text:
Charles Oakley

Charles Oakley (born December 18, 1963) is an American former professional basketball player. Oakley played most of 19 seasons in the National Basketball Association with the New York Knicks. As a power forward, he consistently ranked as one of the best rebounders and defensive players in the NBA. He also played for the Chicago Bulls, Toronto Raptors, Washington Wizards, and Houston Rockets. Since 2017, he has been the coach of the Killer 3's of the BIG3.

Early life
Charles Oakley was born December 18, 1963, in Cleveland, Ohio, where he was raised. Oakley attended John Hay High School, where he excelled in basketball.

College career
Oakley attended Virginia Union University, a Division II historically black university in Richmond, Virginia. As a senior in 1984–85, Oakley led Virginia Union to the 1985 NCAA championship. The Panthers had a 31–1 overall record that year, with Oakley averaging 24 points and 17.3 rebounds a game. Oakley was named the NCAA Division II Player of the Year. He scored 2,379 points and grabbed 1,642 rebounds in his college career.

Chicago Bulls (1985–1988)
Oakley was drafted with the 9th overall pick in the 1985 NBA draft by the Cleveland Cavaliers, but his draft rights were traded to the Chicago Bulls, alongside Calvin Duncan, for Ennis Whatley and Keith Lee. Oakley provided another scoring option and steady offensive and defensive performances to an up-and-coming Bulls squad led by Michael Jordan. On March 15, 1986, Oakley set a career high in points scored with 35, during a 125–116 loss to the Milwaukee Bucks. Oakley was selected as a part of the NBA All-Rookie First Team in 1986.

Oakley also assumed the role of the team "enforcer", whose duty primarily was to protect young Jordan against cheap shots and roughhousing tactics of opposing players. He was given the nickname, "Oak Tree", for his rugged demeanor and no-nonsense attitude. On April 26, 1987, Oakley set a postseason career high with 25 points scored, alongside grabbing 15 rebounds, in a loss to the Boston Celtics.

New York Knicks (1988–1998)
With the drafting and development of Horace Grant, the Bulls traded Oakley to the New York Knicks for 7'1" center Bill Cartwright. Oakley eventually became a part of the core which the Knicks built around, which also featured Patrick Ewing, John Starks, Anthony Mason and point guard Mark Jackson.

During the Knicks' 1994 season, which included a record 25 playoff games, Oakley started every regular season and playoff game for a record 107 starts in a single season. On June 1, 1994, Oakley scored 12 points, grabbed 13 rebounds and recorded 7 assists in a Game 5 loss to the Indiana Pacers in the Eastern Conference Finals. The Knicks eventually won that series. The following round, during that year's NBA Finals, Oakley averaged 11 points and 11.9 rebounds per game in a tightly contested seven-game series loss to the Houston Rockets.

On March 11, 1998, Oakley grabbed a season high 22 rebounds in a loss against former teammate Anthony Mason and the Charlotte Hornets. Despite regular season success and consistent playoffs appearances, the Knicks did not return to the Finals again during Oakley's tenure. During his time with the Knicks, Oakley was known across the league for being a defensive specialist and outstanding rebounder.

Toronto Raptors (1998–2001)
In 1998, Oakley was traded by New York to the Toronto Raptors, alongside Sean Marks, for blossoming star Marcus Camby. For the Raptors, he provided a veteran presence to a young team that included Vince Carter and Tracy McGrady. On January 7, 2001, Oakley set a career high with 6 blocks, and also narrowly missed a triple-double with 12 points, 10 rebounds, and 7 assists.

Return to Chicago (2001–2002)
In 2001, Oakley was traded by the Toronto Raptors with a 2002 2nd-round pick to the Chicago Bulls for Brian Skinner. This was his second tenure with the Bulls. Starting 36 of his 57 played games, he averaged 3.8 points per game, 6 rebounds per game, and 2 assists per game.

Washington Wizards (2002–2003)
In 2002, Oakley signed as a free agent with the Washington Wizards, where he was reunited with former teammate Michael Jordan. Oakley played 42 games during the 2002–03 season, averaging 1.8 points per game, 2.5 rebounds per game, and 1 assist per game.

Houston Rockets (2004)
The 2003–04 season was Oakley's last season. On March 18, 2004, Oakley signed the first of two 10-day contracts with the Houston Rockets. Oakley played only 7 games, in which he averaged 1.3 points per game, 0.7 rebounds per game, and 0.3 assists per game. At the end of the season, Oakley retired from the NBA.

In 2007 Oakley was reported to be attempting an NBA comeback, at age 44. He claimed Dallas, Miami, Cleveland and New York were interested, but said he would "not [come] back cheap".

Coaching and businesses
On December 26, 2010, Oakley was hired as an assistant coach for the Charlotte Bobcats under then-head coach Paul Silas.

He left that position on December 1, 2011, after experiencing health issues with back pain, during the 2010–11 season.

Oakley owns several commercial enterprises, including:
 * Hair Solutions and Nails EtCetera in east Cleveland, Ohio, "salons started with seed money from Oakley and run by his sisters"
 * Oakley's car wash, oil change, and detail centers in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn and Yonkers, New York
 *  Oakley's Wash House, a combination car wash and laundromat Oakley founded in east Cleveland, Ohio, overseen by his sister Carolyn and mother Corine
 * Red, The Steakhouse, restaurants in Cleveland, Ohio, and South Beach, Miami, Florida

Legacy
Oakley was inducted into the Virginia Sports Hall of Fame and Museum in honor of his 19-year professional basketball career. The induction ceremony was held on April 30, 2016.

In September 2016, a portion of Deering Street in Oakley's hometown of Cleveland (near his alma mater of John Hay High School) was renamed Charles Oakley Way in his honor.

He was inducted into the CIAA Hall of Fame in 2005 after his career at Virginia Union University.

Career highlights

 * He placed in the top ten in rebounds per game five times between 1987 and 1994 (second in 1987 and 1988).
 * Due to his durability he actually placed in the top ten in total rebounds 6 times and led the league in total rebounds twice (1987 and 1988).
 * In 1994, he became an NBA All-Star and was chosen to the league's All-Defense 1st team.
 * Oakley currently ranks 25th all-time in NBA games played with 1,282 games, and 22nd all-time in career rebounds with 12,205 rebounds.

Personal life
Back in 2011, Oakley filed a lawsuit against the Aria Resort and Casino in Las Vegas, alleging a group assault by five security guards employed by the casino on May 28, 2010.

On July 30, 2016, Oakley married his wife Angela Reed.

Madison Square Garden arrest
On February 8, 2017, Oakley was involved in an altercation at Madison Square Garden as the Knicks faced the visiting Los Angeles Clippers. According to the Knicks, Oakley was ejected from the arena after he is alleged to have yelled at James L. Dolan, the Executive Chairman of Madison Square Garden and MSG Networks, and refused to stop, an allegation he denies. There were also accounts of him hitting a security guard in his face and shoving another guard before being dragged away from the game and handcuffed. He was charged with three counts of misdemeanor assault and criminal trespassing. In a statement, the Knicks stated that Oakley "came to the game tonight and behaved in a highly inappropriate and completely abusive manner. He was ejected and was then arrested by the New York City Police Department."

In response, Oakley claimed that he sat down in his seat and he saw the Knicks owner James Dolan look at him and within four minutes he was being asked to leave the arena. He says that he didn't become combative until he was asked to leave for no apparent reason. While admitting "I shouldn't have put my hands on anyone," Oakley disputed the Knicks' rendition of events in an interview with ESPN's The Undefeated, which reported that Oakley says he "never said a word to Dolan" and "was minding his own business when he was confronted by Madison Square Garden Security, who asked why he was sitting so close to Dolan before demanding that he leave the building."

On February 13, 2017, NBA legend Michael Jordan and NBA commissioner Adam Silver met with both Dolan and Oakley at NBA headquarters. Oakley and Dolan both apologized for the fallout and both were currently negotiating a truce. "Both Mr. Oakley and Mr. Dolan were apologetic about the incident and subsequent comments, and their negative impact on the Knicks organization and the NBA," Silver said. The statement says Dolan hopes Oakley can return to MSG as his guest in the near future. On February 14, 2017, the ban from Madison Square Garden was lifted. On September 12, 2017, it was reported that Oakley was filing a civil lawsuit over the incident. As of February 2022, the suit was still in litigation, according to Oakley.

Oakley later retorted on March 11, 2019, that Dolan is someone who tries to bully everyone because he has money and power as an owner of the Knicks, quoting that "it doesn't make sense." He also admits he has very little reason to hold any reconciliation with Dolan, noting his relationship with the Knicks was frayed before the incident occurred (though he still bought himself tickets for Knicks games a few times each season before the incident), while also saying nothing was really resolved from his meeting with Adam Silver. Oakley further notes the incident caused a damaged relationship with the team, to the point where the possibility of his jersey being retired was in jeopardy. This all came out after Dolan threatened to ban a fan from the arena for yelling at him to "sell the team" a few days prior.

title: Charles Oakley


text:
Heinrich (crater)

Heinrich is a small lunar impact crater on the Mare Imbrium, a lunar mare in the northwest quadrant of the Moon's near side. It was named after Czechoslovakian astronomer Wladimir Wáclav Heinrich. It is a circular, bowl-shaped formation very similar to many other craters of comparable size on the Moon.

