text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography on Imperial Japan and its exterior provinces

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography on Imperial Japan and its exterior provinces
Not a bad bibliography, but Wikipedia is not a library database. Move to Talk:Empire of Japan and delete. Neutralitytalk 04:35, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Extreme delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of links or references.  RickK 04:43, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, wikipedia is not a links mirror. Megan1967 07:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice and in-depth but serves little purpose for Wikipedia. Plus it needs massive tidying up. Delete. Stombs 10:28, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of References on Imperial Japan. No need ot destroy information. Klonimus 15:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well,well.if certain why this isn t no database or any similar,but i putting these references for if any interest,decided to ampled any particular theme,of japanese empire,can to see these historic titles why for supposelly some certain libraires poses.if for historical porposes too.

if only refference pourpose only.the unique section why i deleting , if reffering at U.S. and Japanese influence zone clash,debt at why this having enormous this bibliography,i when putting this section if for why this is other cause for U.S.-Japanese frictions in pacific area(United States Guam island and others american islands versus Japanese held Micronesia(south pacific mandate)and the clash of strategical commercial routes,etc.but still your importance i decided to delete this.

reiterrally these refferences if for interest,i knowed perfectly why any common persons no regulary used this,but if acase exist any interest can to ampled knowledge respect of any topic relationed.

one real thing if why reffering at Empire of Japan general bibliography ,knowed why stay disorder,but i having to organized and subdivided in themes ad topics.

well,if still decided to delete,i respect your decision,but i only liked to present this for ampled the know at possibly interest in topic one theme very scarcy in any type of source,one reality why know perfectly...

Wlad K.

 * Delete While I personally think that good long bibliographies would be a good thing for Wikipedia, I think that they should be incorporated into articles. A major flaw of this bibliography is that the most recent work, as far as I can tell, is from 1943.  I assume that many of these works have been superseded. Also a great deal has happened in Japan since then. Dsmdgold 18:57, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect I think this should be up someplace, like at the end of an article on Japan, but does not deserve an article in itself. Dr Ingel 01:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Wikipedia has eight List of Pokémon entries. Why is a scholarly bibliography of the single most important belligerent state in Asia during the last century (or two or three) less valuable than eight lists of fictitious creatures? This bibliography shows a snapshot of the views of the Japanese empire at a time when Britain, the U.S., China and other countries were at war with it. It is well organized and has the potential to become a valuable ancillary to the Empire of Japan article, which it exceeds in length. Fg2 01:54, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with, variously, Empire of Japan, History of Japan, Geography of Japan, Taiwan, Manchukuo, and so on. 'References' sections at the bottom of pages are perfect for this. Although I wouldn't want to be the one to have to sift through all this. --bainer 07:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with Bainer... merge into various articles, and I don't really see the point in making this a redirect anywhere as an unlikely search term. Radiant_* 08:03, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Please consider this an important resource for all the pages being listed at User:Charles Matthews/Imperial Japan. The coverage of this area is increasing rapidly. It is facile to say that this bibliography could easily be merged appropriately into those articles, most of which are expanding. Charles Matthews 16:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Talk:Kosher foods

Igredient readint
Why just mention conservatives? this is a common practice among many Sephardim and Orthodox, Rabbi Yitschok Abadi, who is one of this generations most revered Poseks allows this

No mixing of meat and dairy
I. Biblical times

The pasuk "You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk" is misleading as cannibalism. There should be an explanation that the pasuk is meaning a young goat, not an actual kid, though young goat is also a 'kid'. I have added "(where 'kid' stands for 'young goat', not a human kid)" after the pasuk". Hope it's ok...

in hebrew it's: "lo tevashel gedi be'chalev imo". anyone might wanna add that...
 * edit*

if i'm already reading XD '''III. Medieval period'''
 * another edit*

ends with "However, it is best to wait six hours like the Sephardim.[5]" it sounds like "the right thing to do", but I personally don't wait more than 2-3 hours. only REALLY STRICT people wait actually 6 hours. "it is best to wait six hours" sounds unneutral, like wikipedia is telling us it's opinion. anyway, just look at it and do what you think... I find it bothersome. waiting 6 hours is not the 'best' thing to do. it is the strict thing to do.

Focus
this article seems to hit the major foods and topics raised by certain foods, but doesn't really draw near a "laws of kashrus" type of article. is it even trying to be that kind of article? there really needs to be an article that *would* hit on the actual rubric for keeping kosher.

and, while i'm complaining, it seems that the kashrut article is mostly a teaser, describing kashrus, while also refraining from a full description of how one keeps kosher.

