text:
Talk:Chung-Yao Chao

Discovered the positron? Umm... what?
I thought that Carl Anderson discovered the positron. At least, that's what the Nobel Prize committee said when they awarded him the Nobel Prize in 1936 for discovering the positron. If you want to claim that it was really not Anderson, but Chung-yao Chao, I think some explanation is in order. -- Reuben 03:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've now read the papers involved, and I can't see that this claim is well-founded. Removing it. If anybody wants to restore the claim that Chao discovered the positron, please substantiate, preferably with a journal citation. -- Reuben 08:00, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello, dear Reuben. About the article Chung-Yao Chao, He was the first scientist that captured the positive-charged electron (positron) through what was later confirmed as the ‘electron-positron annihilation’, although he was not given the Nobel Prize (The prize was later given to his classmate Carl D. Anderson). (reference 1, "C.Y.Chao，Pair Creation and Pair Annihilation"，International Journal of Modern Physics A ，vol.17 1989. 2, Chinese Science and the `Nobel Prize Complex' , Cong Cao). Does it mean that he tested the existence of antimatter? Maybe the description The discoverer of antimatter, and the first scientist that observed positron is not the exact. My major is not physics. Gosta Ekspong, the former Chairman of the Nobel Committee for Physics of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, also had comment on this matter. Wikinu 06:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Wikinu, thanks for the citation. I'll be able to look it up in a couple of weeks.  The relevant articles I've found are these (web versions require a subscription).
 * Chao, C. Y. "Scattering of Hard gamma-Rays,"  Phys. Rev. 36, 1519–1522 (1930)
 * Anderson, Carl D. "The Positive Electron,"  Phys. Rev. 43, 491–494 (1933)
 * The first is a paper by Chao from 1930, and the second is Anderson's paper announcing the discovery of the positron (1933). Anderson's paper cites Chao's as one of its references.  I don't have access right now to the 1989 paper you mentioned, but the abstract is as follows:
 * "C. Y. Chao's contribution to physicists' acceptance of QED in 1933–1934 through his experiments of 1930 is analyzed. It is pointed out that Blackett and Occhialini's key suggestion of 1933 about hole theory was based on identifying Chao's "additional scattered rays" (1930) as due to pair annihilation."
 * This seems to refer to the same work by Chao published in the "Scattering of hard gamma-rays" paper from 1930. Chao had measured the scattering of gamma rays by various materials, and compared the results to the predictions of the Klein-Nishina formula (article at MathWorld).  For lighter target nuclei, the results agreed with the predictions.  For lead, there was more scattering than predicted.  Later, after Anderson's discovery of the positron, this additional component of scattering was understood as the result of pair production, in which the gamma ray produces an electron and a positron (anti-electron).  However, Chao didn't have any reason to believe that this increased scattering rate had anything to do with positrons.  In fact, he suggested several possible explanations, none of which involved antimatter.  Reuben 09:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not know much. So pls edit the article as suggested by fact. I once read news about it. 李政道：中国科学家70年前就应该获得诺贝尔奖 Tsung-Dao Lee: A Chinese scientist should be awarded Nobel Prize 70 years agao. It's said by Tsung-Dao Lee, Nobel prize winner and a student of Chung-Yao Chao. Lee said, Ekspong told him that Ekspong searched the document about Chung-Yao Chao, Swedish Academy of Sciences seriously considered to award Nobel prize to Chao, but a german physicist got defferent result from the experiment...... 李政道在发言中说，“两年前瑞典皇家学会的Ekspong教授告诉我，当时瑞典皇家学会曾郑重考虑过授予赵老师诺贝尔奖。不幸，有一位在德国工作的物理学家在文献上报告了她的结果和赵老师的观察不同，提出了疑问。当然，赵老师的实验和观察是完全准确的，错误的是提出疑问的科学家。” 李政道遗憾地说，“３０年代初瑞典皇家学会以谨慎为主，没有授予赵老师诺贝尔奖，Ekspong教授和我都觉得赵老师完全应该得诺贝尔物理奖。赵老师本来应该是第一个获得诺贝尔物理奖的中国人，只是由于当时别人的错误把赵老师的光荣埋没了”。 If this is true, it means the discover by Chao is a big achievment. Wikinu 12:41, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chung-Yao Chao


text:
Talk:Philip Johnson

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2020 and 9 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kurtisbradicich.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
MSTCrow 03:31, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is there no mention of Philip Johnson's Nazi past? See http://jewishworldreview.com/0205/applebaum_stigma.php3, for example.