Heinrich lies to the southwest of the prominent crater Timocharis, and was previously designated as Timocharis A before being given its current name by the IAU. It is otherwise a relatively isolated formation with only a few tiny satellite craters of Timocharis located nearby.

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

title: Heinrich (crater)


text:
University of Wales, Newport

The University of Wales, Newport (Prifysgol Cymru, Casnewydd), was a university based in Newport, South Wales, before the merger that formed the University of South Wales in April 2013. The university had two campuses in Newport, Caerleon on the northern outskirts of the city, which was subsequently closed during July 2016, and a £35 million campus on the east bank of the River Usk in Newport city centre which opened in 2011. In 2012 the university was ranked 111th out of 120 UK universities in the Guardian League Table for university rankings, 105th out of 116 in The Complete University Guide and 104th out of 116 UK universities in the Times Good University Guide.

History
Newport had been involved in higher education since 1841. Originally a mechanics' institute, set up to provide further education for workers and tradesmen, it was based in Newport's Town Hall on Commercial Street. Working men and women were able to attend a variety of lectures for two shillings per quarter to study subjects including "The Pursuit of Attainment and Knowledge" and "Popular Superstition".

The institution was later formed as Gwent College of Higher Education by a merger of the Caerleon College of Education (the former Monmouthshire Training College), the Newport College of Art and Design and the Gwent College of Technology in 1975. All three former institutions had established regional and national reputations, most notably the College of Art with many of its students gaining commissions from the BBC and other major organisations in light of the college being among a select number of art colleges in the country awarded Diploma in Art and Design status.

The college became an affiliated institution of the University of Wales in 1992, being admitted as a university college in 1996 where there was a ceremony at which trumpeters of the Prince of Wales's Division played a fanfare from the top of the university clocktower and balloons were released in the faculty colours.

In May 2004, the University of Wales College, Newport secured Privy Council approval to use the title University of Wales, Newport, as a full constituent of the federal university.

On 1 August 2011, the university was restructured, creating two new faculties, each containing three schools:

The Faculty of Arts and Business
 * School of Design, Engineering, Fashion and Technology
 * School of Film, Photography and Digital Media
 * Newport Business School

The Faculty of Education and Social Sciences
 * School of Education
 * School of Humanities and Lifelong Learning
 * School of Sport, Health and Applied Social Sciences

The Centre for Community and Lifelong Learning (CCLL) continued to be based in Tredegar and focused on the university's work to widen participation within the Heads of the Valleys and the wider Gwent region. CCLL was also a key deliverer of the UHOVI (Universities, Heads of the Valleys Institute) project in partnership with the University of Glamorgan and Further Education Colleges.

Notable dates

 * 1841 Opening of Mechanics' Institute, Newport
 * 1872 Classes in Art and Science begin under the Free Library Committee
 * 1882 New building opened in Dock Street, Newport
 * 1886 Teacher training classes begin
 * 1891 Newport Technical School opened
 * 1898 New premises opened at 24 Bridge Street. Separation of Art Department and Science, Technology & Commerce. Two Heads appointed.
 * 1899 Clarence Place land bought from Lord Tredegar
 * 1909 Foundation stone laid at Clarence Place
 * 1910 Newport Technical Institute opened at Clarence Place
 * 1912 Foundation stone laid at Caerleon Training College
 * 1914-18 First World War One: 12 Caerleon students killed in the war
 * 1915 Schools of Art and Science, Technology and Commerce combined under a single principal
 * 1919 Newport Technical Institute renamed "The County Borough of Newport Technical College and Institute"
 * 1923 Ordinary National Certificates offered for the first time
 * 1934 Name changed to "Newport Technical College"
 * 1938 Higher National Certificates offered for the first time
 * 1939 – 45 Second World War: college used for troop lectures and evacuees. 19 Caerleon students killed in the war.
 * 1940 – 41 Classes run by Ministry of Labour
 * 1950 Board of Governors given more power to run Caerleon College of Education
 * 1958 Opening of Newport and Monmouthshire College of Technology which later became the Allt-yr-ynn campus. Closure of Newport Technical College. Clarence Place continued as Newport and Monmouthshire College of Art.
 * 1962 Female students admitted to Caerleon College of Education for the first time
 * 1975 Colleges merge to become "Gwent College of Higher Education". Four new faculties created.
 * 1985 New Art and Design building opens at Caerleon campus
 * 1987 First degree ceremony is held at Newport.
 * 1992 Fire at Caerleon campus
 * 1992 GCHE leaves Gwent County Council control.
 * 1994 Student Village opens at Caerleon campus
 * 1995 GCHE granted taught degree awarding powers
 * 1996 GCHE formally changes to University of Wales College, Newport
 * 2003 Becomes a full Constituent Institution of the University of Wales and is renamed the University of Wales, Newport.
 * 2007 Kegie building opens on the Caerleon campus.
 * 2011 Newport City campus opens after a £35 million investment.
 * 2011 Allt-yr-ynn campus closes.
 * 2012 Vice-chancellor, Peter Noyes, resigns his post and was replaced from 1 May by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Stephen Hagen, who was appointed as Acting Vice-Chancellor, to lead merger talks.
 * 2013 Merger with the University of Glamorgan to form the University of South Wales on 11 April 2013.
 * 2016 Caerleon campus closes.

Proposed "merger"
Along with the University of Glamorgan and Cardiff Metropolitan University, it was proposed by the Welsh Government that the University of Wales, Newport merge to create a single post-92 university in South East Wales.

The plans proved to be highly controversial, with Cardiff Metropolitan opposing any merger, citing the lack of a business case, concerns that the new institution (which would be the largest campus university in Britain) would simply be too big to manage properly, and the 'predatory' attitude of Glamorgan. Newport, however, welcomed the plans, providing they created a genuinely new institution. Professor Stephen Hagen, appointed Acting Vice-Chancellor by the Newport Board from 1 June 2012 to lead the merger upon the sudden resignation of Dr Peter Noyes, circulated a proposal for the new university to focus on entrepreneurialism, generating start-ups, equipping students with entrepreneurial skills and supporting the industries of South Wales, a concept which was initially well received by the Minister's Office.

In July 2012, Newport and Glamorgan announced talks to create a new University for South Wales, citing the opportunity to: "build on their respective strengths to develop a new, entrepreneurial model of higher education across south Wales". The university was dissolved on 11 April 2013 absorbed into University of Glamorgan and renamed University of South Wales.

In response to Cardiff Metropolitan's opposition to its involvement in any merger plans, Leighton Andrews (a strong proponent of mergers ) threatened to forcibly dissolve Cardiff Metropolitan and hand its assets over to the new university formed by Glamorgan. Cardiff Metropolitan still demanded more evidence before committing to further talks and, in November 2012, Leighton Andrews withdrew a consultation on plans to force a merger.

City campus
The university opened a new £35 million campus in Newport's city centre formally on 10 January 2011. The project was a collaboration between the university, Newport City Council and the Welsh Assembly Government operating through Newport Unlimited, the urban regeneration company for the city.

The campus is situated on the western side of the River Usk in the city centre and it was the first phase of an intended £50m development for the university. It housed the Faculty of Arts and Business whilst the Caerleon campus housed the Faculty of Education and Social Sciences. The campus was part of a major redevelopment of Newport city centre. The old city campus at Allt-yr-yn was closed and demolished.

Reputation
The university had been involved in higher education since 1841. In 2009, it was rated the number one university in Wales for enterprise education by the Knowledge Exploitation Fund.

The School of Film, Photography and Digital Media taught a documentary photography degree programme as well as housing the Newport Film School, founded by John Grierson in 1966 and producing many award-winning film-makers since then.

The 2010 CILECT Congress (the international association for film and television schools) unanimously voted in Newport Film School as a full member – only two of the ten new applicant schools for full membership were given this accolade.

Facilities
The accommodation facilities on the Caerleon campus consisted of 661 rooms with a choice of standard or en-suite facilities. En-suite halls were arranged into flats of five rooms whilst the standard halls had approximately 15 residents per floor. Bedrooms were centrally heated and equipped with furniture, whilst hall kitchens were equipped with standard kitchen appliances.

The university had a sports centre housing a large sports hall, a gym/fitness suite and outdoor pitches and courts. The university library was open seven days a week and computer suites were open 24 hours a day.

Students' Union
Newport Students' Union was the union representing all students at the university. From the moment students enrolled they were automatically a member of the Students' Union. It was intended that for every year of every course there should have been at least one course representative. The union was run day-to-day by a team of sabbatical officers – students who were taking an extra year or year out from their studies to develop the union. Alongside this sabbatical team full-time and part-time staff were employed to assist in the operation of the union and part-time officers, team captains, society presidents and student managers who all worked alongside their studies to assist the union.

Newport Students' Union provided a range of sports teams, societies and entertainment for students to get involved in. The union also housed a newspaper (NewsPort), magazine (newtwo), TV station (NTV) and radio station (Radio Noize), all of which students managed and ran.

