

If the homeland of the Vedics was the Urals then it is hardly a giant leap to explore the possibility that Hungarian culture and language are Vedic Sanskrit in origin. Especially when you consider that the time period of exposure of the Finno-Ugrians to early Sanskrit was just as long, if not longer, than the time period of exposure for the people of India to Sanskrit. Unlike fringe theories such as Sumerian, the idea of extensive Sanskrit influence on the Uralic languages is supported by main stream archaeology.23.16.80.41 (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Frank Sandor]
 * All utter rubbish. No such theory is 'gaining acceptance' - stop lying. 50.111.19.2 (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Split into 2 articles
Let us divide this article and create 2 new wonderful articles. Hortobagy (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The origin of Hungarians and The origin of Szekelys Hortobagy (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: the above two articles do not cover the whole subject of this article; there is no point in splitting existing articles just for the joy of splitting. Borsoka (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, naturally. --Norden1990 (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, silly idea. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, This idea does not make any sense. First of all, there is no text to be split. The subject "origin of Szekelys" is, unfortunately, entirely missing from the article. It is negotiated at pages of Szekely people and History of Szekely people. On the other hand the matter "origin of Szekelys" would deserve a couple of sentences here therefore we should improve this article instead of splitting. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose split I suppose, though the article now is exclusively about the origins of the Magyars, with absolutely nothing on the rich actual prehistory of Hungary in the normal sense of the word - Stone, bronze & iron ages, which is at the oddly named History of Hungary before the Hungarian Conquest. If there was more on this the origins of the Magyars could be split & summarized. Probably this article should be renamed Origins of the Magyar people anyway. Johnbod (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The titles of these articles reflect Hungarian historiography. The history of the Magyars before they unambiguously enter the written record in the 9th century is conventionally called Hungarian "prehistory" or "protohistory". Even the capitalisation of "Conquest" is, I think, a borrowing from Hungarian, where there is a special term for the Hungarian settlement in Europe and some authors capitalise in English to emphasise its singularity as an event. András Róna-Tas, for example, eschews "prehistory" in favour of "early history", but he capitalises "Magyar Conquest" to emphasise that it is really a translation of the Hungarian phrase honfoglalás, which does not only refer to conquest. Here at Wikipedia we do the opposite: our conquest article is uncapitalised but we still use "prehistory". Srnec (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * However the name came about, it is very misleading for English-speaking non-specialists. There seems no reason not to merge this with the very short Magyar tribes. Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The main reason is that the prehistory of the Hungarians is much longer than the history of the Hungarian tribes. Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no reason not to merge them. In fact they cover much of the same ground. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must have misunderstood you. Do you suggest that the article Magyar tribes should be merged into this article? Borsoka (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Johnbod (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? That article, I mean "Magyar/Hungarian tribes", could be expanded. Borsoka (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, most easily by merging with this one, which essentially covers the same material. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the two article do not cover the same material. The "prehistory" article covers the development of the Hungarian people as a distinct ethnic group which lasted for some millenia, while the "tribes" article describes a political institution. Would you merge the article "County (United States)" into the article "United States"? Borsoka (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggestion This article should be called the History of the Magyar tribes instead and probably merged with the Magyar tribes. Alternatively, a Prehistory of Hungary article is needed to cover Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age etc. in the present territory of modern Hungary. See Prehistory of France. Of course such an article won't touch on Magyars at all but other cultures, including Dacians, Celts and Illyrians and maybe some people won't like that. Prehistory usually goes with a region and not with a nation. For those who master the subtleties of the English language, the term "Hungarian prehistory" is not the same as "Prehistory of Hungary" and is more of an oxymoron. Probably the intention of a term like "Hungarian prehistory" is to show that the "Hungarian nation" is extremely old and has continuity since Neolithic, which is simply nationalistic and wrong. --Codrin.B (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that. To deal with the valid point of the Roman-Avar period not being "prehistory" (of Hungary) there are other solutions - including expanding the content to its proper size so Prehistory of Hungary is all pre-Roman, with another article from the Romans to Avars/pre-conquest. Johnbod (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Codrinb, you are well aware the fact that there are no "extremely old nations" in this region of the world, no continuity can be proven. For instance, I do not suppose that we should delete 90% of the article named "History of Romania" just because Romania came into being in 1859. Should we assume that those who use this obviously anachronistic expression (Romania) are driven by chauvinistic, nationalistic, .... bias? No, they follow the example set by reliable sources. Please assume good faith. Dear Johnbod, the present title of the article can be substantiated by reliable source, why should we change it? Borsoka (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Because to a normal English-speaker it suggests it is about a completely different subject. It is not merely ambiguous, but misleading. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Because to a normal English-speaker it suggests it is about a completely different subject. It is not merely ambiguous, but misleading. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I also oppose the proposal to split this article, and am even more strongly against suggestions to merge or move this article. The article was originally allowed to exist specifically so that this information - which some editors seem hostile to being presented or even talked about on wikipedia - can have a home without spilling into other articles.  But now, even that's not good enough, even that safety valve has to be taken away, there must be NO MENTION on wikipedia that certain schools of thought exist, and they can do nothing but continue to stab it repeatedly with their steely knives until they convince themselves the beast is dead. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I for one have no idea what you are talking about. But clearly there are all sorts of agendas around these pages, the last of which seem to be complying with WP policies or presenting material under article titles that will be comprehended by non-expert English-speakers who are foolish enough to define Hungarians as people who live(d) in Hungary! Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I desperatelly try to understand your logic. Do you suggest that Slovaks, Croats, Romanians, Serbians who lived in Hungary some century ago were Hungarians? I would be surprised if this definition were accepted by Slovak, Croat, Romanian and Serbian editors (and sincerely, myself, a Hungarian editor, would not easily accept it). Or do you suggest that there are Hungarians who are Magyars and there are Hungarians who are not Magyars (for example, because they are ethnic Romanians, Gypsies, Slovaks, Germans ...) in present-day Hungary? Would you refer to a reliable source which applies this distinction? Borsoka (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's very simple. For English-speaking people, the "Hungarian" in "Hungarian prehistory" naturally reads as an adjective relating to "Hungary", not to a bunch of people living in the Ukraine, Russia, etc. Present-day definitions are not relevant here, since the subject deals only with periods over 1,000 years ago. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there was the following 1000 years when whole Slovakia, and significant parts of Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Austria were included in Hungary. Should we write of Hungarians. It would be absurd: XY the Hungarian national leader who fought for his nation's rights against Hungarian nationalism. What about "Prehistory of the Hungarians", "Prehistory of the Hungarian people" or "Hungarians' prehistory"? Borsoka (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * They (the ones that are grammatical) would be better, but Magyar tribes (or people etc) is the best way to go, precisely because (in English) it avoids these problems, which is why it exists as a distinct word in English. That "Hungarians" existed before they came to Hungary is not exactly universally known to English-speakers, and to those who are aware "Magyar" remains the expected term. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Johnbod, as I mentioned above, the article "Magyar/Hungarian tribes" describes a specific institution which lasted only for some centuries within the long prehistory of the Hungarian people: the existence of the Hungarian tribes cannot be proven before the 800s and after about 1009, while linguistic studies prove that the Hungarians must have emerged as a distinct ethnic group about 3000 years ago. Moreover the "prehistory of the Hungarian people" is a much wider subject than the institution of the tribes. Would you also merge the article "History of England" into the article "Lord Protector"? As far as I know the institution of Lord Protectors had a preeminent role in the History of England. Borsoka (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are just being silly. I repeat: whatever it is called, it can't be called "Hungarian prehistory" because that is misleading in English. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is it misleading? If it is misleading why is it used by reliable sources which describe the prehistory of the Hungarian people? Borsoka (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Which version would you prefer: "Prehistory of the Hungarian people", "Prehistory of the Hungarians" or else? Yes, I am silly, but please understand that the Magyar/Hungarian tribes article cannot cover the prehistory of the Hungarian people. Borsoka (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I expect the reliable sources are written by and for people who would know enough about the subject to realise teh difference (and to explain it to less knowledgeable readers). But the average person coming across this article (or someone moderately knowledgable of the subject but not aware of all the technicalities and looking for more information) might not be aware of the distinction.  Especially as most non-specialist English-language history books tend to use "Magyar" to describe the Hungarians before the establishment of the Kingdom of Hungary, and "Hungarian" after that point.  Personally, I would think that either of your suggested titles would be better than the current one.  Alternatively, "Prehistory of the Magyars", to emphasise that it is a particular ethnic group being discussed, regardless of where they were living. Iapetus (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