What about Poper Ratzinger's Nazi past? Also, I think that given he left Germany in 1939, give him some credit for waking up from his stupor.131.96.70.164 07:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that it would be good to summarize this (see also the article "Form follows fascism" in the 1/31/2005 New York Times). I myself had no knowledge of this previously.  (Someone added one sentence, but it's clearly not really enough.)  —Steven G. Johnson 17:04, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * Source for recent edits re: Johnson's fascist past is Franz Schulze's biography "Philip Johnson: Life and Work" and Kazys Varnelis's online article "We Cannot Not Know History", at http://varnelis.net/research/johnson.html.  I've traded emails with Professor Varnelis and he is a thoroughly credible source as well as a nice guy.  --Lockley 02:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I added some info on this....hopefully, after several edits, I came up with something balanced. (PS, added bullet points to all comments, for some odd reason they are all running together....) NickBurns 20:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Um...
If you see something missing in an article....add it. NickBurns 16:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What would be the best way to work this in?
I wanted to include more than just a one-line mention of his cenotaph for the John F. Kennedy Memorial near Dealey Plaza in Dallas, but I can't find an appropriate place. I added it to the list of noted works, but wanted to add a bit more, such as the fact that he was invited personally by Stanley Marcus and that he waived his fee for the project. It doesn't fit under the heading "Later Buildings" because it isn't a building. I suppose we could change it to later works ... there also was a wonderful quote, haven't been able to pin down a year, regarding Marcus' effect on his career: Anyone have ideas on how this material could be worked in appropriately? Lawikitejana 00:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Phillip Johnson, was quoted as saying, 'I have been the beneficiary for some 40 years of people saying, "Stanley Marcus says you're a good architect." '" — from a Sotheby's offering of items from Marcus' art collection

No mention of the Lipstick Building?
Hahaha! I bet some autistic deletionist purged the Lipstick Building ("non-notable!") from this page. No wonder no one bothers contributing anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.239.233.66 (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No Mention of Johnson/Burgee?
There's no mention of this firm (other than in credits) nor are any other firms with which he was associated mentioned? --TMH (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Introduction
Since the disruptive editor (now reported) refuses to discuss his edits, I'll start the discussion without him. Obviously there are three editors who agree that stating Johnson was influential is acceptable for the lede. The editor in question, after fishing around (and some bad faith accusations) has settled on MOS:OPENPARA. However, that guideline merely states that the language should be neutral. However, it also states that it should indicate why the subject is notable. Johnson is an architect but beyond that he's an influential architect. Not every architect we find on Wikipedia is influential, just as not every writer is considered one of the greatest writers in the English language, yet the William Shakespeare article states exactly that, in the lede. WP:SUBJECTIVE, under WP:NPOV clearly states that while we cannot state that someone is the "greatest" or most influential, we can, and should, "provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to experts holding that interpretation." We have those citations and stating why Johnson is notable is acceptable and encouraged.  freshacconci  talk to me  19:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Philip Johnson was an enormously influential architect and in particular among other things; glass house and Seagram's building aside; being a founding father of the architecture department at the Museum of Modern Art; influencing thousands of people over the years...Modernist (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Philip Johnson. 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/20100208181856/http://www.apple.com/pro/profiles/glasshouse/ to https://www.apple.com/pro/profiles/glasshouse/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111011112748/http://philipjohnsonglasshouse.org/history/bios/whitney/chapter1/ to http://philipjohnsonglasshouse.org/history/bios/whitney/chapter1/