As well as weekly social events and club nights, the union organised Freshers' Fortnight, Freshers' Fayre, Re: Freshers Week, RAG (Raising and Giving Week) and the May Ball which has previously had headline acts including Supergrass, Girls Aloud, Electric Six, Scouting for Girls, The Zutons and Feeder.

Notable alumni
(View University of South Wales for further alumni )
 * Christopher Chung Shu-kun, BBS, JP, a member of Hong Kong Legislative Council
 * Roger Cecil
 * Ken Elias (born 1944), artist
 * Tom Gately, writer, director and cameraman
 * Harry Greene, television personality
 * Paul Groves (born 1947), poet
 * Philip John
 * Kirk Jones, director
 * Natasha Rhodes, science fiction author
 * Asif Kapadia, film director
 * Scott Barley, filmmaker and artist
 * Justin Kerrigan
 * Jon Maguire songwriter and former member of the duo Lilygreen & Maguire
 * Tracey Moberly
 * Teddy Soeriaatmadja
 * Ian Watkins, former singer in the rock band Lostprophets; convicted sex offender
 * Green Gartside, the frontman of the band Scritti Politti
 * Helen Murphy, author
 * Bernard Baldwin, MBE, founder of the Nos Galan road race

title: University of Wales, Newport


text:
Pulaski Day Parade

The Pulaski Day Parade is a parade held annually since 1937 on Fifth Avenue in New York City to commemorate Casimir Pulaski, a Polish hero of the American Revolutionary War. The parade runs from 35th to 54th Streets passing by St. Patrick's Cathedral. It is held on the first Sunday of October and closely coincides with the October 11th General Pulaski Memorial Day, a national observance of his death at the Siege of Savannah. The parade features Polish dancers, Polish Supplementary schools and organizations, Polish soccer teams and their mascots, scouts of the Polish Scouting and Guiding Association, and Polish Government ambassadors and representatives.6

The Parade was first held in 1937. Its founder was Francis J. Wazeter, president of the Downstate New York division of the Polish American Congress. There was no parade in 1942 nor 2020.

It is one of the oldest ethnic parades in NYC.

title: Pulaski Day Parade


text:
Edward Shuter

Edward Shuter (c. 1728–1776) was an English actor.

Life
Shuter was born in London to poor parents. He made his first appearance on the London stage in 1745 in Cibber's Schoolboy.

He made a great reputation in old men's parts. He was the original Justice Woodcock in Love in a Village (1762), Hardcastle in She Stoops to Conquer (1773), and Sir Anthony Absolute in The Rivals (1775).

He was buried in St. Paul's, Covent Garden.

Portraits
His portrait as Scapin is in the Mathews collection in the Garrick Club; another portrait by Zoffany was engraved by Finlayson.

title: Edward Shuter


text:
Lucas David

Lucas (or Lukas) David (1503 - April 1583) was a German historian, who from ca. 1550 on compiled extensive volumes on Prussian history.

Life
David was born in Allenstein (Olsztyn), Royal Prussia, Poland, to Gerhard Dönhoff. He studied at the University of Leipzig, where he also received a Magister degree. Despite having converted to Protestantism, he served as the chancellor of Bishop Tiedemann Giese between 1540 and 1549. After Giese received the Diocese of Warmia, David joined the ducal court of Albert, Duke of Prussia, in Königsberg (Królewiec) (today Kaliningrad) in 1549, taking his oath on 26 March 1550.

Albert commissioned a work on the history of Prussia, mainly to counter the - in his view - biased Polish and Catholic works. However, he was only able to produce a recent history of Prussia before he died. His son, Albert Frederick, however, continued the efforts, and instructed David to compile a history of Prussia. This was also supported by various social classes, which believed that the Polish histories belittled Prussian achievements. Hence David researched documents of Prussian history, and started to write his Prussian Chronicles ("Preußische Chronik") from ca. 1575. While David utilized large parts of the work of Simon Grunau, he also frequently corrected errors by Grunau.

David married a wealthy widow in Leipzig. He instituted scholarships at the University of Leipzig, mainly for poor students from his hometown.

Before David was able to complete his chronicles, he died at Königsberg in 1583 at the age of 80. The chronicle ends with the events preceding the Battle of Grunwald (or Tannenberg) in 1410; other sources state that his works extend till 1475. His works were largely unknown to his contemporaries, and were re-discovered only around 1720, with another 100 years before their first publication in the years between 1812–17 in eight volumes. Since then he has become well known past the borders of his homeland for these Prussian Chronicles. He is ranked as a 'modern' historian, as he based his studies on historical sources.

The Prussica-Sammlung Trunz started by another Allenstein native, Dr. August Trunz (1875-1963), contains works by David. It is housed in the library of the University of Münster.

Works

 * Hennig, Ernst (ed): Preussische Chronik. - Königsberg : Haberland, 1.1812 - 6. 1814

Literature

 * Udo Arnold: Studien zur preussischen Historiographie des 16. Jahrhunderts. Bonn 1967 (Diss.)
 * W. Hubatsch: Lucas David, der Geschichtsschreiber seiner Zeit. In: Erwin Nadolny: Südostpreußen und das Ruhrgebiet. Rautenberg & Möckel, Leer (Ostfriesland) 1954
 * A. Mentzel-Reuters: Von der Ordenschronik zur Landesgeschichte. Die Herausbildung der altpreußischen Landeshistoriographie im 16. Jahrhunderts. In: Klaus Garber und Manfred Komorowski (Hrsg.): Kulturgeschichte Ostpreußens in der Frühen Neuzeit (Frühe Neuzeit, Band 56). Tübingen 2001, S. 581–637, ISBN 3-484-36556-0
 * E. Maschke, E.: Die ältere Geschichtsschreibung des Preußenlandes. In: Erich Maschke (Einl.), Walther Hubatsch (Hrsg.) und Udo Arnold (Bearb.): Scriptores rerum Prussicarum. Band 6, 1968, S. 1–21
 * H. Schmauch: Über die Arbeitsmethoden und Quellen des Lucas David. In: Prussia. Band 29, 1931
 * Max Toeppen: Geschichte der Preussischen Historiographie von P. v. Dusburg bis auf K. Schütz, oder: Nachweisung und Kritik der gedruckten und ungedruckten Chroniken zur Geschichte Preußens unter der Herrschaft des deutschen Ordens. Berlin 1853, Nachdruck: Walluf bei Wiesbaden 1973.

title: Lucas David


text:
Huernia

The genus Huernia (family Apocynaceae, subfamily Asclepiadoideae) consists of perennial, stem succulents from Eastern and Southern Africa and Arabia, first described as a genus in 1810.

The flowers are five-lobed, usually somewhat more funnel- or bell-shaped than in the closely related genus Stapelia, and often striped vividly in contrasting colors or tones, some glossy, others matte and wrinkled depending on the species concerned. Frequently the flowers are colored a variation of red, yellow or brown. To pollinate, the flowers attract flies by emitting a scent similar to that of carrion. The genus is considered close to the genera Stapelia and Hoodia. Phylogenetic studies have shown the genus to be monophyletic, and most closely related to the genus Tavaresia, and to a widespread branch of stapeliads comprising the genera Orbea, Piaranthus and Stapelia.

The name of the plant is in honor of Justus van Heurne (1587–1653?) a Dutch missionary, botanist, and doctor, who is reputed to have been the first European to document and collect South African Cape plants. His surname has variations (van Horne, Heurnius, van Heurnius), however it was misspelled by the plant collector.

Various species of Huernia are considered famine food by the inhabitants of Konso special woreda in southern Ethiopia. The local inhabitants, who call the native species of this genus baqibaqa indiscriminately, eat it with prepared balls of sorghum (kurkufa); they note that baqibaqa tastes relatively good and has no unpleasant side-effects when boiled and consumed. As a result, local farmers encouraged it to grow on stone walls forming the terraces, where it does not compete with other crops.

Species
The following species of Huernia are found in Africa (East Africa, South Africa and Ethiopia) and Arabia (Saudi Arabia, Yemen). • Huernia anagaynensis Plowes

• Huernia andreaeana (Rauh) L.C.Leach

• Huernia archeri L.C.Leach

• Huernia asirensis Plowes

• Huernia aspera N.E.Br.

• Huernia baradii Plowes

• Huernia barbata (Masson) Haw.

• Huernia blyderiverensis (L.C.Leach) Bruyns

• Huernia boleana M.G.Gilbert

• Huernia calosticta Bruyns

• Huernia collenetteae Plowes

• Huernia concinna N.E.Br.

• Huernia delicata Plowes

• Huernia × distincta N.E.Br.

• Huernia engleri A.Terracc.

• Huernia erectiloba L.C.Leach & Lavranos

• Huernia erinacea P.R.O.Bally

• Huernia foetida Plowes

• Huernia formosa L.C.Leach

• Huernia guttata (Masson) Haw.

• Huernia hadhramautica Lavranos

• Huernia hallii E.Lamb & B.M.Lamb

• Huernia hislopii Turrill

• Huernia humilis (Masson) Haw.

• Huernia humpatana Bruyns

• Huernia hystrix (Hook.f.) N.E.Br.