written sources
According to Kiraly, a Bulgar source mentions that the Hungarians participated in the Battle of Pliska. "811. óbolgár prolog, sinaksarion: I. Nikéforos bizánci császár és Krum bolgár fejedelem között a Haemus (Balkán) hegységben lezajlott ütközetben a magyarok (Egre, Vegre, Ugre) a bolgárokat segítik". Fakirbakir (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes, this is a theory, but it has not been widely accepted. Harmatta writes on the same subject: "Vitatott az Οὺγγροι név használatának kezdete is a bizánci történetíróknál. Vannak olyan óegyházi szláv források, amelyek a bizánci Οὺγγροι szláv Egrы / Vẹgrы megfelelőjét használják már Krum bolgár fejedelem Niképhoros császár felett 811-ben aratott győzelmével kapcsolatban, amelynek részesei voltak e hagiográfiai források (synaxarion) szerint a magyarok is. Minthogy e synaxarionokat görögből fordították, s más görög források szerint a bolgárok szövetségesei az avarok voltak, felmerülthet az a gondolat is, hogy a görög synaxarion-szövegben nem az Οὺγγροι, hanem az ᾊβαροι népnév szerepelt. Szövegkritikai alapon e kérdés nehezen dönthető el, mert még ha feltesszük is, hogy az eredeti görög nyelvű synaxarion-szövegben az ᾊβαροι népnév állott, nem zárható ki annak a lehetősége, hogy a magyarázó széljegyzetként az Οὺγγροι népnevet is tartalmazta, s az óegyházi szláv fordító ezt vette figyelembe." (Harmatta, op. cit., p. 127). So there is a Slavic translation of an unknown Greek text which contradicts to all other Greek sources in this respect, because all other Greek sources wrote of Avars instead of Magyars. The article only says that the first event which was certainly connected to the Magyars occurred in the late 830s.  Borsoka (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the answer. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong title
I know Hungarians tend to get very worked up about these issues, but in English "Hungarian prehistory" means the prehistory of Hungary (yes, of course that raises questions of definition). This article is about the Prehistory of the Magyar people and should be so renamed. That might not be the case in Hungarian, but it is in English, which cannot really cope with the concept that the "Hungarian people" should be so termed at periods when none of them had yet set foot in Hungary. There are other valid possibilities mentioned above: Origins of the Magyar people, History of the Magyar tribes etc. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

 * , I suggest that you should follow the process described here. I think the last version would be quite controversial, because the existence of tribes before the 9th century cannot be proven. Borsoka (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support renaming. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll copy this down below, to the relevant section. Johnbod (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you and Ghirla identical? Borsoka (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, but this is now stranded. -  Borsoka has de-copied it below. So helpful. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do not you ask Ghirla of his/her views before voting on his/her behalf? Borsoka (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 10 December 2014

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

The result of the move request was: No move (NAC) No such user (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hungarian prehistory → Origin of the Hungarians – Per reasons posted in the above section. The title would be similar with Origin of the Azerbaijanis, Origin of the Kurds, Origins of Paleoindians and Origin of the Romanians. The suggested title is already a redirect to this article. I invite User:Ghirlandajo, User:Johnbod and User:Borsoka to post their "votes" and arguments here 194.152.144.143 (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as certainly an improvement, and it does sidestep the problem of "Hungarian" as an adjective here. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sorry, I changed my mind. The "prehistory" is a period of history with historical events (what did they do?), the origins of the Hungarians is a narrower subjects (who were their ancestors?). Borsoka (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But there are (almost) no events in this article. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would advise that a link to this page be placed on any relevant Hungarian Wikiproject or similar. As a preference I would hope that nominators would make efforts to raise the issues with peoples concerned.  Consideration to article titles in Category:Prehistoric Europe may also be warranted.  gregkaye  ✍ ♪  13:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Oppose, If we can study "Anglo-Saxon prehistory" or "Germanic prehistory" then there will be no problem with the term "Hungarian prehistory". Fakirbakir (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet where are our articles on such things? Phrases like this can always make perfect sense in context, but an article title in an encyclopedia is as devoid of context as it gets. Srnec (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not perfect. For instance, the term "Germanic prehistory" (or "German prehistory") does make sense and is used in scientific circles. What is your suggestion? Which title would be more encyclopaedic than "Hungarian prehistory"? The history of the pre-conquest ancient Magyars is traditionally called "Hungarian prehistory" in Hungarian historiography. Fakirbakir (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, in Hungarian!!! Not in English. And none of the handful of sources using "Anglo-Saxon prehistory" that search finds are actual Anglophone historians of the Anglo-Saxons. Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this terminological problem could be solved by using a possessive apostrophe. I think "Hungarians' prehistory" is a clear term (see:) Fakirbakir (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But not really grammatical as a title. But essentially Hungarian people are desperate for the English to use "Hungarians" as their term for the Magyar people before their arrival in Hungary, but it is just too confusing for English-speakers, and the English WP should reflect English usage. Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , please try to read other editors' remarks carefully instead of repeating your own thoughts of the Hungarian editors' motives. I maintain that the proposed title would not be correct, because the origin of the Hungarian people is only a subsubject of this article. Fakirbakir asked you to suggest an alternative name, but you did not answer him. I again ask you to suggest an alternative title. Thank you for your cooperation in advance. Borsoka (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have proposed or supported several alternatives here or in the section above (and probably in earlier discussions), and there is no need for further ones. No good reasons have been advanced why they do not work. "Origins" is sufficiently vague. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read carefully the debate under this subtitle. You have not proposed any alternative name here. Please also read carefully the text under the above subtitle. I suggested that you should follow the proper process of renaming. Borsoka (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am supporting your original nomination until I am pursuaded it is not better than the current name (and almost anything is). Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Johnbod, it is a bit off topic but the scholars don't even know for sure that where the "Magyar" word came from. Whether in ancient times it was only a name of a tribe or the "Magyar" word referred to the whole Hungarian people we don't know. Also, I don't personally think that the Hungarian language should be called "Magyar language". Contrary to your opinion, the English usage of the word "Magyar" isn't so clear. Anyway Hungarians were called "Hungarians" BEFORE the conquest of Hungary (e.g. in 837 or in 862). Fakirbakir (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it's very off-topic, and no one has suggested that the Hungarian language should be called "Magyar language". Let's stiuck to the point shall we. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to point out that nobody is "desperate for the English to use 'Hungarians' as their term for the Magyar people before their arrival in Hungary". The ethnonym of the ancient Hungarians is disputed.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The talk pages of this and similar articles strongly suggest otherwise! Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Denis Sinor also prefers to use the term "Hungarian prehistory". "The aim of the present paper is to sum up what we know about Hungarian history previous to the Conquest. It is customary to call this period "Hungarian prehistory"." Fakirbakir (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the only problem is that while the term in historiography deals with the history of pre-conquest Hungarians, the title in archaeology refers to the long period of prehistoric times in the territory of present-day Hungary. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are making this distinction up. I'm very dubious that Sinor's statement is actually correct for native-speaker English, and have seen no evidence of this. Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you got any evidence for your claims? I have already cited two specialists (Makkai, Sinor) that the term "Hungarian prehistory" is an appropriate title for the article. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Bulgarians and Pechenegs
, please read WP:Lead: the "lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article". If you think that this info should be mentioned in the article, the relevant subsection (under the title "The Hungarian Conquest") should be expanded based on the source. Thereafter the lead could be expanded (without any reference). Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so basically you want to keep it the way it was (in the meantime)? I know about WP:Lead. What you are requesting though doesn't really make sense. That would mean just including the Pechenegs, implying it was just them that forced the Hungarians to move, when in fact they were allied with the First Bulgarian Empire, and 'both' the Pechenegs and Bulgarians defeated the Hungarians. How does it ruin the lead by just basically including 'Bulgarians' in the sentence? Smart Nomad (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

 * , no, you obviously do not know WP:Lead (if you knew it, you would not put a reference in the lead). Please read my message again: the article itself should be modified/expanded before the lead is modified. That is all I suggest. Borsoka (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article" Smart Nomad (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