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) 16:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

POV issue
Tagging the section titled "Controversy over early political views." The title itself reads like an apologia, as does the section itself. I'll be working on it but meanwhile I think it needs to be tagged. Coretheapple (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I've made some WP:BOLD changes. I have to say that I was pretty shocked by some of what I saw in that section, which was little more than a whitewash, with some text (such as re Shirer) that was simply not true and/or not supported by the sources. I've removed the tag. Coretheapple (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 * There are serious violations of neutrality here, and the attacks on Johnson are way over the top. One editor now claims that he was an "unpaid spy for the Nazi regime." How could he be a spy if he proclaimed  his political views to everyone?  The attacks on Johnson are declared to be "thoroughly documented,", citing a book by the author of another attack on Johnson. The linking Johnson with George Floyd is really beyond ridiculous. I'm not defending Johnson'views; Johnson himself  admitted that he was stupid and mistaken. But Wikipedia is not a place for diatribes like this. Please follow the neutrality rules. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 * The charge that Johnson "innovated white supremacy in architecture". during his time as a curator at the Museum of Modern Art is not supported here by any examples or evidence. Unless it's backed up with facts, it should be left out.SiefkinDR (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Categories
Hi and  and  -- I wonder if we could discuss the categories just added and removed -- they are Category:American fascists, Category:Antisemitism in the United States, and Category:American propagandists, all of which relate to this larger question of how to represent Johnson's involvement with American fascists. IMO all three are accurate, and the first one seems richly deserved. The article as it stands is full of POV language and minor factual errors tending to explain away Johnson's political interests -- example, the words "brief venture into journalism and politics" to describe a 7-year period in which this was Johnson's sole interest. Let's put our heads together and find a reasonable way forward, yeah? --Lockley (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion those categories are really not needed. Johnson denounced his insane behavior in his early days....As a working architect he became a key figure in the modernist and post-modernist architectural world. His working accomplishments and mature works are the reason he even has this article that we are commenting on. Johnson's stupid past; by his own admission does not characterize his place in our world. The section Controversy over political activities covers the issue; the categories are not required or necessary...Modernist (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Non-arbitrary break

 * Agreed.
 * The defense of Johnson Re: his role in MoMA is OR.
 * Referring to Noam Cohen as a "critic" paints his criticism in a skeptical light (he's a journalist - let's call him that).
 * Referring to the Johnson Study Group as "40 architects... calling themselves the Johnson Study Group" (emphasis mine) casts them as unprofessional.
 * I've made an edit to address these, along with some style and readability issues, but it was reverted. I've discussed this with Modernist, and will proceed to restore the changes. François Robere (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 * As noted above, this is OR. The first ref is barely verifiable (no link, author or publication date), self-referential (points back to Wikipedia ), and makes no mention of the criticisms in the context of which it is cited; and the second doesn't even mention Johnson. François Robere (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 * This doesn't resolve the problem of OR, so I made a few edits that do, starting with this one. François Robere (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Stop this edit warring! At this time you have no consensus re your recent edits...Modernist (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not edit warring, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a justification. Do you have anything to say that addresses the issue of OR as repeatedly explained here, on your TP, and in edit summaries? Also, your reversal re-introduced an erroneously-attributed quote. François Robere (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Read this: WP:STICK, you have no consensus...Modernist (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Agree with Modernist, there is no consensus for the changes made above. Edit warring needs to stop. and neutrality rules need to be followed. Thanks for your understanding.SiefkinDR (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I've asked for community input at No original research/Noticeboard. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Mies Van der Rohe and fascism
One editor seems to be questioning whether Mies Van der Rohe, Johnson's business partner, was really anti-fascist. I think that's not very flattering to Mies Van Der Rohe. He lived in Nazi Germany, and I think he knew what fascism was, and if Johnson had been a fascist he would not have been his business partner. It's not proof, but it's logic. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What it is is WP:OR. None of the sources cited, including the one added by, calls VDR "anti-fascist". One of the sources doesn't mention VDR, one of the sources doesn't mention Johnson, and the only one that mentions both states that VDR had "an intense love-hate relationship with [Johnson]". Half this paragraph is OR. François Robere (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I put those references there because the notion that Mies Van der Rohe was an anti-fascist is debatable at best:

""Starved of work, Mies tried to ingratiate himself with this new, powerful and rich state patron, signing a motion of support for Hitler in the August 1934 referendum and joining Goebbels's Reichskultur-kammer, a progressive alternative to Rosenberg's ministry, which asked for "fresh blood" and new forms to give "expression to this age". Mies was shortlisted to build the state's new Reichsbank, with a fiercely modern, abstract design; and Goebbels even pressed him to design the Deutsches Volk Deutsches Arbeit exhibition." "Mies seemed to dislike the Nazis more for their poor taste and their starving him of work than for their politics.""

- The Guardian

""12. Many at the Bauhaus were disillusioned when they learned that Mies had been the only one to sign a motion of support for Hitler and National Socialism in 1934.""

- Archdaily

 * Of course, after they kicked him out, I am sure he was against the regime, I just do not see any indication that it was for ideological reasons Herrikez (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Most Germans supported Hitler in 1934, as the elections showed, because of the utter economic and political chaos and because they didn't know what he was all about. He wasn't pro-Hitler when they closed the Bauhaus and forced him to leave. He certainly wasn't pro-Hitler in the United States, and he certainly wasn't a fascist. See the article on Mies in Wikipedia.SiefkinDR (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No one says he was, but was he "anti-fascist"? And if he was, does it have anything to do with Johnson collaborating with him? You need sources if you want to say either. François Robere (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Revision needed of 4th paragraph of lead
The fourth paragraph of the lead needs to be revised to be more specific about by his involvement, since he was involved with two very different groups, followers of Huey Long and those of Father Coughlin. It also needs to state exactly what he did for those movements. It's too vague. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Summary and excerpts from Mark Lamster, The Man in the Glass House, 2018. Ch. 6-7: François Robere (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Johnson quits his job in 1934 to launch a political movement with Alan Blackburn (uniforms and flag included), which he finances as they travel across the country to build a following.
 * Lawrence Dennis, an overtly racist and anti-Semitic author, becomes "Johnson’s unlikely intellectual guru and political Svengali".
 * Gets criticized in newspapers of the day; some of his colleagues fear that his involvement might harm the museum.
 * Following Huey Long, the corrupt "kingpin" governor of Louisiana: "Secretly, Johnson had grander ambitions. He was not interested in just being a member of Long’s “brain trust.” When interviewed in 1942, Johnson’s former secretary Ruth Merrill told the FBI that Johnson believed “the fate of the country” rested on his shoulders, and that “he wanted to be the ‘Hitler’ in the United States.” His desire to join Long as an adviser was a means to that end. “By joining with Huey Long he could eventually depose Huey Long from control of the country and gain control of it for himself,” Merrill told the FBI. Whether that meant assassination or a bloodless coup was unstated."
 * Runs for the Ohio legislature; after being rebuffed by the GOP he wins the Democratic primary, but quits.
 * Allies with Charles Coughlin, successful populist preacher and radio broadcaster.
 * Spends thousands of dollars ("something close to 40 percent of his annual income") on one of Coughlin's politicians.
 * Designs a 50 ft, two stories tall stage for Coughlin's anti-Roosevelt address in front of a crowd of tens of thousands.
 * Buys airtime and starts a radio show, and an associated youth movement, with popular messaging and anti-Semitic subtext: "Johnson and Blackburn’s party, an alt-right avant la lettre, was composed of hard-core reactionaries, pro-Nazi German-American Bundists, Klansmen, and members of the Black Legion, an Ohio-based secret society that took the Klan as its model... Johnson tried to convert this group into his own version of the SA, the brown-shirted paramilitaries he knew from the streets of Berlin. Borrowing Nazi intimidation tactics, he had his group march on the Communist party headquarters in Toledo. The Communists responded by cutting the radio station’s power line during one of Johnson and Blackburn’s programs."
 * In 1937 goes on vacation in Germany and "befriends" Nazi ideologue Werner Sombart at a party for Nazi economist Hjalmar Schacht.
 * Goes to London, tries to meet with founder of the British Union of Fascists, Oswald Mosley.
 * Reconnects with Dennis, then with German diplomat Ulrich Freiherr von Gienanth, from whom he wants a pass to events in Nuremberg.