• Huernia keniensis R.E.Fr.

• Huernia kennedyana Lavranos

• Huernia khalidbinsultanii Plowes & T.A.McCoy

• Huernia kirkii N.E.Br.

• Huernia laevis J.R.I.Wood

• Huernia lavranii L.C.Leach

• Huernia leachii Lavranos

• Huernia lenewtonii Plowes

• Huernia levyi Oberm.

• Huernia lodarensis Lavranos

• Huernia loeseneriana Schltr.

• Huernia longii Pillans

• Huernia longituba N.E.Br.

• Huernia lopanthera Bruyns

• Huernia macrocarpa (A.Rich.) Schweinf. ex K.Schum.

• Huernia marnieriana Lavranos

• Huernia mccoyi Plowes

• Huernia namaquensis Pillans

• Huernia nigeriana Lavranos

• Huernia nouhuysii I.Verd.

• Huernia occulta L.C.Leach & Plowes

• Huernia oculata Hook.f.

• Huernia pendula E.A.Bruce

• Huernia piersii N.E.Br.

• Huernia pillansii N.E.Br.

• Huernia plowesii L.C.Leach

• Huernia praestans N.E.Br.

• Huernia procumbens (R.A.Dyer) L.C.Leach

• Huernia pulchra Orlando & El Azzouni

• Huernia quinta (E.Phillips) A.C.White & B.Sloane

• Huernia radhwana Plowes

• Huernia recondita M.G.Gilbert

• Huernia reticulata (Masson) Haw.

• Huernia rosea L.E.Newton & Lavranos

• Huernia rubra Plowes

• Huernia rubrosticta Plowes

• Huernia saudi-arabica D.V.Field

• Huernia schneideriana A.Berger

• Huernia similis N.E.Br.

• Huernia somalica N.E.Br.

• Huernia stapelioides Schltr.

• Huernia sudanensis Plowes

• Huernia tanganyikensis (E.A.Bruce & P.R.O.Bally) L.C.Leach

• Huernia thuretii J.F.Cels

• Huernia transvaalensis Stent

• Huernia urceolata L.C.Leach

• Huernia verekeri Stent

• Huernia volkartii Werderm. & Peitscher

• Huernia whitesloaneana Nel

• Huernia witzenbergensis C.A.Lückh.

• Huernia yemenensis Plowes

• Huernia zebrina N.E.Br.

moved to Angolluma
 * formerly included
 * Huernia sprengeri now Angolluma sprengeri

title: Huernia


text:
Heis (crater)

Heis is a small lunar impact crater that is located in the western part of the Mare Imbrium. It was named after German astronomer Eduard Heis. It is located to the northeast of the crater Delisle, and south of C. Herschel. Due east is the wrinkle ridge Dorsum Heim. Heis is a circular, symmetrical formation with an interior floor that is about half the diameter of the outer rim. The tiny satellite crater Heis A intrudes slightly into the northern rim.

Satellite craters
By convention these features are identified on lunar maps by placing the letter on the side of the crater midpoint that is closest to Heis.

title: Heis (crater)


text:
Murfatlar

Murfatlar is a town in Constanța County, Northern Dobruja, Romania. It officially became a town in 1989, as a result of the Romanian rural systematization program.

Etymology
The name of the town originates from the Turkish word of Arabic origin murvet (meaning "generous man").

Between 1921 and 1965, and from 1975 to 2007, the locality was known as Basarabi. On June 26, 2007 the lower house of Romania's Parliament, the Chamber of Deputies, approved a proposal to have the name changed back to Murfatlar, which was also ratified by the Senate and promulgated by the president of Romania on December 20, 2007.

Administration
Murfatlar is a port on the Danube–Black Sea Canal and has a population of 9, 173 as of 2021. A complex of caves was found carved in the hills nearby, see the Basarabi Cave Complex.

The village of Siminoc (historical name: Turc-Murfat) is administered by the town of Murfatlar. The name of the village comes from the flower Helichrysum arenarium (siminoc in Romanian), which can be found abundantly in the area.

The Murfatlar Vineyard and Basarabi Cave Complex are located nearby.

Demographics
At the 2021 census, Murfatlar had a population of 9,173. At the 2011 census, the town had 9,634 residents; of those, 8,657 were Romanians (89.86%), 547 Tatars (5.68%), 236 Roma (2.45%), 134 Turks (1.39%), 9 Hungarians (0.09%), 3 Aromanians (0.03%), 16 others (0.17%), and 32 with undeclared ethnicity (0.33%).

Natives
Murfatlar is the birthplace of the 4th Romanian president, Traian Băsescu.

title: Murfatlar


text: File:Airbag - How Am I Driving? (Radiohead EP - cover art).jpg


text:
Talk:Timeline of Shakespeare criticism

Introduction by
I created this article today as a spin-off from Shakespeare's reputation, which is getting long. Please add to it, especially at both ends! It's fairly fat around the middle, but at this moment it only goes from 1668 to 1841. If possible, please also complement each addition with an e-text link.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 19:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tolstoy on Shakespeare
When the article is brought up to date with more recent historical periods, Tolstoy's opinion should be mentioned. See Tolstoy as cited, e.g., by George Orwell in his essay, found at http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/leartolstoyfool.html :

... [Tolstoy] saying that throughout life Shakespeare has aroused in him ‘an irresistible repulsion and tedium’.

Tolstoy had (much) more to say about Shakespeare. But that is a good starting point.

To List, or To Prose?
Should this article really be a simple list of quotations? Wouldn't it be better to turn it into a "real" article discussing critical commentary over the years? There certainly should be enough material out there for this, and then we'd avoid requests for deletion or suggestions to move it to WikiQuotes. --Xover (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

List of quote with no commentary would be ideal.Mantion (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

 * WP:NOTCATALOG: If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote.
 * WP:RSPRIMARY: Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. Proeksad (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Harold Bloom
I think adding a couple of quotes from Harold Bloom would improve the article. Wouldn't you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BombaMolotov (talk • contribs) 07:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say go ahead. Don't make them too lengthy, though, or we run into copyright problems. Short attributed quotations are fine. There seems to be a school of thought that the style of this article (all quotations) isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. However I wouldn't worry about that too much either: if that argument does prevail the chances are the contents of this page would be "transwiki'd". AndyJones (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bleh. It's a start, I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BombaMolotov (talk • contribs) 08:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Jean-Claude Carrière?
I move to delete the Jean-Claude Carrière reference. Is he really going to stand in for the past decade of Shakespearean criticism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.42.225.242 (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

POV, where is the criticism
for an article named CRITICISM, where exacly is the criticism? massive overhaul is needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.101.102 (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

 * I agree with you, 109.225.101.102, there is no criticism. Maybe it should be renamed Timeline of views on Shakespeare.Fcbbminiestadi (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you may be misunderstanding the article's title: it refers to literary criticism, not "negative views of Shakespeare". --Xover (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the problem is that it's a collection of mostly positive quotes, without commentary or context. Pope, for instance, didn't just praise Shakespeare--he also rewrote many of Shakespeare's lines, because he didn't like them. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Timeline of Shakespeare criticism


text:
Talk:Second Battle of Ypres

Question
Question: the bit about the Canadian soldiers and the urine-soaked handkerchiefs confuses me, in that chlorine says that bleach mixed with ammonia or urine produces chlorine gas, which is toxic, etc. How does adding urine to chlorine gas produce the reverse reaction? I don't understand the chemistry involved. grendel|khan 19:52, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 * Its not a reversal as such, rather different reactions as liquid bleach is not simply chlorine in water. Off the top of my head, the chlorine will react with ammonia producing hydrogen gas, nitrogen gas and hydrogen chloride. The hydrogen chloride, being very acid then neutralises itself with the base ammonia or other chemicals in the urine. There would actually be hundreds of simultaneous reactions going on as urine is chemically complex but it boils down to the the very reactive chlorine reacting with chemicals in the urine before it gets a chance to get to the lungs and react there. Just for the record I think if you add ammonia to liquid bleach (aqueous NaCLO) although some chlorine will be released, via chloramines, much would end up as NaCL or good old table salt. NB don't try that at home to check - the reaction could be quite energetic to say the least and if not kept cool you'd likely get some chlorates which can be VERY explosive not to mention the corrosive and explosive gasses. --LiamE 20:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Attacker
Who was the offender in this battle, and who was defending the town?

 * Germany was attacking, Allies(Canada & England) defending. It was the last major German offensive on the Western Front until Verdun in 1916 and the last offensive directed against the British until 1918. Geoff/Gsl 10:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The British, Belgians and French were defending. Canada wasn't a country then, it was part of the British empire. Keith-264 (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry but that is incorrect. Canada became a nation on July 1st 1867. Regards. Deeds before Words (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps but according to the Canadian Supreme Court it didn't become a sovereign state until the 1920s.Keith-264 (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Indian Involvement
The casualties list 58,000 Indian lost but the content of this article does not mention their role in this battle. If there are Indian units operating in this battle, what is their strength?
 * 1 (mostly) Indian division - The Lahore Division - fought at the battle. This could have meant maybe 20,0000 men taking part. The 58,000 figure you mention coincides closely to the combined 'British' losses. Indian losses would have made up a portion (perhaps an eighth or so) of that figure. --LiamE 15:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask this question, too. The Lahore Division is mentioned in the intro paragraph, but I removed the link, as it went to a political subdivision of present-day Pakistan. My question is: were the troops primarily Indian, Pakistani (moot then, but petinent today — mostly Hindu, or mostly Islamic) or British (caucasian) colonists from south Asia. This makes a huge difference when describing 20 K soldiers. From this battle alone, the Lahore Division merits its own article clearly listing its composition (volunteer and/or conscript Indian, Pakistani, and/or volunteer/conscript British living in India). My personal bet (based on practice at the time) is South Asian troops with caucasian British officers, but I have no references to back that up.