 * , please read WP:Lead: the "lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article". Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Interestingly, the cited source (Runciman) does not make connection between the Magyars' defeat by the Bulgarians and the Magyars' departure from Etelköz. (Runciman only writes of the Magyars' defeat in Bulgaria and their departure from Etelköz after Etelköz was destroyed by the Pechenegs who were the Bulgarians' ally). Borsoka (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Torvalu4
, the sources cited (Spinei 2003, p. 44. and Kristó 1996, p. 156) do not refer to Turla (the allegedly Turkic name of the river Dniester), to Var (the allegedly Hunnic name of the Dnieper) and the Kuban (which was allegedly mistaken with the Southern Bug). Furthermore, the allegedly Turkic and Hunnic names are not relevant in this article. Please stop your original research. Borsoka (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * First, a quick check on Wikipedia's Dniester and Dnieper pages provides basic verification; so lets drop the "alleged". Second, if you consult "any" source that actually explains where the Greek names come from and the "traditional" interpretation, like, say here @ fn4 or here2 @ p. 94, then you'd know this isn't original research. Finally, the Turkic and Hunnic names are relevant in explaining how, say, MGreek Troullos could refer to the Dniester, which isn't self-explanatory. I suppose a person could click Dniester in hopes of finding some insight, but you didn't do that... so an inline explanation seems warranted. Torvalu4 (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Torvalu4, (1) the sources cited in the sentence do not contain any reference to the information you added; (2) no, those names are not relevant in the article about the Hungarian prehistory; furthermore, you may not know, but WP articles do not qualify as reliable sources for WP purposes (for instance, the reference to Turla in the article Dniester is not based on reliable sources). Borsoka (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Borsoka, you alleged that I had added original research, which I've shown to not be the case (please actually read the alleged footnotes), and you came to this conclusion by not doing your homework - allegedly. After all, the only possible reason you would've made such a point of using "alleged" is if you didn't actually do your own research. Thus, you have no basis to remove the edits; ultimately, a simple lack of citations is not grounds for deletion. My point about the WP articles was not that they're citable sources, but that they do serve to verify at the very least that I have not added allegedly original research. As to the alleged irrelevance of explaining the names, that's a matter of opinion that, frankly, isn't up to you to definitively decide. Allegedly yours, Torvalu4 (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) The information you added to the well-referenced article was not mentioned in the works cited in the same sentence. (2) You have not explained why do you think that the Turkic names of the rivers are relevant. Borsoka (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The tribes "did not obey to their own voivodes"
Under the section on Levedia, the article states Porphyrogenitus said the tribes did not obey to their own voivodes, but they had "a joint agreement to fight together with all earnestness and zeal ... wheresoever war breaks out", suggesting the tribal chiefs were military leaders. This needs correction since "obey to" is incorrect English, but I wasn't sure what to correct it to—could you explain the meaning of the sentence? It seems contradictory to say that the tribes didn't obey the voivodes, when it also says the voivodes were their leaders. — Nizolan  (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your remark. I changed "did not obey to their own voivodes" to "did not obey their voivodes". I think it is not contradictory: the text suggests that the voivodes were military (not political) leaders. Borsoka (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks—I don't think that's clear from the sentence, though; I reworded it to make it obvious. I checked the reference from Berend et al. and it should still comply. Let me know if there's an issue. — Nizolan  (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Porphyregenitus explicitly said that the tribes did not obey their voivodes. I think we should not change his words. Borsoka (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, but the point you want to make still needs to be made explicit in the latter half of the sentence, since it doesn't come across in English. Moreover, if the concern is that the first clause is part of a direct quotation which shouldn't be changed, then it should be marked as such. I have done so, having checked the source. I tried another formulation, which conveys the point you want to make explicitly. — Nizolan  (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your edit. The new version is clearly better than the previous one. Borsoka (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Alternative rename
I've read the Request Move discussion of 2014 and agree with one of the discussants that the current article title is very confusing. The title suggests to discuss prehistory of the territory that is currently Hungary. The title of this article should at least make more clear that it is about the ethnic group, e.g. by means of a disambiguator, History of the Hungarians (ethnic group). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Too long
The introduction is too long. Kapeter77 (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hungarian prehistory


text: User talk:83.104.54.158

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

title: User talk:83.104.54.158


text:
Patong

Patong (ป่าตอง, ) refers to the beach and town on Phuket's west coast. It is the main tourist resort on the island of Phuket, and is the centre of Phuket's nightlife and shopping. The beach became popular with Western tourists, especially Europeans, in the late-1980s. It has numerous hotels and the area has expanded into a tourist place.

History

Patong Beach is known for its nightlife and 2850-metre (1.77 mile) beach that runs the entire length of Patong's west side. Nightlife is centered in two main areas, Bangla Road and the "Paradise Complex", with Bangla Road being predominantly straight and Paradise Complex gay. Both are lined with many bars, discotheques, and go go bars. Prostitution in Thailand is illegal, but tolerated, as is the case in Patong.

On 26 December 2004, Patong Beach along with many other areas along the west coast of Phuket and Thailand were struck by a tsunami caused by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. The wave caused a great deal of destruction to the waterfront of the beach and immediately inland and only one woman was killed in a basement seafront grocery store. Patong was one of the worst affected areas of Phuket, although the destruction was not as bad as nearby Khao Lak. Patong has largely recovered since the tsunami.

Environment
the waters off Patong Beach exceeded Thai Pollution Control Department standards for fecal coliform bacteria (FCB) and enterococci bacteria. To avoid paying the municipal wastewater treatment fee of five baht per cubic meter, many households discharge their wastewater untreated into canals and the sea. Patong also has limited capacity to treat wastewater. The municipal wastewater treatment plant is nearing its capacity of 28,000 m3 a day. An upgrade be operational in 2018 which will increase capacity by an extra 9,000 m3 per day.

Municipality's Efforts to Maintain Cleanliness at Patong Beach in Phuket
Patong Beach, attracting a large number of visitors every day. Unfortunately, this influx of tourists can sometimes lead to pollution and dirt on the beach. However, the municipality of Phuket is making a significant effort to maintain the cleanliness of Phuket Patong Beach. Every day, a dedicated team works to clean the beach, picking up the litter left by visitors and ensuring that this beautiful place remains clean and preserved for future generations. This commitment to preserving the natural beauty of Patong Beach reflects the importance that the municipality places on preserving its natural heritage and ensuring an enjoyable experience for visitors.

Nightlife
Bang-la is considered as the most popular walking street in Phuket. Along the street is full of beer bars and go-go bars, which makes tourists stay there longer or in a whole night.

title: Patong


text:
1951–52 elections in India

The Indian Republic held its first elections in 1951–52.

Presidential election
The Election Commission of India held the first presidential elections of India on May 2, 1952. Dr. Rajendra Prasad won his first election with 670000 votes over his nearest rival K.T. Shah who got 92,827 votes.

General election
General elections to the first Lok Sabha since independence were held in India between 25 October 1951 and 21 February 1952. The Indian National Congress (INC) stormed into power, winning 364 of the 489 seats. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru became the first democratically elected Prime Minister of the country.

 * }

Ajmer*

 * : On 1 November 1956, Ajmer State was merged into Rajasthan under States Reorganisation Act, 1956.

Bhopal*
Bhopal states 1955
 * : On 1 November 1956, Bhopal State was merged into Madhya Pradesh under States Reorganisation Act, 1956.

Bihar*

 * : Bihar was reduced slightly by the transfer of minor territories to West Bengal in 1956 under States Reorganisation Act, 1956.

Bombay*

 * On 1 November 1956, under States Reorganisation Act, 1956, Bombay state was re-organized by the addition of Saurashtra State and Kutch State, Nagpur Division of Madhya Pradesh, and Marathwada region of Hyderabad. The state's southernmost districts of Bombay were transferred to Mysore State while Abu Road taluka of the Banaskantha district was transferred to Rajasthan.

Coorg*

 * : On 1 November 1956, Coorg State was merged into Mysore State as per the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.

Delhi*

 * : On 1 November 1956, under States Reorganisation Act, 1956, Delhi was made a Union Territory under the direct administration of the President of India and the Delhi Legislative Assembly was abolished simultaneously. Next legislative assembly elections in Delhi were held in 1993, when Union Territory of Delhi was formally declared as National Capital Territory of Delhi by the Sixty-ninth Amendment to the Indian constitution.

Himachal Pradesh*

 * : Under States Reorganisation Act, 1956, Himachal Pradesh became a Union Territory on 1 November 1956, under the direct administration of the President of India and the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly was abolished simultaneously. Under Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, it became a state and the next legislative elections were held in 1967.