 * Writes about "race suicide" for "pro-fascist journal The Examiner".
 * Participates in a program run by the "Vereinigung Carl Schurz, a private organization that disseminated Nazi propaganda to foreigners."
 * Connects with Nazi propagandists K. O. Bertling and Hans-Heinrich Dieckhoff, German ambassador to the US.
 * Returns to the US, has lunches with the German embassy's political and press attaché, Heribert von Strempel.
 * Johnson would claim to the FBI that his meetings were purely social-intellectual, but "a more plausible scenario is that Johnson was exchanging information on the activities, politics, and membership of American fascist circles, and discussing the means by which the Germans might disseminate their propaganda. According to records captured after the war, the Nazi diplomats were specifically interested in obtaining mailing lists and names of individuals who might be sympathetic to their cause. Johnson, who had built a network of nationalist supporters in both Ohio and New York, was in a position to deliver precisely that type of material. Indeed, Johnson had been keeping confidential lists of would-be supporters since April 1934, when he instructed his private secretary, Ruth Merrill, to take names at the first fascist gathering at the duplex apartment he shared in New York with his sister."
 * In 1939 gets acquainted with Viola Heise Bodenschatz, well-connected German-American author of pro-German pamphlets, asking for advice on "distribution". They would later travel to Germany together.
 * Meets Friedrich Auhagen, an intended "freelance propaganda agent" paid by the Nazis. Auhagen, Johnson and others then found the "American Fellowship Forum" - a propaganda organization - in New York, with Dennis as a keynote speaker at the inaugural event. The organization publishes a journal, Today's Challenge, the first issue of which ends with George Sylvester Viereck's "Can the Jewish Problem Be Solved?".
 * "The class of philosopher-fascists represented by Dennis and Johnson... made no direct claims to Nazism, but were clearly interested in transforming the American political system into a form that would be sympathetic to German National Socialism... They were also in a position to operate as a kind of think tank for the fascist cause, providing intellectual backbone to influential members of the isolationist movement—both those who merely wished to maintain America’s independent posture and those who sympathized with the Nazi state outright."
 * "While Johnson cloaked himself behind a veneer of respectable intellectualism, he was not only aware of but actively supported the more brutal representatives of the fascist cause in America. Though he would later deny it, he admitted to the FBI that he attended several American Nazi Party rallies at Madison Square Garden... Johnson also became a financial benefactor of the Christian Mobilizers, a virulently anti-Semitic organization of street brawlers run by another Dennis protégé, Joseph E. McWilliams, a soap-box demagogue who built his following with attacks on Roosevelt, the “Jew Deal,” and the “Jewspapers” that supported it."
 * Reconnects with Coughlin, who by now was printing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and inspiring violent mobs, and offers himself as a "no-fee foreign correspondent for the coming summer of 1939".
 * Meets "Paul Palmer, a fellow traveler in fascist circles who was the editor and proprietor of The American Mercury"; seeks to buy a share "to transform it into a mouthpiece for his own brand of fascist propaganda".
 * Writes a favorable review of Mein Kampf for the Examiner .
 * Goes to Germany; meets with Nazi propagandists Richard Sallet and Werner Assendorf, and attends Otto Dietrich's press conferences.
 * While in Czechoslovakia he meets a past acquaintance: a Jewish architect named Otto Eisler, who was just arrested by the Gestapo. Despite his connections with Nazi authorities, he makes no attempt to help except asking a mutual friend, Jacobus Oud, if a visa can be arranged. Decades later he would describe the meeting as "one of the worst moments", but "even after the war, [he]made no effort to learn of Eisler’s harrowing story of escape to Norway, capture... and survival of Auschwitz."
 * "There was nothing illegal about Johnson speaking privately with Nazi officials in 1939. Those conversations would have become unlawful only had Johnson accepted financial remuneration from the German government—an act that would have made him an unregistered agent of a foreign power. It was on this charge that his friends Fritz Auhagen, Viola Bodenschatz, and Lawrence Dennis would be arrested in the wake of the Pearl Harbor attacks and America’s entry into the war. But for Johnson money was never an issue: he was insulated by his own wealth. Indeed, he was the ideal vehicle for the Nazis, a man willing and able to finance their interests out of his own pocket."