Schechita
I have edited the following for style and accuracy. I'm not an expert on Kosher slaughter so perhaps someone with more knowledge could re-check it. Also it overlaps with the Shechita. An interesting fact, little-known outside of Jewish communities, is that the hindquarters of a mammal are not kosher unless the sciatic nerve and the fat surrounding it are removed (Genesis 32, last verse). This is a very time-consuming process demanding a great deal of special training, and is rarely done outside Israel, where there is a greater demand for kosher meat, since all meat sold in Jewish towns is required to be kosher by law. When it is not done, the hindquarters of the animal are sold for non-kosher meat.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kosher foods. 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/20150403121812/http://www.schechter.edu/AskTheRabbi.aspx?ID=232 to http://www.schechter.edu/AskTheRabbi.aspx?ID=232

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) 12:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Checked. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Funny wording?
Eggs are considered pareve despite being an animal product.[25]

This phrasing is strange, because most animal products can be kosher. Maybe this is being confused with vegetarianism? 57.135.233.22 (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In Jewish law, meat cannot be eaten with milk, but this sentence is informing us that eggs, being derived from poultry, are not considered "meat" and can be eaten with milk, even though poultry itself cannot (due to a rabbinic prohibition). Hope this helps.  Stony Brook  babble 02:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Kosher foods


text:
Category talk:Fauna of Singapore

CFD Discussion
This category has only one empty subcategory, which is category:Native fauna of Singapore, and no article. — Instantnood 21:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * This category was listed for deletion on April 5, 2005. The consensus was to Keep. The following discussion from CFD is now closed and should not be modified.
 * Delete. -Kbdank71 13:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's got a few more articles now. -- Lochaber 16:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hopefully people will continue to add relevant things to this. --ssd 13:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Fauna of Singapore


text:
Al Hunt

Albert Reinold Hunt Jr. (born December 4, 1942) is an American journalist, formerly a columnist for Bloomberg View (from which he retired at the end of 2018), the editorial arm of Bloomberg News (which is a subsidiary of Bloomberg L.P.). Hunt hosted the Sunday morning talk show Political Capital on Bloomberg Television and was also a weekly panelist on CNN's Capital Gang and Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields. For decades, he worked in the Washington, D.C. bureau, reporting for the Wall Street Journal.

Personal life
Hunt was born in Charlottesville, Virginia. He graduated from The Haverford School in Haverford, Pennsylvania, in 1960. He attended Wake Forest University, where he earned a bachelor's degree in political science in 1965 and worked for the Old Gold & Black. He first married Margaret O'Toole of Pittsburgh and later married Judy Woodruff of PBS. Together they have three children, including a son born with spina bifida.

Career
Before graduating from Wake Forest University, Hunt worked for the Philadelphia Bulletin and the Winston-Salem Journal. In 1965, he became a reporter for The Wall Street Journal in New York, before transferring to its Boston bureau in 1967, then to the Washington, D.C., bureau in 1969.

Before joining Bloomberg News in January 2005, Hunt worked for The Wall Street Journal. During his 35 years in its Washington bureau, he was a congressional and national political reporter, a bureau chief and, most recently, executive Washington editor. For 11 years, Hunt wrote the weekly column "Politics & People." He also directed the paper's political polls for 20 years and served as president of the Dow Jones Newspaper Fund and a board member of Ottaway Newspapers Inc., a Dow Jones subsidiary.

In October 2014, Charlie Rose introduced a segment called "Al Hunt on the Story" as a "regular feature interview"; Hunt's first interview under this banner was with Secretary of State John Kerry.

Hunt is a member of Wake Forest University's board of trustees and the board of the Children's Charities in Washington, and has been an advisory board member of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. He teaches a course on the press and politics at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School of Communications. On June 18, 2008, Hunt was one of 10 people chosen to remember journalist Tim Russert, who had died days before, at his memorial service at Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

Appearances
Hunt has also served as a periodic panelist on NBC's Meet the Press and PBS's Washington Week in Review, as well as a political analyst on CBS Morning News and a weekly panelist on CNN's Capital Gang. He was also a panelist on Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields. He is co-author of a series of books published by the American Enterprise Institute, including The American Elections of 1980, The American Elections of 1982, and The American Elections of 1984. In 1987, he co-authored Elections American Style for the Brookings Institution.