Hyderabad*

 * : On 1 November 1956, Hyderabad State, except the districts of Raichur, Gulbarga, Bidar and Marathwada, was merged into Andhra State to form a single state, Andhra Pradesh, under States Reorganisation Act, 1956. The districts of Raichur, Bidar and Gulbarga were transferred to the Mysore State, while the Marathwada district was merged with the Bombay State.

Madhya Bharat*

 * : On 1 November 1956, under States Reorganisation Act, 1956, Madhya Bharat (except the Sunel enclave of the Mandsaur district) was merged into Madhya Pradesh and the Sunel enclave of the Mandsaur district of Madhya Bharat was merged in Rajasthan.

Madhya Pradesh*

 * : On 1 November 1956, under States Reorganisation Act, 1956, Madhya Bharat (except the Sunel enclave of the Mandsaur district), Vindhya Pradesh, Bhopal State and the Sironj sub-division of the Kota district of Rajasthan were merged into Madhya Pradesh while the Nagpur Division was transferred to Bombay State.

Madras*

 * : On 1 November 1956, the southern part of Travancore-Cochin (Kanyakumari district) was added to the Madras State while the Malabar district of the state was transferred to the new state of Kerala, and a new union territory, Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands, was created.

Mysore*

 * : On 1 November 1956, Mysore state was enlarged by the addition of Coorg State, the Kollegal taluk of the Coimbatore district and the South Kanara district (except the Kasaragod taluk) of Madras State, and the Kannada speaking districts from southern Bombay state and western Hyderabad State under States Reorganisation Act, 1956. The Siruguppa taluk, the Bellary taluk, the Hospet taluk and a small area of the Mallapuram sub-taluk were detached from the Mysore State.

Punjab*

 * : Punjab was enlarged by the addition of Patiala & East Punjab States Union in 1956 under States Reorganisation Act of 1956.

Saurashtra*

 * : On 1 November 1956, Saurashtra State was merged into Bombay State as per the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.

Travancore-Cochinundefined
$ : In 1952 elections of legislative assembly, no party found the majority. Indian National Congress formed a coalition government with the help of Travancore Tamil Nadu Congress, Kerala Socialist Party and a nominated member.

Vindhya Pradesh*

 * : On 1 November 1956, Vindhya Pradesh was merged into Madhya Pradesh under States Reorganisation Act, 1956.

West Bengal*

 * : West Bengal was enlarged slightly by the transfer of minor territories from Bihar in 1956 under States Reorganisation Act, 1956.

title: 1951–52 elections in India


text:
Jean La Lime

Jean La Lime or Lalime (died June 17, 1812) was a trader from Quebec, Canada who worked in what became the Northwest Territory of the United States. He worked as an agent for William Burnett, also of Canada, to sell to the Native Americans and take furs in exchange. He was among the first European permanent settlers in Chicago. He was killed there in 1812, in what was called the "first murder in Chicago", by John Kinzie, a trading partner of Burnett who was another early settler from Canada.

Chicago
During the time of the American Revolutionary War, France joined the cause of the Americans against the British. Because of this, in their Canadian territories, the British treated those of French heritage more harshly. Several families, the first two being the families of Jean La Lime and Antoinne Ouillemette, fled to the Eschikagou (Chicago) area to escape the harsh treatment. After trading along the frontier and likely in Detroit, La Lime arrived in the Chicago area on August 17, 1792 as an agent for William Burnett of Canada. In 1800, he purchased the homestead of Jean Baptiste Point du Sable for Burnett for 6,000 livres. The bill of sale was filed in Detroit, Michigan on September 18, 1800, although dated in Chicago on May 7 of that year. After the Americans established Fort Dearborn in 1804, La Lime worked there as an interpreter, aiding communication between the Americans and Indians. He broke his leg in 1809 and, as it was improperly set, was left lame.

Murdered
By 1804, Burnett's partner, John Kinzie, who also settled in Chicago, had bought the former du Sable house. He lived there with his wife and first child. They had three other children born in Chicago. On June 17, 1812 in Chicago, La Lime and Kinzie quarreled, and Kinzie killed him. Kinzie fled to Milwaukee, then in Indian territory. He claimed La Lime had shot at him and he had stabbed the interpreter in self-defense.

In letters to U.S. Secretary of War William Eustis, fort Factor Matthew Irwin and Surgeon's Mate Isaac Van Voorhis wrote that Kinzie murdered La Lime in an argument over Irwin informing the War Department about Kinzie corruptly obtaining the fort sutler's contract.

Burial
La Lime was originally buried within sight of Kinzie's house, as the European settlement was thinly strung along Lake Michigan.

Recounting stories told her by John Kinzie’s wife Eleanor Lytle Kinzie, John Kinzie’s daughter-in-law Juliette Magill Kinzie would later write that La Lime’s friends buried him directly in front of John Kinzie’s home as “suitable punishment,” but that the Kinzie family maintained the gravesite “in most beautiful order” and planted flowers on it.

However, former Kinzie family servant Victoire Porthier, who grew up in the Kinzie house, told historian A.T. Andreas in 1883, “I don’t think his grave was very near Mr. Kinzie’s house. I don’t remember that Mr. Kinzie ever took care of the grave.”

In 1891, a coffin was discovered at Wabash Avenue and Illinois Street near the Rush Street Bridge. Based on the research of Joseph Kirkland, the bones inside were believed to be La Lime's. The remains are held by the Chicago History Museum.

title: Jean La Lime


text:
Talk:Bombing of Dresden/Archive 1

Somebody added in comparison ... 200,000 were killed in Warsaw during the Warsaw uprising 1944). Is that really appropriate? You could just as well add the battle of Stalingrad or that of Midway to the list! :| Malbi
 * But those 200 000 were civilians and this happenned in approximately the same time. Some fraction of victims was killed by air raids, but Warsaw had not anti-aircraft resistance at all, so it was bombed from 100 m and very precisely.

One should notice, that bombings of the German cities brought relatively small number of casualties in comparison to directs executions on the spot, that were common practise by Germans in WWII. AM
 * I think you are talking about Germans bombing Jews in Warsaw? Do we know the percantage killed by aerial attacks? Rmhermen 17:35, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, Germans didn't bomb Jews. However, during Warsaw Uprising 1944, bombing from low level was common practice. Most of the 200 000 victims died from artillery shooting, bomb attack or executions on spot.AM
 * I see now. In Wikipedia we are calling the Jewish uprising the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and this later Polish army one the Warsaw Uprising. Sorry for the confusion. Rmhermen 13:33, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)

I took the following external link off this page.
 * The Dresden Raids, David Irving, letter to the Times, July 7, 1966

Irving is a discredited pro-Nazi historian, but I couldn't see any way of saying that that was NPOV so I just took him off.

I took another item off but I am putting it right back, since I misread it. Ortolan88 12:07 Aug 16, 2002 (PDT)

I took out the claim that Goebbels added a zero to police reports, since we really have no clue what Goebbels did, and the claim that "Goebbels did X" is, well, propaganda. Graft

 * Well, Goebbels may not have "added a zero", but it is a fact that his Propaganda Ministry circulated a figure of 100,000 to 200,000 in 1945. David Irving later publicized these figures, disguised as to their origin, in his book The Destruction of Dresden and it was not until research undertaken by Richard J. Evans as part of the defense against Irving's lawsuit tut still horrifying figure of 35,000-some was arrived at.  It is late and I don't feel like pursuing this tonight, but I will be putting some better version of Goebbel's lie back in the article soon.  Ortolan88 06:10 Nov 30, 2002 (UTC)
 * Hi Ortolan... I actually left in the claim in the form of "it was propaganda by the Germans", I just took out the direct attribution to Goebbels, which seemed unreasonable to me. Graft