Use of boldface
Boldface style is used in this article to emphasize the names of Johnson's buildings, which is against Wikipedia's MOS:BOLD and MOS:NOBOLD guidelines. However, I can see how the use of boldface for that purpose is helpful for the reader, so I let it be as a reasonable exception to the MOS guidelines. However, I removed boldface style from the image captions since use of boldface was not so helpful. All but one (if I counted correctly) of the images are Johnson's buildings, so there is no good reason for boldface in the captions, and boldface was used irregularly in the captions anyway. So, I recommend sticking to the MOS guidelines of no boldface in the image captions. Biogeographist (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

ID'S Center, Minneapolis, MN
The IDS Center is one of the most striking examples of Johnson's work. The Crystal Court and the 51-story octagonal "shape shifting" façade are the Centerpiece of the city. I am stunned that there is no mention of it in this article. 2601:447:C802:7560:C42B:736D:3100:A075 (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Philip Johnson


text: Category:Universities and colleges in British Columbia


text:
Talk:International Mother Language Day

To merge, or not to merge
Language Martyrs' Day is very important in Bangladesh. International Mother Language Day bases its date on it, but is a global recognition of the plight of many languages and language extinction. I think the articles should be linked, but remain seperate. The fact that this is a stub does not mean that there's nothing to say. I shall try to expand this article when I have the time. Gareth Hughes 03:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I second Gareth's idea. One possible expansion of the article may be to include how/when/why the day was declared as Intl' Mother Language Day and what associated activities are there in UNESCO (The unesco homepage I linked has some breif lists). --Ragib 04:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Even if merged, articles can always be split up again when respective sections have obtained sufficient length. Though as things exist, it's okay to keep them separate, especially if people are interested in contributing. My 2 cents. A-giau 03:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with A-giau. It would be nice to have one neat page with more content before it gets featured on the Main Page on February 21st. The two can be split up later when there is enough material for two "free-standing" articles. -- PFHLai 04:17, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

 * I'm not going to have enough time to get these two articles into reasonable shape for 21 February. Perhaps it would be best to merge for the time being. Gareth Hughes 13:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Moving on
Looks like the articles were not merged (or merged and reseparated?) per the discussion above. Glad there's a separate article, in any event.

I am looking again at UNESCO's web space for IMLD, and after 5-6 years of following this am surprised to see that there still is neither (1) a really good presentation of the event (especially now that IMLD itself has a history; I will add a summary page they have under the External links) nor (2) any page on the upcoming observance, posted well enough in advance of the event to facilitate planning, publicity, etc.