As well, I just listed the Algerian colonial troops as their own contingent in the campaign box. Surely Pakistani/Indian troops should also be listed as well, albeit under a UK flag icon appropriate to the era. Surely, just on a NPOV basis, equal credit to should be given Arabic and South Asian colonial troops as is given to Newfoundland colonial troops. Suggestions? Esseh 07:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The subject of colonial soldiers in ww1 and 2 is not yet covered in wikipedia? It will be an interesting topic for years to come. I think the research in the years 50 and 60 pointed out indians eg. suffered greatly in several battles of the ww1 war. nr's over 50000 don't sound impossible in that context. Would not it be possible to trace at what speed colonial forces have been transported to europe? It is my impression that what got to french soil was all deployed (and generally used up in the proces), more so before '18 ('17?). You might say the scorn for human lives was mirrored by the racist values. I would not at all be surprised if the number of indian victims in this single battle exagerated the nr of canadese by a factor of 5 or so. I think that has also been reported, that in several single battles whole indian(or otherways colonial) divisions got largely whiped out. It's somehow awkward that there is no resolute information of either side of the former colonialist administrations to clear up this.77.251.179.188 10:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

NINAD

 * The British never introduced conscription in India, and so all the Indians of whatever caste or race in the Indian Army would have been volunteers. None of the non-white British colonies had conscription in either World War.

 * As for being treated any differently from other British divisions, I think you'll find that the 'British' ones were suffering being 'wiped out' to a far greater extent than those of the Indian Army. It was 'normal' for the state of trench warfare as it then was.

 * .. and during WW II over 2,000,000 Indians of all races and creeds volunteered for the Indian Army which rather goes against any suggestion of British 'racism' don't you think. And if you are lucky enough to meet an ex-British Indian Army soldier still around at this late date try asking him how they were, and see what sort of a reply you get. Most were justly proud to have fought for Britain and India, and the rest of the Empire. And if he's got any medals he'll be delighted in showing you them.

 * Times have changed since independence in much of the ex-empire, but don't go putting your current-day beliefs into judging people from the past. Britain treated her colonial soldiers on the whole just as well - or badly - as she treated her own white soldiers, and when working alongside each other there was little if any friction or racism to be found between them, most respected and liked each other as fighting men - unlike some other colonial regimes. You don't get people willing to fight and die for each other if they don't have mutual respect and regard for each other.

 * Oh, and my Grandfather, a white Englishman who attended Rugby School, was a professional soldier who served in India in the thirties and later fought in Burma, and his Indian troops and Ghurkas loved him as much as he loved them, and were willing to die for him, and when necessary, proved it. He himself did not come back from Burma and is now in the New Delhi Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemetery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.208.91 (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Headline text
''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.238.151 (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Tirailleurs Sénégalais
I learned recently through my modern African history class that the Senegalese rifles (I guess this would be the French Colonial troops) were also involved in this battle, fighting somewhere close to the Canadian troops. Unfortunately I don't have much information on there involvement, or a source outside my lecture.. I'll look into adding to the article later perhaps, I have to study.. Basser g 03:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See if you can find Melzer's work, The Mise-en-Scene of the Tirailleur Sénégalais on the Western Front, 1914-1920, in ''Borderlines, Genders and Identities in War and Peace 1870-1930.
 * Also, in French Civilization and Its Discontents: Nationalism, Colonialism, Race By Tyler Edward Stovall, Georges Van den Abbeele, page 302 has them at the Somme, The Aisne, and the Chemin des Dames.
 * Also check Charles Onama, La France et ses tirailleurs: Enquête sur les combattants de la République

Good luck,LeadSongDog (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

-I added a quote from the journal of a soldier in the Queen Victoria Rifles during the battle, Anthony R. Hossack. He described the French Colonial Troops fleeing the site of the gas attack towards the rear lines. One French troop was stopped at gunpoint by an officer in Hossack's unit and questioned about his cowardice, only to succumb to the effects of the gas and fall to the ground before the officer. This first hand account demonstrates the confusion, naiveté, and utter chaos that was a result of the new usage of poison gas during the second battle of Ypres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.1.71.219 (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality
I've just tagged the article. large sections seem to be written from a purely Canadian point of view despite them being minor players overall in the battle. --LiamE 01:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The Canadians held the line during the gas attacks, the French and their colonial troops having succumbed to the gas. This is a well known fact, and built Canada's reputation as shock troops. Why pick this article to whine about neutrality? The article was probably written by Canadians, simply because it is important to them, historically. Just as other articles are written by nationals who take an interest in their nation's past.

If you have something to add, then add it. But don't denigrate a nation's military accomplishments with insults of "being minor players". But I'll be generous, and assume you're in Will Roger's latter group, pissing on the electric fence, as you seem neither to have read about this topic, nor, obviously, observed it.

Really sensitive of you to post this nonsense so close to the 90th anniversary re-dedication ceremony of the Canadian National Vimy Memorial. Go play some cricket, and leave fallen heroes in peace.

Taken from CBC Archives: http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-71-2425-14165/conflict_war/firstworldwar/:

On April 24, 1915 the Germans used chlorine gas against the Canadian First Division at the Second Battle of Ypres. With the wind in the German’s favour, anything short of a full retreat would have put the Canadians in the path of the gas. Realizing the only fresh air was at the German line, the Canadians pushed forward, breathing through water- or urine-soaked rags as makeshift gas masks. (It was believed that the ammonia in the urine would neutralize the chlorine.)

The Canadians held their ground until they were reinforced by British troops a day and a half later. The battle earned the Canadian forces great respect, though it came at a cost of some 6,000 men, and ended in a stalemate.

Hardly "minor players", as you say.

-- Does it have a Canadian perspective? As it stands yes, and any contributions to expand it from the other national groups would be very useful to see. Anyone? I would be interested, I'm Canadian...

I can assume that the author is not only Canadian, but is likely a member of the "The Calgary Highlanders" Army Reserve Regiment which perpetuates the 10th Battalion CEF. The counter-attack to the gas attack of April 1915 is the most signifigant battle in terms of the History/mythology of the regiment. I was in that regiment 10 years ago, and I still carry in my pocket a medallion which is endorsed "The Glorious Memory - 22 April 1915". And with a few exceptions since the end of WW1, every year around the 22 of April, there is a formal parade, a church service, and a reunion dinner for the 10th Bn CEF and The Calgary Highlanders all in the name of "The Battle of St. Julien". Perhaps in the greater scheme, it is of minor historical note - but for the soldiers and veterans of the Calgary Highlanders on that day - there is no battle more important. And to that the memory of 1915 is still kept alive today - It can't be denied that is important.

22 April 1915 - The date is a bit of historical regimental curiosity - it refers to counter-attack by the 10th & 16th to the Gas attack - while technically it falls under "the Battle of Gravenstafl" it is always called internally as "The Battle of St. Julien" (which did not officially start until the 24th April.)

--198.166.37.31 05:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

 * You seem to have mistaken my comments on the POV of the article as someone wanting to take a dig at Canada and/or its armed forces. Look what you have yourself written. "Does it have a Canadian perspective? As it stands yes" That is the definition of POV. I totally agree with you that the Canadian input into the battle was important and the content in the article seems to be factually correct but without giving equal weight to the other participants the article as it stand is not neutral, hence the tag and note. You seem to have taken offence of my use of the term "minor player" - well I'm sorry but in terms of man power and casualties they were. That does nothing to belittle their efforts, courage and sacrifice. German losses were c.35,000, French losses were c.10,000, British loses around 60,000 of which about 6,000 were Canadian - ie something less than 6% of the total casualties for the battle. Is the sacrifice of those other young men somehow less important than the Canadian sacrifice?Its not tagged that the Candian info should be cut, it is tagged that the other 94% of the battle be recorded with due diligence. --LiamE 09:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Face it Liam, if the British wrote it, the Canadians would be listed as British troops, as they are in many of their history books, and the contribution forgotten. But, as I said, if you have something to add, then add it to the article. No one will take offense to historical accuracy; only to your number crunching of the Canadians into insignificance.