Your page is outrageous. Did you check sources on the internet perhaps - simple Google search will do? There is holocaust denial, but I didnt know that there is Dresden bombing denial too. Arguing that Goebels added a zero and putting accent on it and such a heavy bias is something you should be ashamed off. Germans have done a lot of horrible crimes in my country during WWII but noone there would try to deny that Dresden was destroyed like you do. Check British sources, they put number of dead to 135,000. And there is nothing contraversial about it, the town was completely destroyed. It is no Nazi propaganda, and I am really surprised that there are people here who are denying it in such a blatant way. Shame on you, this is not encyclopedia, this is a washup service for someones bad conscience. You people have no honesty, I regret any time spent trying to make a contribution here. German people who are rised with guilt complex are probably going to be reluctant to object to your washup attempts (what is your motivation for this?), but I am no German nor I like Germans very much and I object to such outrageous twisting of history. How easy is to spit on someone who is not able do defend himself. Do you enjoy it? I am not so surprised that someone put it (it happens) but that this article survived so long here, and it has been scrutinized, obviously people have read it and found nothing WRONG with it - that is what I find so overhemlingly disgusting. Have you no sense of decency? I am not going to attempt to correct your article, or educate you - you could do some websearch yourself if you cared. But obviously you dont, it is just to easy to put selfassuring version of history and to think of victors as angels. Shame on you all, you are nothing but a selfsatisfied ignoble mob filled with prejudice
 * Your British source, unnamed, is holocaust denier and pro-Nazi pseudo-historian David Irving. The larger figure originated with Goebbels.  The British and Americans basically just covered it up until the 60s when Vonnegutt and others began talking about it.  Irving wrote a book about Dresden with the Nazi figures and then got himself in a lawsuit.  As part of the lawsuit, more accurate figures were found.  The war was plenty horrible and Dresden was horrible too, but we are all better served by accurate information.  If you are so strong on Google, why not look into Irving's lawsuit, or search on the name Richard J. Evans?  Ortolan88

BBC is NOT David Irving! And Ortolan seems to be much like David Irving - a liar, manipulator, inserting sources into people's mouths - if nazis were here around today, I bet you would be first to join them, you scum! The figure of 135.000 is widely circulated. Here are some links wich mention this figure (is Columbia or UCLA a neo-nazi propaganda center?).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/re/warpeace/justwartheoryrev2.shtml

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm

http://www.ethnomusic.ucla.edu/estudent/jvallier/dresden.html

http://www.bartleby.com/65/dr/Dresden.html

http://www.eppc.org/publications/xq/ASP/pubsID.123/qx/pubs_viewdetail.htm

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/61/001.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/raico-churchill5.html

.....

Marco --

I am astonished that anyone has the brass nerve to remove that link to Irving's letter just because they disagreed with it. Irving is indeed a repulsive nazi apologist, but who gives to Ortolan88 the right to censor what he doesn't like. Dispute it, challenge it, debate it, but who made Ortolan god? Wikipedia deserves better than politically correct censorship. I come across sites all the time that tell propagadistic lies about many things about Ireland (glorification of the IRA, etc). I re-write them to be balanced, ironing out loaded terms by neutral ones, or by adding in balancing accurate facts that allows the READER to make up their own mind, objectively. I'm not God. I don't have the right to turn around and say 'that's a load of s***. I'm censoring it." If Ortolan wants to contribute to making this project a success, they need to show some respect for other opinions. As I say, dispute it, challenge it, add in balance. But don't do a nazi job and just censor that you don't like, just because you disagree with it. JTD

 * I didn't take it off because I disagreed with it, I took it off because I wasn't ready at that moment to do all the work it would have taken to fill in all the context around Irving to make his letter understandable. No one made me god, but the Wikipedia allows me to take things out and allows you to put them back and allows me to come back and say other things.  Why don't you put in Irving's letter to the Times and then you can figure out a way to put it in context.  It's a waste of time to denounce me if you won't do the work to make things the way you want them. I have Richard Evans's book here before me.  I have read it through once and worked through several of the other sources on the Irving trial and I have been working up some material on both Irving and the Dresden bombing for the Wikipedia.  Irving is the source of most of the misunderstanding about Dresden and he is a very clever propagandist so I felt that leaving his letter in place while I did research was a bad idea.  If you want to be the one to put Nazi propaganda in place without supplying any further understanding, go right ahead, but I think my plan is better.  And, while we are talking, I also wrote several articles on strategic bombing, and, particularly, the strategic bombing survey that could also use some help.  The treatment of strategic bombing in the Pacific war is basically a stub and could certainly use some work, since the deaths in Japan from the firebombing of Tokyo and the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were far far worse than the Dresden attacks.  As for my contributions to Wikipedia, please see my user page or check Recent Changes on most days.  Maybe I shouldn't have removed the Irving link, but I had what I thought were sound reasons for doing so and I'm glad this has come up to encourage me to continue demolishing the fraudulent "historian".  Best regards, and have a good wikipedia, Ortolan88 15:19 Nov 30, 2002 (UTC)

 * By the way, here's the summary comment when I took the Irving link out:
 * "remove possible holocaust revisionist external references, someone more knowledgeable should check, see talk page"
 * Then I went to the talk page and noted what I had done and why I had done it. Doesn't seem all that arrogant to me.  Ortolan88 PS- Don't call me a Nazi, thanks.

 * Sorry for just breaking in. Heres two photos:

 * http://www.elephant.se/zoos/germany/dresden/images/dresdenbombat.JPG

 * Dresden bombed. Evidence: bombed buildings, and statue.

 * http://www.elephant.se/zoos/germany/dresden/images/kremering.jpg

 * About 6 500 people were cremeted next day on the "Altmarkt" market square, out from a total estimation of apr. 35 000 vicitms. Statues as evidence.

 * According to my files; An area of 15 square kilometers was totally destroyed, among that: 14 000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals,19 churches, 5 theaters, 50 bank-, and insurance companies, 31 department stores, 31 large hotels, and 62 administration buildings. Swedish, and such, fighter for truth. user:Dan Koehl

Some pictures should be posted on the page Marco

Marco, can you explain some of your edits? Why did you remove the reference to RAF briefing notes and the given motive for bombing Dresden? Why did you remove the reference to Rotterdam and the fact that Dresden was used as a propaganda tool by the Germans? Also, I read through your links above supporting the 135,000 number. None of them give a source for their numbers - unless you can cite a primary source (which exists, at least, for the 25,000 number) which gives some justification for this estimation, I don't see a reason to keep that number around. As a final note, I don't think it's necessary to insult people. You'll find that if you approach people with courtesy, 99% of the people here will be willing to give your point of view respectful consideration. If you approach people with insults and anger, 99% of people will return the same. Just some advice, take it or leave it. Graft

The number 135,000 is both from Colymbia encyclopedia and Encarta encyclopedia - I dont know the other sources, but I doubt they would put a random estimate. If the number is not known (and it is obviously disputed) then it is reasonable to put a range which is widely accepted. If you want to put a discussion about it (citing other figures - 25,000 or 250,000 or whatever) it is OK with me, but I really find it in bad taste to concentrate the whole article on licitations about the number of dead. The RAF briefing note I removed by mistake, and insult is a reaction to what that person did - for a widely circulated figure he said the sole source is Irving. Do what you want with the article, but it seems that I am not the only one who find licitations with numbers repulsive.

Marco
 * I think Ortolan was clearly mistaken about the source for the larger figure (which I think he assumed to be 250,000) to be Irving - I don't think Irving has ever said 135,000 dead. But I don't think a mistake warrants insult, especially not when someone is working together with you on a project - and if you come in with the attitude that everyone is working against you, that's going to end up being the case, because no one will want to work with you (and your attitude).
 * At any rate, it may be disrespectful to the dead, but this is an encyclopedia, and the number of dead is an important thing to note (accurately) in an article about a bombing campaign.
 * Regarding Encarta or Columbia - either and both may be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time. This is why it's better to rely on primary sources than on secondary sources. We shouldn't say that "Encarta said X, so it must be okay." This is the fallacy of appeal to authority, and it is to be avoided. This is why I say, if we can't find a primary source for the 135,000 number, it should not be included, and in general it is better, rather than merely giving a range of numbers, to give estimates and the reasons behind them. I'll try to hunt around for where it came from. Graft

Encarta and Columbia are legitimate sources, if not primary, and they prove the fact that figures are widely circulating. They were not used by me as appeal to authority, but as answer to your question about the sources. Your attempt of intimidation is also some sort of a fallacy I would say. And that is what you constantly do - your insistance on a primary source for instance, branding widely available not only as unreliable, but as some sort of dogmatic etc. The principle of finding true figures, reliable sources etc. is something perfectly worth praise, in principle. But the trouble is, that there isnt such scrutiny given to everything, and there is a heavy bias in what questions are being researched and where we care more about figures and where we care less about exact figures. I personaly believe that more conservative figures are always more likely, and I will give you an example from what I know about number of people killed in my country - it was inflated after the war so to get greater compensations from the Marshal plan. There are sources, by historians which support the figures, but then there are interviews done many years later with them admitting how this was done and why was done etc. And that is not about Jews, not about Germans, but about my own country (which lost 1.7 million people, according to those figures which I now do not know what to think of). So, does it really matter? How much of research is out there and what is to be trusted and what not. What I am very much against is selective scrutiny and selective research into figures - suppose you put such question about 6 million killed Jews in WWII. You would imediately be branded a neonazi - everyone would ask about your motivation etc. But if you ask for sources about number of dead in Dresden, thats perfectly OK. Thats what I am against. What if there is no reliable research into upper limit of those killed in Dresden? Should we just keep the lower numbers? The figures which are available now - from the number of dead citizens etc. - can give a lower limit, not the upper one - who can account for all the refudges who were killed in those 3 days, for instance? No historians were there to do a bodycount, and I come from a part of the world where licitacions with figures, innaccuraces and lies have all to often been used to intimidate and manipulate population. That is why I have such a doubt about all the figures, and do not think they serve any other purpose BUT to manipulate, twist and stretch the truth. Insisting on sources here and not insisting somewhere else is a grave injustice, especialy in a subject where reliable research is almost impossible - if it was possible imidiately after the war, no one was there to do it. No one cared about number of killed Germans, and insisting on primary sources is not only unjust, but absurd. How do you know that 800,000 people were killed by Mongols in Baghdad in 1258? Is that a Mongol propaganda, a random estimate of contemporary historians, or what?