On the other hand UNESCO does seem to preserve the pages on past years' observances, which could be adapted into a short section of main article here, indicating the themes and links. (Not time right now, but maybe later.) --A12n 13:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, Wikipedia!
This day is also dedicated to Wikipedia, providing a free encyclopedia for almost every mother tongue! I think we should get more publicity here, next year! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.60.41.171 (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

blanked?
Couldn't see why this was blanked, so I reverted it.Rurouniyuudai85 18:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Jump in logic
I'm sure that there's more reason that world celebrates this day after 40-some years of it being a strictly Bangladeshi holiday. Right now the article just says it was a local holiday for some years, but now it's international, recognized by the UN. There must have been some lobbying or other rationale for the UN to make this decision. Hires an editor (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of "How 21st February became 'International Mother Language Day'"
Just to be clear what I deleted earlier, the entirety of the "How 21st February became 'International Mother Language Day'" section was cut-and-pasted from Mukto-Mona.com. The men behind the movement should be recognized, but that's definitely not the way to do it. --Enwilson (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Globalize
The subsection on Bangladesh dominates what should be an international article. Please globalize the article more. Thanks. Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is a result of the merge that happened several years ago; I think the merged article kind of lacks cohesion. It seems unclear in a number of places about whether it's talking about the original holiday or the global holiday. Schoen (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Ironically, "Mother Language" isn't real English
In English we say "native language" or "mother tongue", but not "mother language". I'd like to mention this in the article. — Wegesrand (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's "mother tongue", "maternal language", "native language"... "mother language" is bizarre to a native speaker - unless it's Bangladeshi English? Can anyone confirm?--74.12.224.142 (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

International Mother Language Day (Celebration and Implementation)
Rayhanazaman (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Mother Language Day. 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/20050928184902/http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D19644%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html to http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D19644%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Why the EU has another date to celebrate languages? cf. European Day of Languages - 26 September
Anybody knows why the EU has another date to celebrate languages? cf. European Day of Languages 26 September versus 21 February International Mother Language Day as per UN Calendar of Observances ? The EU is a loyal partner to the UN, no? --SvenAERTS (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

History section
This section adopts only one POV. It fails to mention that the 1956 Constitution made Bengali and Urdu jointly official languages. It also fails to mention that between 1947 and 1971, about half of the heads of state and government were from East Pakistan. Half the National Assembly was from East Pakistan and the body was headquartered in Dhaka. The section wrongly implies that nothing was done between 1952 and 1971. 2A00:23C7:358D:2201:811B:EE3A:E878:EA57 (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:International Mother Language Day


text:
Talk:Grille (artillery)

Article name?
This should be relabled Grille (Cricket) as the Bison was actually the 12 SP artillary pieces sent to North Africa based on the Panzer Mk II chassis
 * Done - don't know why some authors insist on the Bison myth - the Bioson was indeed a Panzer-II modification with only 12-14 converted and used in Africa. --Denniss 01:07, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Are you sure about this? I've always seen that the Grille series were the waffentragers developed later in the war, _not_ the self propelled artillery pieces described on this page. A cursory google search seems to bear this out.

Some sources would be appreciated. --Martin Wisse 20:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Some searches with Google claim the sIG 33 auf Panzer Ib is Bison I, then the sIG 33 auf Panzer II would be Bison II (alternate name Sturmpanzer I/II). The sIG 33 auf Panzer 38(t) is without any question the Grille (alternate name Sturmpanzer 38(t)). There is/was a weapon carrier development called Grille but they all had a number with them. Look at http://www.achtungpanzer.com or http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de . I really don't know who mixed up the names Bison and Grille but it seems a lot of authors did some copy & paste using the wrong sources. I'd like to see some valid german sources calling the sIG33 auf Selbstfahrlafette (later Geschützwagen) 38(t) the Bison.
 * Well, I doubt that here was Bison at all. No one serious source shows the name Bison next to self propelled s.I.G.33 on PZ.I or Pz.II chassis. For example - Doyle's "standard Catalog of German Military Vehicles". Perhaps, Bison was allied code name? Or just one of the old mistakes? Anyway, it should be "Bisons" in German.Fat yankey 11:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't know either where Bison came from but it looks more like an unofficial nickname because of the huge fat vehicle the Panzer I based versions were. --Denniss 15:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I did some research, In a lot of british books the Grille is refered to as Bison eg Orbis Publication, War Machine, even Chamberlain in his pre-1978 books refers them as Bison. This seems to have been from them all using a single reference published in the early 1960's. eg, in over 20 books, I have, published before 1980 it's Bison. In 1978, Chamberlain & Doyle published Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two and refered to it as a Grille since then it's been Grille as Chamberlain & Doyle have seen as being the main source.
 * I do have a theory that it's refered to a Bison as that is the Divisional symbol that was present on the 15cm armed vehicals sent to Africa and original authors assumed that the 15cm range of vehicals were all variants.Mark1800 23:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review
Can someone have a look at what I've done. If you have any questions, please discuss here before editting. (spelling doesn't count. My spelling sucks) Mark1800 01:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Bold text