 * Firstly I am not trying to "number crunch the Canadians into insignificance" just merely trying to get a neutral perspective on it as is required by Wikipedia policy. This is not the place to try and exorcise the demons of previous historical works forgetting Canada by having a massively pro Canadian article here. This article must be neutral. As it stands it it largely about the Canadian efforts of 1 division and largely forgets the other 20(ish) divisions that were there and being killed just as dead and wounded just as badly. That simply isnt neutral. Why would the article becomming more neutral offend you or anyone else? Why does pointing out the number of soldiers involved and casualty figures that are a matter of public record seem make you defensive of Canadian efforts in the battle? Secondly before trying the "if you have something to add" rubbish with me try signing in so we can see how many edits you have made and to what and when. You can easily click on my name and then my contributions and look at the many hundreds of edits I've made. There are people far better placed to write up the French, German, Indian and British (in the modern sense) contributions to the battle than I so I will leave it to them. Lastly, please sign you comments - it makes dicussions much easier to follow. --LiamE 16:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're wondering why Canadians care that others don't write their history, just look what you said: "British loses around 60,000 of which about 6,000 were Canadian." You, yourself, speak of Canadians as British.

But, you are really missing my point. I would be more than happy to see this article filled out by the Germans, and the French, and the British, and the Indians, et al. (Even the Americans, though they weren't there.) No one is stopping them. They just haven't yet. But I'm sure they will. And they should, as the article is incomplete. Again, I'm just wondering what made this particular article stand out to you for a POV, particularly as your main interest on WP is cricket, and perhaps Will Rogers.

I could understand your POV if others had made edits, and the author of the article reversed them to bias the article, but that just isn't the case, is it? What seems to be the case is that you are complaining about the POV on an incomplete article that no one else seems to care enough about enough to expand on, including you, by your own words, except for the, in all probability, Canadian author.

Now, lets discuss you're stated, on record, rationale for a POV on this article, by looking at what you said:

"I've just tagged the article. large sections seem to be written from a purely Canadian point of view despite them being minor players overall in the battle."

First, the way you expressed your sentiments is offensive; don't be surprised when people take offense to them. Second, you argue that a modern Canadian author should not write it because Canada had a minor role, as you claim, in the battle. That's what you say, Liam. So, by your own reasoning, it would be alright if it had, say, a British POV, as they had a major role (at least numerically). That's what it boils down to, Liam. That's what you're saying.

On top of that, it's wrong. The Canadians weren't the only ones gassed that day, but they were the ones who stood their ground. That did not win the day, but it ensured a stalemate did not become a loss. And under circumstances no soldier had ever seen before, as gas was new, and I can only imagine how terrifying. That, my British(?) friend, is a major role, despite their numerical strength. (By the way, a Canadian division was larger than a British division.)

Note: This isn't a macho contest to see who's is bigger, so cut the below BS:

"Secondly before trying the "if you have something to add" rubbish with me try signing in so we can see how many edits you have made and to what and when. You can easily click on my name and then my contributions and look at the many hundreds of edits I've made."

It goes to the heart of my point. That you randomly picked an incomplete article you don't care about to complain. Your unwillingness to correct the situation yourself is evidence to this. "Why don't I add to it?" you ask? Because I'm not the one with the neutrality problem. And why should anyone change anything for you? Are you that full of yourself? You must be, if you pull that "just look at my edits" trash.

Your POV is frivolous and should be rubbished. You are just being impatient with the article's completion. There is no agenda to skew the neutrality of this article. But the original author is not required to bring every editor in for consultation, either.

 * My pov is frivolous and should be rubbished? I have only pointed out that the article needs to include points of view other than Canadian to comply with wiki policy. If you think that is frivolous and should be rubbished good luck to you. Wikipedia's policy entirely disagrees with you. I didn't randomly pick this article to pick on. I read it to learn about the battle and couldn't fail to notice it was nowhere near the NPOV standards required. --LiamE 17:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement doesn't give you the right to deface my commentary, in your last edit. Smarten up.

 * Smarten up? Deface your comentary? Do I detect the keyboard warrior in you coming out? Dear, oh dear. Please enlighten me how I defaced your commentary. I have defaced nothing, my only crime it would seem would be using the word "minor" to describe a manpower commitment of 5 or 6% of the total commited forces - frankly what other word is accurate? Please feel free to let me know how I should have described the unboudtedly heroic but numerically minor Canadian contribution to the battle without using the word minor? And while you are at it, how about signing in before your next "minor" rant? --LiamE 20:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On second looks it seems I accidentally moved some of your comentary - it must have happened whilst scrolling down to the end on a previous entry. That was unintentional and unintended. Sorry for that. --LiamE 20:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Liam. You strike me as an honest fellow, and I knew you didn't do that on purpose. I have a quirky sense of humour, and couldn't resist pulling your leg on that one. ;) My bad. Be well my friend.

 * Hello Liam and unsigned - and the latter, PLEASE add a signature so we can discuss this. I just edited this article in several ways (please both of you check them for accuracy and NPOV). Just to get my POV aired, I am Canadian and a former member of one of the regiments that served in the battle of Ypres. HOWEVER, that does not (and never should) minimise the efforts and sacrifices of the other troops that served and suffered in the battle (including Imperial German troops). To that end, I have added the Algerian contingent (under the then-appropriate French flag, for a colonial contingent) to the campaign box, and am currently seeking the composition of the Lahore Division, to add them under a British flag (appropriate to that era - see discussion in the section above).

 * MY big problem with the whole article is the lack of attribution/references. Claims of who did what/when/where are best substantiated by appropriate historical documentation. That said, it is often difficult to sort out newspaper reports or even official documents of the era, as British sources would list Newfoundland, Canadian and Indian/Pakistani achievements as "British", and French sources would list Algerian and Senegalese (I think they were there) achievements as "French". Can anyone add some real references to this article? In a real NPOV article, the accomplishments (and failures) of any one part would and should stand out from the others, without negating the role of those others. (i.e. the Canadians were unexpected heroes, but without all of those around and reinforcing them, they would have been surrounded and exterminated!) Just my thoughts. Esseh 08:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon reading the article I'm inclined to agree with Liam, the article focuses incredibly indepth on the Canadian perspective, sometimes I think it may be going to far with mentioning how certain divisions were outfitted and honoured.. Perhaps if things like these are to be included they could be included at the end of the article in a separate section so that they do not break up description of the battle as they currently do. Clearly there needs to be more information on contributions which other forces made, if somebody speaks German they could perhaps read the article on the German wikipedia and see if it is any good. Unfortunately my knowledge consists of what I learned in Canadian history class so I am not much use in contributing to other POV. Basser g 20:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article has a Canadian perspective and that it is too cluttered with detail, but remember that the defense (they held with a 4 mile gap in the line) by the Canadians in the first gas attack of the war was the pivitol action (they took the casualties to prove it) of the whole battle and if they failed there we would be talking about the German breakthrough which most likey would have result in the allied armies being cut off, and pieces of them enveloped,which could have led to a German victory in the war. Also keep in mind that knowledge of this battle is taught to every Canadian schoolchild (it is our Alamo, or Thermopylae) and it does not have the same impact to American or British citizens as they have both existed for so long, have had many more wars and battles, or weren't there in the case of the Americans. So it stands to reason the of the people that feel passionately enough about this battle to make an entry would have a large number of Canadians, hence the Canadian perspectives. It was one of the greatest defences in military history and echos in the Canadian heart along with names like Queenstown, Chryslers Farm, Vimy, Passchendaele, Dieppe, Ortona. "We don't retreat, we don't give up ground, and we don't give up any guns." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.210.163 (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny...
I see complaints about the Cdn POV of this article, but when I (a Canadian) tried to put an Algerian flag in the campaign box, it gets removed. Yes, technically at that time Algeria was part of France, but the contribution of Algerian troops is mentioned, and should not be negated. Maybe with a period-appropriate tricoleur? Similarly, I think there should be a mention (and flag) for the Lahore Division, if I could only figure out if they're Indian or Pakistani (again, with period-appropriate Union Jack). Suggestions? Esseh 07:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Lahore division is pretty hard to flag, other than using the Union flag to denote the Britsih Empire. It was a mix of Indian (Including modern Pakistan and Bangladesh), Nepalese, British, Irish etc. --LiamE 13:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Hmm, as for flags I would say that you would have to use the Union Flag for Lahore, and the Tricouleur for Algeria unless those colonies had their own officially sanctioned colonial flag. If you look at Canadian contributions to anything for example before the flag was changed to the maple leaf you would see a Red Ensign... As much as I despise using the old colonial flags it is historically accurate to do so. Despite this it is still relevant, I think, to ensure that when you describe the battle you make sure to distinguish between Canadian and British troops, same with Algerian and French troops. By the way the Sénégalais were there, but I am unsure of their contributions. All I know is from my African history class in which a Canadian was quoted as saying some probably biased quote about all the African troops running away when the gas was deployed.. Some further research is likely needed, I will try to look into it in the future. Basser g 20:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Hi LiamE and Basser g, and thanks. Actually, I had added Algeria with tricouleur before, and someone removed it. As for the Lahore Div., yes, definitely the Union Jack, but I wanted to list the current national affiliation (as NF is). Pakistan, I presume? As LiamE says, they were likely mixed composition (likely with English officers and local recruits, if anything like other colonial contingents), or was the division composed of ethnically-different battalions? As for the comment on Africans "running", I think that was a reference to the Algerian contingent, if I remember correctly. I don't really remember seeing anything (before here) on the Sénégalais contingent, though if they were involved, they should be in the campaign box, too. Esseh 20:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just did it again, but added French West Africa and British India also, now if somebody removes it we can try to compromise.. Perhaps we can put bulleted colonial entries to not undermine the fact that they were colonies... I don't know. As for the Senegalais, I only heard about their contribution through my lecture, it's possible that it's not true but I'd like to think my prof knows what hes talking about :) Basser g 20:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Just realized that British India had a blue ensign, if somebody can find the template for it and add it that would be great I am having some trouble, as for whoever undid Algeria - if you take out Algeria/French West Africa then you have to take out Newfoundland, and Australia as well, (and perhaps Canada as we were only partially independent at this time). Basser g 20:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Found it, nevermind. Basser g 20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Another minor issue, when you click the link on Newfoundland, it takes you to the article on the Dominion of Newfoundland which is the relevant time period, however the flag is their currently unofficial green, white, and pink tricolour, should we be using this flag or should the Union Jack be the flag used? This is obviously a minor issue, but I would still like some input. Basser g 21:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I was rather wondering the same thing. Could we put both? Esseh 22:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Brave Bravo Basser g, for putting in everone's flags - esp. on finding the Blue Ensign. Credit to all there, eh ;) Esseh 03:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (Sorry, my typo.) Esseh 03:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go with the green, white and pink as both the article for the Dominion of Newfoundland and the list of Commonwealth members (former members section) utilize this flag. Basser g 21:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Some histori-chemistry..