As for your friend, who has been insulted - well you said yourself that the one who insults people should be prepared for the same. And implying that someone does not name his source because the source is actually a neonazi, is not a simple mistake, but a filthy insult and attempt of intimidation (which you both seem to like), and when I see such a thing I would not only warant someone a right to answer, but answer to it myself.

Marco
 * The fact that a figure is widely circulating does not mean we should believe it - by this logic, I should be a Christian, since the belief in the divinity of Christ is widely accepted around here. This is why I insisted on primary sources.  :Personally I would rather give my attention to Dresden than to the Jewish Holocaust, which gets far more attention from other quarters, but this doesn't mean I wish to be inaccurate in doing so. But in any event, while it's true that you would probably be called a holocaust denier if you gave evidence for revising down the estimate of the number of Jews killed by the Nazis, I don't think this means we should be less accurate in other areas to keep up with the (hypothetical) inaccuracy in the Holocaust figures (which are probably far more closely scrutinized in any event). And as to Orotolan (who is not my friend), he, at least, has given justification for his claim - he demonstrated that it was Irving who first gave the figure of 135,000 which has been picked up and repeated after him. If you believe otherwise, then you could show where that 135,000 figure came from. If this is going to be a scholarly endeavor and not just a collection of hearsay and gossip and conjecture, then we need to hold ourselves to higher standards. So, Encarta is not good enough.
 * As to inaccuracy, I agree - there are many confounding factors in the estimates. We can do our best by making clear what the confounding factors are. We should not simply ignore them just because it is difficult to know the truth. Graft

I was not "clearly mistaken". The source for the following is ''Lying about Hitler: History. Holocaust and the David Irving Trial'' by Richard J. Evans, Basic Books, 2001. pp 150 ff. Evans is a professional historian of World War II retained to prove that Irving was a holocaust denier after Irving sued Penguin Books and claimed he was not. Irviing lost his case, ignominously, in part based on Evans' evidence.

I would prefer not to write this up myself now since various people have made various (baseless and insulting) accusations about my motives. However, Irving did publicize the 135,000 figure in the 1963 edition of his book and upped his estimate to 202,040 and speculated that as many as 250,000 may have died. I will be looking forward to seeing this information included in future versions of this article. In the meantime, I am going to work on an article about Irving himself and his trial (at which, in one moment, he forgot himself, and called the judge "Mein Führer") and leave Dresden to other hands.

In his book The Destruction of Dresden, Irving relied on information from Hans Voigt, a schoolmaster who had been put in charge of collecting records and personal effects of the dead and missing four days after the attacks. Voigt's office had four filing systems for identifying the dead:> The total dead identified and officially reported by Voigt was approximately 40,000. This matched closely the figure of 39,733 arrived at by Georg Feydt, a Dresden civil defense official who wrote in 1953.
 * garment cards, clothing samples marked ast to date, location, etc. total 12,000
 * miscellaneous personal belongings
 * bodies identified by personal papers
 * wedding rings

Direct quote, p. 151, detailing how Irving came up with the 135,000 figure:
 * "However, Irving did not accept the 40,000 as the actual figure because Voigt had told Irving that he himself 'estimated the final number would have been 135,000.' In 1963, Irving was reported to have explained: 'The Germans simply struck off the first digit to make the figure more acceptable to the Russians, who contended that Bomber Command was not a powerful weapon.'  In other words, he apparently thought that the Russians wanted to reassure the citizens of the Eastern bloc that Western bombing was not very dangerous.  There was no evidence for this supposition.  Voigt wrote to Irving as early as September 1962, blaming the amendment on 'Dresden officials' (especially the then mayor Walter Weidauer), who 'reduced the figure out of fear of the "Big Four," so as not to speak ill of them.'  This did not seem to me [Evans] to be a particularly strong motive.  The Russians were not involved in the bombing of Dresden.  At the height of the Cold War, the would have had every incentive for inflating the figure, so as to put the Western Allies in a bad light.  Yet Irving repeated the claim in 1995."

Back to paraphrasing. Weidauer, the former Communist mayor, stated that the death register was still extant in the Town Hall, gave 31,102 deaths, a number that matched exactly the "street books", which counted the dead according to the streets and houses where the dead were found.

Direct quote, op. 152: "Irving could only sustain the figure of 135,000, therefore, by relying on a postwar speculation which he must have known was shaky and was discounted by most other writers on the raid, with good reason. "

Back to paraphrase, after first editions of his Dresden book came out in 1963, Irving claims to have received a copy' of an SS document, Order of the Day no. 47, dated March 22, 1945, which  claimed to be an extract from another document by the Police President of Dresden.

Direct quote again, p. 152,, "Irvings's copy of the report, besides detailing other physical damage, bput the final death-toll at 202,040 and experessed the expectation that the figure would rise to 250,000 by the time all the victims had been recovered. Irving gave the document full prominence in the English edition of 1966 and the Geerman edition of 1967, and reproduced it in both as an appendix.  This, then, was the source of his frequently repeated upper estitmate of 250,000."

Back to paraphrase. Earlier, Irving had dismissed this same document as a forgery, but withdrew his skepticism and built his new edition of the Dresden book around it. What he had was not a document, according to Evans, "It was merely a carbon copy of a typed-up transcript of another typed-up transcript of an extract from an unknown document, unauthenticated by any distinguishing marks such as a signature or an official stamp of any description. Had it not contained information congenial to his purposes, Irving would doubtless have had little hesitation in dismissing it as inauthentic."

Back to paraphrase, Irving sought to bolster the document by stating, in a letter to his publisher, "The figures originate with the then deputy Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Max Funfack,.  Therefore the dead of Dresden need in future no longer be guessed.  They are precisely counted and they were 202,040 in all."

Dr. Funfack, however, demurred, after these statements appeared in the German press. He stated he was never a medical officer of the city, only a urologist in a hospital, had been present at only a few burials, and had no special knowledge of the number of deaths, or of the provenance of the Order of the Day.

Irving continued to claim that Funfack had received the document in the course of official duties despite his repeated denials.

Evans then tells of the circulation of the 250,000 figure in the Nazi magazine Das Reich and of Irving's repeatedly ignoring any evidence that contradicted that large number. Finally, Evans reports on the very document that the Order of the Day purported to be quoting, the final report of the Police President of Dresen, dated March 15, 1945, which stated: "Until early 10.3.1945 established: 18,375 fallen, 2,212 badly wounded, 13,718 slightly wounded, 350,000 homeless and long-term requarterered."