Modifications
The one modification of Grille was armed with 15 cm schwere FeldHaubitze 13K (Not from World of Tanks). When I saw Grille (not in WoT) I noticed that the cannon had short barrel and the overall design resembled sFH 13. --Arbalestier (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * no (heavy) artillery on this vehicle, short range heavy infantry gun in all versions of the Grille. Incapable of carrying an artillery gun of this caliber. --Denniss (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. The cannon on Grille was sIG 33, I assume. So it could not be armed with sFH 14 (correct spelling, not sFH 13K) --User:Arbalestier (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Variants - Ausf K?
I've been browsing the corresponding article in other Wikipedias, and from a few of these seems that there was an "Ausf K" variant; the pic from the Aberdeen surviving vehicle is marked as such. However, there are few citations in most of those articles; and I don't have my reference material at hand. Can anyone please help clarify this matter? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Grille Ausf. K is the later variant built onto the Geschützwagen 38(t) Ausf. M chassis (gun mounted in the rear). The Flakpanzer 38(t) built onto the same Ausf. M chassis has the vehicle designation Ausf. L. Taken from Panzer Tracts 23.--Denniss (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fast response! To check if I understood this: the chassis is "Ausf M" but the Grille variant is "Ausf K"? Hence only 2 variants: Grille H (old chassis) and Grille K (new chassis)? Regards, DPdH (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The naming in Panzertracts 10/23 is a bit confusing, the chassis may have been named Geschützwagen 38 M (without Ausf.) but it was clearly based on the Ausf. M used by the last Marder III version. According to the chassis numbers given in PT 23 all Grille were new-built vehicles, refurbished 38(t) chassis were used for Marder III conversion.--Denniss (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's interesting! From photographs, is clear that there are 2 Grille variants, one with the gun in the middle of the chassis ("Ausf H") and another with the gun in the rear (widely identified as "Ausf M", but also seems to be called "Ausf K"); the Geschützwagen 38 M chassis should be the one used for the latter. It'd be great to clarify this confusion so the article can be amended if necessary. Regards, DPdH (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ID of later Grille as M is wrong, both the armed version and the ammo carrier were Ausf. K. The Flakpanzer also used the Geschützwagen 38 M but the vehicle designation wasn't Ausf. M but Ausf. L. One has to separate the designation for a chassis and for a complete vehicle. You'll see the same with Panzer III - all versions since Ausf. J were built on 8. ZW chassis (with minor changes) so in the end you had Ausf. J/L/M/K/N on more or less the same chassis. You will see both Marder III and Grille with Ausf. H because they used the same basic Ausf. H chassis originally intended to be built as Ausf. H tanks. The Grille Ausf. M was probably named so for the similarity to the Marder III Ausf. M but without being supported by facts.--Denniss (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's clear now. All this sourced from PanzerTracts? I can attempt to rewrite the relevant parts of the article to set things right, if you could please provide the inline citations and peer review. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do Not forget that (Auf.) M in the case of the Marder for example means not a sequential version but that it means that the engine was placed in the middle, not the back (Heck in German). 80.151.9.187 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Letter used for chassis variant is not related to engine placement - common myth. --Denniss (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Grille (artillery)