 * On another interesting chemi-historical note, I just ran across this reference to a 1908 paper on the reaction of chlorine with urea! I have already added the paper to the article on gas warfare, and am now going to add it to the appropriate sections here. NOT ammonia (as I suspected - there's very little in fresh urine), but urea, which is present in large amounts in urine. Also, have another ref for why chlorine was so deadly. As I suspected, 2Cl2 + 2H2O -> 4HCl + O2. For those less chemically inclined than myself, what it means is that the chlorine gas, when mixed with water (as in the eyes, lungs, etc...) forms hydrochloric acid (muriatic acid). Very corrosive, explaining the tissue damage to the lungs. Comments? Esseh 22:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the other article was Poison gas in World War I... Esseh 22:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, added in, with refs. Hack away ;-) Esseh 22:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well you have the references so you have my support. :) Basser g 21:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks Basser g. Better check again - I've added a few more, with more notes. Esseh 22:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, also nice photo of Scrimger. Basser g 02:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems I may have made a mistake...
Although I would prefer including Algeria and French West Africa, at the very least Algeria was viewed as an integral part of France at the time and was not even a colony.. See the French_Third_Republic for details.. But we could still include colonial specific references within the article itself. I fear however, that it is too historically inaccurate to include Algeria as a combatant, and possibly French West Africa (I will check that now). Basser g 21:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

World view
Help is needed to bring this article to demonstrate a more worldly POV. Anyone who can help contribute to German, British, Australian, Indian, Newfoundlander, or French and their colonial forces roles in the battle would be greatly appreciated. Canada's role has been fairly well defined but it is equally important to ensure all these other groups roles in the battle are portrayed with equal justice. Basser g 21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

 * In reading some more, I think the Belgians should be added as well. They held the left of the Allied line throughout the battle. Curiously, in one history of the Lahore Division I saw, Ypres was not mentioned as one of their battles (though they fought before and after). However, they are mentioned in Gen. French's official report. I'll look into it further. Esseh 22:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've added Belgium, seems pretty obvious that they should be on there considering the battle took place on Belgian soil. Where was the information found related to Australian and Newfoundlander involvement though, I'd like to take a look to see if there is anything on their contribution to the battles. 142.157.197.221 23:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry I wasn't logged in, that was me.. Basser g 23:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand?
If there was Australian involvement wouldn't there also have been New Zealand involvement? I'm fairly sure that throughout the war they fought in unified ANZAC divisions didn't they? Basser g 23:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

He Basser g. I may be wrong, but I do believe the ANZACs were at Gallipoli during 2nd Ypres, weren't they? Esseh 03:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup. 25 April, 1915. Actually, most of the Newfoundlanders were, too, though some were attached to groups in Ypres, I think. Holy crow, I just checked the date. Tomorrow is ANZAC day! Esseh 03:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I checked the "Order of Battle" in Note 1, and the Newfies are not listed. Note 2, however, appears to have mistakenly listed them. They were in Gallipoli, too. I'll take them out. Esseh 03:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, excellent I've been looking at sources for French colonial forces and it seems both tirailleurs algérien et tirailleurs sénégalais were at Ypres (though there are references to "black" troops). I just need to take some time to incorporate the info I found into the article, but I'm not sure I have time right now, I'll do it whenever I get the chance. Basser g 04:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Basser g. Thanks for "flagging" my commanders! I still don't know for sure about the Sénégalais, but there appear to have been Moroccains there. Also, I found some great refs for parts of this article, as well as some trivia. The trivia (maybe in an "outcomes" section): Couple of articles to add there, too.
 * 1) Started the rise of Arthur Currie
 * 2) McNaughton and Crerar also seem to have been there.
 * 3) The myth or fact (likely former) of the crucified Canadian started there, inspiring the statue Canada's Golgotha, displayed after the war and removed after German protests.
 * 4) Despite ref I added, no one seems to know who actually passed the word to "piss on your hankie". Scrimger looked legit - and may be, but Scott doesn't even mention it (even though he mentions Scrimger), and Nasmith doesn't either (doesn't mention Scrimger at all, even though he visited the field station!). Very curious.

For cool refs, I have: Haven't had time to read them all yet, but from what I've seen, they are good. The No.s 2 and 3 were written by men actually there, and No. 4 is a later history. Check them out, tell me what you think. Esseh 06:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) An article in the May 1996 issue of Sabretasche (Vol 26, No 4).
 * 2) An book by The Rev. Canon Fredrick Scott, who was there.
 * 3) A book by Col. George G. Nasmith, C.M.G. - head of a research lab there, and the one who suggested the first real gas masks used after the battle (cotton, impregnated with "Hypo" - sodium hyposulphite, according to No. 4).
 * 4) The full chapter of a book (Trial by Gas; 2nd Battle of Ypres), published by UBC press.

Alright, I'll check out these references as soon as I can, but right now I've got some major studying to do for an exam I have Monday, after that though I am done university for the year so I should be able to contribute some more. I'll get the references I've found for the sénégalais. Basser g 02:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we say this?
..."the first time a non-European force (Canadians) pushed back a major European power (Germans) on European soil." I think the Mongols, Huns (Rome), Moors in Spain, Portugal, Sicily, and Ottomans might disagree. Maybe "the first time a former colonial force..."? Thoughts? Esseh 07:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You could add Hannibal and the Persians to that list too. Its just a bit overstated. I would go with something along the lines "former colonial.." as you suggest. --LiamE 09:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Done. Esseh 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Some photos.
Hello again, all. Found some interesting pics for the article, and thought I'd post them here until we're sure where they can/should go. As they get used, we can delete them from here, and we can add any more we find to the gallery. Sound good? Esseh 22:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, good photos, I'm not the greatest at formatting photos into a page, so I'll leave that to you Esseh. Basser g 02:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I removed the Zoaves - they're now incorporated. Also, I found a ref (and added it) on the composition of the French Colonial Forces. Apparently, they were Algerian and Moroccan. Esseh 20:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Extensive Copying
The section on Kitcheners' woods is essentially a word-for-word copy from the Veterans Affairs Canada website (http://198.103.134.2/remembers/sub.cfm?source=feature/bh_somme2006/bh_youthoverseas/ericbrenchley). hodgetts 02:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

=Is there any generally acceptable term to describe troops from what used to be the British Empire? I think it's obviously unacceptable to call them "British," since this demeans the extraordiarily important role of troops from countries around the world. "Imperial" seems wrong and vague at the same time. It could mean troops supporting the Holy Roman Emperor or any Emperor. "Commonwealth" does not accurately reflect the fact that the Commonwealth did not exist, with many of the toops coming from countries subjected to colonial rule by the UK. It is not too difficult where only two countries are involved (though too often the non-British section gets ignored,) but when as in this case you have at least 3 it gets more and more difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.162.100 (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Map Date The map with the section on the Battle of St. Julien talks of British positions on 31 April. There are only 30 dayts in April.

Merge proposal
It is proposed that Battle of Kitcheners' Wood be merged into the Battle of Gravenstafel section.
 * 1)  I have not found a single principal World War I work that uses the term Battle of Kitcheners' Wood.
 * 2) The article concerns the actions of no more than 2 battalions and those actions fall directly within the purview and timeline of Gravenstafel.
 * 3) There are no citations in the and Battle of Kitcheners' Wood article and the only noted book is the regimental history, not exactly evenhanded.
 * 4) The only article that links to Battle of Kitcheners' Wood is the page on the battalion and regiment involved.