Irving ignored this document as well and went ahead with publication, but backed down within a few weeks afterwards. Evans presents considerably more detail, but I hope that I have convinced any fair-minded person that my changes to this article were done in good faith and that my efforts to make this article accurate were sincere,   Ortolan88
 * I'm convinced (not that I wasn't before), and I apologize for the 'clearly mistaken', since it seems you weren't. I think somewhere around here the link to Irving's backing-down letter (where he acknowledges the 18,375 figure and bumps it up to ~25,000 total dead) is kicking about.
 * So, four numbers:
 * 40,000 from Voigt
 * 18,375 from the police report
 * 31,102 from the death register
 * 39,733 from Georg Feydt
 * 135,000 and above from Irving and the Nazis.
 * I think it's fair to write it up like so, and I'm sorry for the insults to yourself. Graft

-

Of course, this article should be as accurate as possible, and the article should turn to credible sources to produce those numbers. But, that being said, in term of the human and moral dimensions of what happened in Dresden, I am having a hard time seeing the difference between 35,000 and 135,000. Is the firebombing of Dresden somehow less of a case of massive human carnage if "only" 35,000 people died? It's not like anyone is debating WHETHER any carnage took place (there are no "Dresden deniers" that I know of); all that is being debated is whether it was a) a REALLY lot of people who were killed, or b) a REALLY REALLY lot of people who were killed. I guess it seems to me that it is easy to lose perspective on thi subject. That doesn't mean, as I said, that we shouldn't strive to be accurate, but I just think that we shouldn't lose sight of other aspects of this event. Anyway, that's my two cents worth. soulpatch
 * Does it matter, then, whether 600,000 people were killed in the Holocaust, or 6 million? In either event, it's a really large number of people. Or how many were killed by Stalin? 12 million? or 20? Is Stalin any less of a criminal for having killed "only" 12 million people? No... but is the point of this encyclopedia to point out Stalin's criminality? I don't think so. Our job is to get the facts down, as best as we can get them. Many Americans seem to think 3,000 innocent Afghani lives is an okay price to pay to smash up al Qaeda, but maybe they wouldn't think so for 30,000. Rather than making people's judgements for what is an "acceptable" number of people brutally massacred by sadistic bombing campaigns, we should just try to be accurate, and let them decide for themselves. But, that said, I agree, there's more important things to consider, and I've already wasted too much time arguing about this damn number. Graft

 * I agree with Soulpatch that it is all dreadful, but also with Graft that we should not forget the context.  The 20th century was a century of mass slaughter, the trenches in World War I, the mass starvation in the Soviet Union, the purges and the Gulag of the Soviet Union, the murder of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and "defectives" by the Nazis, the impact of our "unconditional surrender" policy on German, particularly Berlin, the Japanese depredations across Asia and the Pacific, the hundreds of thousands killed by the US in fire and atomic attacks on Japan, the famines of Africa (keeping in mind that famines almost always have political causes), and on and on.  We have a lot of slaughter to document and it is incumbent that we keep a neutral point of view and as much accuracy as possible, on a subject on which it is hard to be neutral and which the perpetrators do everything they can to keep the facts covered up.   Ortolan88 17:01 Dec 1, 2002 (UTC)

 * I tried in my earlier comment to make the point that we should strive to be as accurate as possible, so on that point I agree with both of you. I just think that it is easy to get bogged down in details without seeing the forest for the trees.  soulpatch

I don't think we are here to do historical research, but to report on what is known. Reporting about what estimates are there is perfectly OK and in accordance with the basic NPOV policy - reporting what people SAY about a contraversial issue, not trying to judge who is right. Johans

Removed for debate: He was never held accountable for breaches of Geneva convention or war crimes.

about the General who ordered the airstrike. The Geneva Convention on civilians in wartime wasn't written until 1949. I haven't read the earlier ones to know what would apply to this action. Did anyone accuse him of war crimes or violating Geneva Conventions at the time? To say that he was never held accountable implies that he did do something wrong but that is not clear that he did in the context and laws of the times. --rmhermen

 * I removed the line and just used the phrase war crimes - since you never got a response.... Martin

There are reports that even civilians fleeing the firestorm engulfing Dresden in February 1945 were strafed by British and American aircraft.

 * I seem to remember reading somewhere that allied aircraft mistook allied POWs on the ground for being German civilians and shot them up too. If anyone can confirm this please add.

Btw, the higher casualty estimates don't sound unreasonable. The lower estimates would require there have been only one death per dwelling in the central city, which seems unlikely. --

(This is not the case at all: My father took part in the bombing of Dresden as a navigator with the RCAF - under Butcher Harris. The bombing of Dresden was easily the most defining moment in his life, he was troubled immensely by having taking part and sent back medals that he had received during the war.  Dresden was a nightmare he lived every day.)

I think you should all read...
I think that anyone who is interested in the Dresden Firebombings should read Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five and the children's crusade. It is amazing. I read it for a project in highschool.

Vonnegut Pwns.

Vonnegut = 1337

title: Talk:Bombing of Dresden/Archive 1


text: User talk:66.99.49.226

title: User talk:66.99.49.226


text:
Talk:Super Bowl XXXVI

Untitled
I thought I heard that the NFL had a different Super Bowl logo planned, but scrapped it for this "patriotic" one after September 11th. Does anyone else know if that is true, or better yet, know what the other logo was? --Feitclub 17:54, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Ha, that is very weird. I actually edited the article to include that tidbit, and THEN I looked at this discussion page, and that was posted!

Yes, that is true. It is very hard to find a picture of the original logo online. I did manage to see it once, but it wasn't in color, it was on a collectible coin.

It was pretty lame anyway, it was much like the logo from the previous New Orleans Super Bowl.

Wow, who managed to find the logo and post it? I had scoured the entire net extensively for it once and all I manged to find was a small image of it on a collectible coin, like the other poster said.

Well, after seeing it in full color, I'm glad it was changed. Talk about garbage.

Actually, Dr. Pepper made a few 2-liter bottles with the old XXXVI logo. I remember seeing it a few years back. COOLRUNNER87 (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Halftime Show
Whoever keeps changing the setlist needs to watch the DVD. The middle song between "Beautiful Day" and "Where The Streets..." was NOT "Pride (In the Name of Love)!" It was "MLK," which is off the same album (Unforgettable Fire) as "In the Name...". That might be the reason for the confusion. —Lanway 23:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Final Play
Quoting the article:

Under "Game Summary"

 * Vinatieri's game-winning kick sailed through the uprights as time expired, marking the first time in Super Bowl history that a game had been won by a score on the final play.

Under "Trivia"

 * This game is one of three Super Bowls to be decided on the last play of the game, the other was Super Bowl V.

Sigh..... 3, 2 or 1? KriZe 16:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the third one might be XXXVIII, but I'm not sure if "kicked the winning field goal with 4 seconds left" counts as the last play of the game. 66.192.83.65 21:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You're correct. Super Bowls, V and XXXVI were decided on the last play of the game with last second field goals. The field goal for Super Bowl XXXVIII did indeed pass through the uprights with 4 seconds left, although in most people's memories, the kick was assumed to be the last play of the game. Interestingly enough, Adam Vinatieri's game-winning kick in Super Bowl XXXVI actually passed through the uprights with about 3-4 seconds left, but the NFL chose to let the clock expire after the kick. This wasn't disputed by any of the Rams' personnel because the likelihood of running back a kickoff was very low. I remember this very vividly because I was at that game; and I remember a very dramatic atmosphere that the NFL wanted to preserve by letting the kick be the last play of the game (it was the first Super Bowl held after the 9/11 attacks, and the NFL had changed the theme of the game from one of festivity to one of patriotism). However, they've obviously held to their stringent rules since then.

But I digress. There are technically only TWO Super Bowls that were decided on the last play of the game, though you could include XXXVIII knowing what I just told you, or one considering that there really were about 3-4 seconds left to play in XXXVI that the NFL chose to let expire. LOL, sorry if I confused anyone even further! Shabeki 04:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

ģ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.34.140.189 (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Catherine Bell Trivia
I corrected the trivia section on Catherine Bell's page on the 14th. Today I found an anonymous editor (83.20.196.131) had reverted my change and added the incorrect trivia here. I'd be happy to see the correct trivia here, but I used two references, and when I copied my correction from the Catherine Bell page to here, this old reference system kept them from showing up. If anyone wants to add the correct trivia (Catherine Bell predicted the winner and score, but after the teams playing had been announced), please so do. Enuja 00:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Who put this in?
Look what I found in the Trivia section...

"Alot of people speculate whether the game was fixed and the Patriots won due to the 9-11 attacks.[citation needed] There was still time on the clock when the kick went through at the end of the game (albeit not much, maybe a kick return and hail mary) yet everyone just hurried off the field no complaints. Patriots Owner Bob Kraft even exclaimed that night "Tonight we are all Patriots!" In a very Red, White and Blue filled post game celebrating. The Patriots winning 2 of the next three Super Bowls have quieted alot of the conspiracy theorists out there but some still remain."