To be honest I think Battle of Kitcheners' Wood would be a candidate for deletion rather than merge but thought I should bring it to this forum first--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Reject merge proposal - Intellectual laziness on your part is no reason for a call for deletion. The battle was a seperate battle. That you can't find information on it within arm's reach does not mean it doesn't exist. Other editors better able to handle the task may in future be able to expand it.68.145.135.240 (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Accept merge proposal - The article for the 2nd Battle of Ypres differentiates between several battles that were part of it, and at least two sites and (see also here ) list Kitcheners' Wood as a battle under the heading of 2nd Ypres. I have no agenda to promote or denigrate. I just think it is logical to include the KW article (expanded when more information is found) as part of 2nd Ypres. ([user: talk:Thukyd1des|talk]) 11 August 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thukyd1des (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)contribs) 15:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Accept merge proposal (postscript) - What I meant to say above, in case it was unclear, was to merge the article about Kitcheners' Wood under the article about the Second Battle of Ypres, not *just* the Battle of Gravenstafel. The battles that comprise the Second Ypres "Campaign" in the article could well include Kitcheners' Wood, *separate* from Gravenstafel. I think this would be fair and an objective recognition of the Canadian and other British Colonial Forces' Troops, and highlight it apart from the other battles in the Second Ypres article.

--Thukyd1des (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)--Thukyd1des (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose - While it was not officially deemed a "Battle" there is certainly ample documentation as "Attack on" or "Assault on". Nicholson chapter 3 repeatedly denotes the geographic area as "Kitcheners Wood" (no apostrophe) and the actions as the "Battle of Gravenstafel Ridge-The First Gas Attack, 22 April", followed by "The Counter-Attacks of 22-23 April" and "The Battle of St. Julien-The Second Gas Attack, 24 Apri1". The battalions engaged were different for each of these three, probably due to the heavy casualties. A simple rename/move to "Kitcheners' Wood" without the "Battle of" might be cleaner.LeadSongDog come howl  17:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

British Empire Forces - No Conscripts Then
Answering an issue raised in NINAD's paragraphs about proportions of conscript/volunteers in the Indian Army at the time, and not wanting to disrupt them, it may be enlightening to point out the British Empire troops at that battle were all volunteers. The Indian Army was volunteer throughout the war, while conscription had yet to be introduced in Britain (who began it in 1916) and Canada (in 1917).Special:Contributions/Cloptonson (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Status of Canada at time of battle
I question the correctness of referring to Canadian troops taking part as being from a former colony. At that time Canada had been a self-governing Dominion (and confederation of provinces with their own legislatures) within the British Empire since 1867, which politically put them above 'Crown Colony' rank. It may have been commonplace in Britain to think of Canadians as 'colonials' but there were Canadians at the time (eg Sam Hughes) who would have strongly disagreed with the implication. (NB - I am not Canadian but have much studied that period.) Might a rephrase be in order?Cloptonson (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Canada wasn't considered a nation until this war. It is very important for Canada because people sort of regarded us as meaningless back then. During WW1 the effectiveness of the Canadian soldiers became renowned around the world, and established us as a nation. Before this, we were considered little more than cannon fodder. ~A canadian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.65.96.152 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"Gas attack on Gravenstafel"
This is the first time that I've heard of this, although I've been interested in the subject for quite a while. Up to now I was convinced that the first succesful chlorine gas attack had been made at Steenstraete. There was a monument erected after the war - destroyed by Nazis in the next war - rebuilt differently afterwards. I have visited the place in 2009, and I have seen numerous historical pictures. Funny I can't find any reference to this on Wikipedia. What's up with that? Also a little note in the article currently says the former "Gravenstafel" is today named "Gravenstafel". Using the links provided I find "s'Graventafel". Changed the note accordingly. --BjKa (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * http://forumeerstewereldoorlog.nl/viewtopic.php?t=12532
 * http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.918159&lon=2.841079

Extraneous Information? (re later Canadian Divisions)
In section 'Aftermath' I notice inside a paragraph the sentence. "Another Canadian Division joined the British Expeditionary Force in late 1915, joined eventually by two more in 1916." Unless there is evidence this was directly attributable to the battle, is this relevant as the additions were several months post-battle? There was a continued recruiting drive in Canada from 1914 through 1915 into 1916, the three added divisions being raised from that.Cloptonson (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox - Commanders and Leaders
The list is incomplete regarding the British Empire and Allied commanders. The singular presence of Arthur Currie on the list - then one of at least three Canadian brigade commanders of the 1st Canadian Division - may mislead readers into thinking he headed the Canadian contingent present when in fact the Divisional commander, his immediate head, was Edwin Alderson. If Currie is to be listed then arguably so too should be Turner and any other Brigade commanders present in the sector. What are the criteria for names listed?Cloptonson (talk)

External link
I've noticed that there's an external link to my old unmaintained website at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~cjmorton/service/ww1/ypres/overview.htm. I'd like to move this to my new maintained site as http://cjmorton.org/ww1service/ww1/overview/ypres.html. However, since this appears to represent a potential conflict of interest under Wikipedia guidelines I'm adding this note to see if there are any objections. Thanks. MochaFossil (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Clean up
Made some cosmetic changes to copy the Arras 1917 model, added references and citations, removed a tag and changed round some photos and pictures. Added matters of detail like casualty numbers gleaned from divers sources.Keith-264 (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Revised the citations and sfn'd where I have sources, more to do. There are several appearances of gas clouds which could do with being consolidated, which I will look at later today. Suggestions appreciated.Keith-264 (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

 * What is "sfn'd"???
 * Also, why is there no link to the article on "Battle of Kitcheners' Wood", barring the one buried in the citations?131.137.245.207 (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * sfn = short footnote. Template:Harvard citationKeith-264 (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Wake-up call
From the British point of view, 2nd Ypres was the first big battle of the war, and it brought home to the army, the politicians and the public that this was actually a major conflict that might last years. Valetude (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

 * This seems a bit strong - the First battle of Ypres had 56,000 British casualties, and this (second) had 70,000. So it seems a bit of a fetch to call it the "first big battle".  However, coming on top of the First battle it may have indeed have "brought home" the notion that it might be a long war. Baska436 (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

CE
Did a cheeky little ce, added some citations, changed some web cites to books, put a map and a loc map in the infobox, changed to efn for notes and thought that there were too many long quotations for an article this size.Keith-264 (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Second Battle of Ypres. 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/20051123165216/http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/victoriacross/04-07.asp to http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/victoriacross/04-07.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609170125/http://www.histori.ca/minutes/minute.do?id=10200 to http://www.histori.ca/minutes/minute.do?id=10200
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051123165216/http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/victoriacross/04-07.asp to http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/victoriacross/04-07.asp

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) 00:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Misleading Infobox
Can someone on here specify/clarify the contribution of Australian, South Africa, New Zealand, Newfoundland and Southern Rhodesian forces in this battle? I don't doubt individuals from these nations served in British, Canadian and Indian units during this battle, but as their own specific national units did they take part? because I'm pretty sure as units almost all of them didn't start taking part in battles on the western front until the following year, so shouldn't they be removed if they took no part? Afterall, on the Battle of Jutland page I remember reading that there was individuals from Australia and Canada that served in the Royal Navy but their not listed under their own flags in the infobox, perhaps the same can be done here if that was the extent of their involvement. Thanks in advance. Chelseacanuck21 (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's a fair question but the article is well overdue for a drastic re-edit so that will come forst for me. If you want to take those countriies out, I won't object. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Keith, i'll remove them at later time if that's the case. On a separate note why has the South African flag of the time been changed from the red ensign to the blue ensign? seems to be the case across multiple WP articles where their involved, was there ever a reason/discussion on this? Chelseacanuck21 (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't know. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits
Greetings, I think I've just negated your edit; apologies but I'm a beginner with the hsp format. I don't know what it was there for. Keith-264 (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I deleted the templates because referenced follow immediately after punctuation.  Hairspace is a space so doesn't belong between punctuation and the succeeding reference.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, apols for wasting your time; I've learned something though. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Picture caption questioned
The gravestone (an unmistakable CWGC stone) in Kells, Ireland, is stated to be a soldier who died during this Battle at Bellewaarde. However at that stage of the war British soldiers who died on the Western Front were not repatriated. About this statement I would say to whoever wrote the caption 'Prove it'. I have checked up the CWGC website and do agree with placement of the grave in Kells. It is probable he could have been wounded in the battle and died after being repatriated. I note the date of his death precedes by one day the beginning of the subsidiary Battle of Bellewaarde.Cloptonson (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

something seems off about the photo of fritz haber
the head is the wrong shape, theres hair where he never had hair, the picture quality is way off for 1906, it doesn't exist anywhere else on the internet except wikimedia commons, it's only used on this article, the nose is wrong. i don't think its a photo of fritz haber and im not convinced it's a real photo at all. the close up angle also seems wrong for 1906. DParkinson1 (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

 * i've clocked it. the photo is an AI image adaptation of https://www.sciencehistory.org/sites/default/files/styles/rte_full_width/public/historical_profile/bio-haber-sketch.jpg?itok=_RZ1LWOL this 1911 sketch thats been flipped horizontal and misatributed to the wrong year. DParkinson1 (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * since no one has got back to me, im going to change the image and put in the one from the main fritz haber article DParkinson1 (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Second Battle of Ypres