What do we do about it? WAVY 10 15:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Sort of reminds me of Fringe theories. If there are no references, then feel free to revert it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, that is the most poorly written paragraph I've seen on Wikipedia (thankfully it's been gone a while)). Second, it's completely bogus. Back in the 2001 season, there was an NFL rule which resulted in a 5 second run-off after field goals were made. That's why the clock kept running. It was supposed to keep running. The game was over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PowerSurge1000 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Individual Leaders
Who is Montel Herring? He links to a dead page and he wasn't part of the partriots. Also, the statistics for Kurt Warner, Tom Brady and Montel Herring (Changed from Troy Brown) were all changed to outrageous statistics on Jan. 6th. Tom brady did not go 60 for 77. These should all be reverted and/or corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.176.109 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Rams season review
There is no actual evidence that changing from Dick Vermiel to Mike Martz caused the Rams to perform poorly in 2000 as compared to 1999. That should not be mentioned in the section without a specific citation.174.73.5.74 (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Super Bowl XXXVI. 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/20140204053347/http://news.janet-xone.com/2002/02/janet-was-first-choice-to-play-super.html to http://news.janet-xone.com/2002/02/janet-was-first-choice-to-play-super.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051202063839/http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/superbowl/ to http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/superbowl/

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) 15:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Superdome
hey 2601:205:C301:2AD0:2092:7B1D:755:D824 (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Patriots taping Rams controversy
I believe the controversy of Patriots takings Rams practice should be included. 47.197.29.160 (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Super Bowl XXXVI


text:
Compact Oxford English Dictionary

Compact Oxford English Dictionary may refer to:

 * Compact Editions of the Oxford English Dictionary, the full text of the OED photographically reduced to fit in one or two volumes
 * Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English, a single-volume general-purpose dictionary

title: Compact Oxford English Dictionary


text:
Battle of Ortona

The Battle of Ortona (20–28 December 1943) was fought between two battalions of elite German Fallschirmjäger (paratroops) from the German 1st Parachute Division under Generalleutnant Richard Heidrich, and assaulting Canadian troops from the 1st Canadian Infantry Division under Major General Christopher Vokes. It was the culmination of the fighting on the Adriatic front in Italy during "Bloody December". The battle was known to those who fought it as the "Italian Stalingrad," and as "Little Stalingrad",  for the brutality of its close-quarters combat, which was only worsened by the chaotic rubble of the town and the many booby traps used by both sides. The battle took place in the small Adriatic Sea town of Ortona (Abruzzo), with a peacetime population of 10,000.

Background

By late 1943, the Allies did not intend the entire Italian campaign to win the war but only to remove Italian troops from other areas of Europe, divert German forces from France and reduce the strength of the German army; the D-Day invasion was already in the planning stages for the following spring or summer. As one source indicates, "By dividing Nazi forces between several separate fronts, the Allies would prevent Hitler from striking a deadly blow at the USSR or from concentrating an invincible army along the coast of Normandy".

The British Eighth Army's offensive on the Winter Line defences east of the Apennine mountains had commenced on 23 November with the crossing of the river Sangro. By the end of the month, the main Gustav Line defences (the major part of the Winter Line) had been penetrated and the Allied troops were fighting their way forward to the next river, the Moro, 4 mi north of the mouth of which lay Ortona. For the Moro crossing in early December the exhausted British 78th Infantry Division on the Allied right flank on the Adriatic coast had been relieved by the 1st Canadian Infantry Division, under the command of Major-General Christopher Vokes. By mid-December, after fierce fighting in the cold and mud, the 1st Canadian Division's 1st Infantry Brigade, under Brigadier Howard Graham, had fought its way to within 2 mi of Ortona and was relieved by Brigadier Bert Hoffmeister's 2nd Infantry Brigade for the advance on the town.

Some historians indicate that Ortona was of high strategic importance, as it was one of Italy's few usable deep water ports on the east coast, and was needed for docking Allied ships and to shorten Eighth Army's lines of supply which at the time stretched back to Bari and Taranto. Allied forces were ordered to maintain the offensive, and going through the built-up areas in and around Ortona was the only feasible option. Ortona was part of the Winter Line defence system and the Germans had constructed a series of interlocking defensive positions in the town. This—together with the fact that the Germans had been ordered to "fight for every last house and tree" —made the town a formidable obstacle to any attacking force.

Other historians, including Rick Atkinson, assign lesser importance for Ortona. He quotes Field Marshal Albert Kesselring who said, "We do not want to defend Ortona decisively .. but the English have made it appear as important as Rome"; General Joachim Lemelsen, the temporary commander, replied, "It costs so much in blood, it cannot be justified". Nonetheless, the Allies believed it would be merely a minor battle and proceeded with the plan; the Germans then rose to the occasion, holding the town with great determination.

Battle
The Canadians faced elements of the German 1st Parachute Division. These soldiers were battle-hardened after many years of war, and defended doggedly.

The initial Canadian attack on the town was made on 20 December by Canadian 2nd Brigade's Loyal Edmonton Regiment with elements of The Seaforth Highlanders of Canada under command. Meanwhile, elements of the division's 3rd Infantry Brigade launched a northerly attack to the west of the town in attempt to outflank and cut off the town's rear communications but made slow progress because of the difficult terrain and the skillful and determined German defence. On 21 December 1943, the Loyal Edmonton Regiment and the Seaforth Highlanders entered Ortona, assisted by the tanks of the Three Rivers Regiment, part of the 1st Canadian Armoured Brigade, under Brigadier Robert Andrew Wyman.

Mouse-holing

The Germans had concealed various machine guns and anti-tank emplacements throughout the town, making movement by armour and infantry increasingly difficult. The house-to-house fighting was vicious and the Canadians made use of a tactic that had previously infrequently been used: "mouse-holing". This tactic involved using weapons such as the PIAT or cumbersome Teller anti-tank mines to create a large aperture in the wall of a building, as houses within Ortona shared adjoining walls. The soldiers would then throw in grenades and make their assault through the mouse holes, clearing the stairs to the top or bottom floor with grenades or machine guns; they would follow to reach any adversaries and struggle in repeated close-quarters combat. Mouse-holing was also used to pierce through walls into adjoining rooms, sometimes catching enemy troops by surprise. The tactic would be used repeatedly as assaulting through the streets caused heavy casualties for both Canadian and German troops.

Mouse-holing also allowed the soldiers to progress through the town, building by building, without entering the streets where they would face enemy fire. While some sources attribute the strategy to the Canadian forces, a British training film of 1941 had already illustrated the concept. The Canadians were certainly early, effective and courageous users of the technique. Throughout the battle, engineers on both sides also used the brutal but effective tactic of using demolition charges to collapse entire buildings on top of enemy troops.

On 28 December, after eight days of fighting, the depleted German troops finally withdrew from the town. The Canadians suffered 1,375 dead during the Moro River battles of which Ortona was one part. This represented almost a quarter of all Canadians killed during the entire Italian Campaign. Other sources placed Canadian casualties as high as 2,300 (including 500 dead) before the town was won for the Allies.

The battle has been examined post-war for lessons in urban fighting, drawing upon articles. A detailed online account exists.

Destruction
The Canadians destroyed the dome on the church of St Thomas in the town centre using tank fire, to prevent it being used for spotting. On Christmas Day the Allies (who had by then occupied a smaller church), were ordered to destroy both the cathedral and the civilian hospital, but this was largely avoided.

Legacy

Ortona was successfully liberated but the month would be considered as "Bloody December" by Canadian forces because of the numerous casualties in and around the town. As well, over 5,000 Canadians were evacuated due to battle exhaustion and illness. In addition to the Canadian losses, the German 1st Parachute Division and the 90th Light Infantry Division (Wehrmacht) also suffered numerous casualties.

The contribution made by Canadian troops was summarized as follows by Major General Christopher Vokes in his report on the Ortona offensive: "We smashed the 90th Panzer Grenadier Division and we gave the 1st German Parachute Division a mauling which it will long remember". Nonetheless, after the war, the significance of the battle in Ortona was minimized by others such as Rick Atkinson, perhaps because it did not have a significant impact on winning the war.

In November 2000, the Government of Canada erected a plaque at the Piazza Plebiscito in Ortona, in recognition of the battle as a National Historic Event of Canada that "symbolized the efforts of the Canadian Army in the Italian Campaign during World War II". The plaque reads as follows: "In early December 1943 the 1st Canadian Infantry Division and 1st Canadian Armoured Brigade began their most savage battle of the Italian Campaign. In the mud and rain troops attacked from the Moro River to Ortona. Then, from house to house and room to room there raged a ferocious battle against resolute German defenders. With extraordinary courage the Canadians prevailed, and just after Christmas finally secured the town".

Military cemetery
1375 Canadian soldiers are buried at the Ortona Canadian Military Cemetery south of Ortona.

title: Battle of Ortona