Awards
In 1999, Hunt received the William Allen White Foundation's national citation, one of the highest honors in journalism. In 1995, he and his wife, Judy Woodruff, received the Allen H. Neuharth Award for Excellence in Journalism from the University of South Dakota. In 1976, Hunt received a Raymond Clapper Award for Washington reporting.

title: Al Hunt


text:
People's Liberation Army Navy Marine Corps

The People's Liberation Army Navy Marine Corps (PLANMC), also known as the People's Liberation Army Marine Corps (PLAMC), is the marine force of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and one of five major branches of the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) responsible for amphibious warfare, expeditionary operations and rapid responses. It currently consists of seven 6,000-man combined armed brigades and four other supporting brigades including aviation, engineering & chemical defense, artillery and service-support brigades for a total of 40,000. The marine corps also includes a brigade-level special operations unit called "Jiaolong Commando Unit"

History
The present PLANMC was originally established in April 1953 to conduct amphibious operations against islands held by Taiwan. By the end of the Korean War, the PLANMC numbered 110,000 personnel organized in eight divisions. However, the organization was disbanded in October 1957 when the leadership of China abandoned any plans to seize the island of Taiwan. Following the disbanding of the Marine Corps, the PLAN did maintain a naval infantry force, which consisted of several infantry and amphibious tank regiments.

In 1979 the Central Military Commission (CMC) re-established the Marine Corps and organized it under the PLAN. On 5 May 1980, the 1st Marine Brigade was activated on Hainan.

The PLANMC was expanded in the 1990s because of the growing tensions between China and Taiwan. The 1st Marine Brigade was reinforced and rearmed. In July 1998, the 164th Motorized Infantry Division of the PLA Ground Force's (PLAGF) 41st Group Army had been transferred to the PLAN South Sea Fleet and became the 164th Marine Brigade, with its homebase in Zhanjiang, Guangdong Province. In February 2017, it was reported that the 77th Motorized Infantry Brigade of the 26th Group Army was transferred to the PLAN.

The PLANMC participated in multiple international exercises, including participation in RIMPAC, and engaged with United States Marine Corps in mutual training and friendly cultural exchanges during the Bush and Obama administrations as part of its "tranquility and good order" policy according to its navy chief. However, with the Trump administration the PLAN and PLANMC were dis-invited from the 2018 Rim of the Pacific and the US Marines are trained to fight against the PLANMC.

Organization
The PLANMC is subordinate to Navy Headquarters, the Joint Staff Department and the CMC.

18,000 marines are under the Southern Theater Command, with 6,000 being under Eastern Theater Command and 12,000 being under Northern Theater Command. These brigades possess combined arms units, including armor, artillery, missile, air defense, and logistics.

The Six brigades are as follows:
 * 1st and 2nd (ex-164th) Marine Brigades – both based in Zhanjiang
 * 3rd Marine Brigade based in Jinjiang
 * 4th Marine Brigade based in Jieyang
 * 5th Marine Brigade in Laoshan
 * 6th Marine Brigade based in Haiyang.

Each Marine Brigade is organized into the following elements:
 * 1 × Brigade HQ and Service Company
 * 3 x Marine Combined Arms Battalions (1 x Heavy with ZTD-05 Amphibious Tank, 1 × Medium with ZBD-05 Amphibious IFV and 1 × Light with VP4 ATV )
 * 1 x Air Assault Battalion
 * 1 x Marine Artillery Battalion
 * 1 × Air Defense Battalion
 * Marine Reconnaissance Battalion
 * Combat Support Battalion
 * Service Support Battalion

The PLA has additional amphibious assault capabilities in the PLAGF amphibious combined-arms brigades.

Equipment

 * Personnel equipment
 * Type 95 Assault Rifle
 * Type 95B Carbine
 * QBB-95 Squad Automatic Weapon
 * QBU-88 Designated Marksman Rifle
 * QCW-05 Submachine Gun
 * QSZ-92 Pistol
 * QBS-06 underwater rifle
 * QLZ-87 grenade launcher
 * QBU-10 sniper rifle
 * QLU-11 grenade launcher/sniper
 * PF-89 rocket launcher
 * PF-97 rocket launcher
 * DZJ-08 rocket launcher

 * Armor
 * Type 15 tank
 * ZTL-11 Amphibious Assault Gun
 * ZBL-08 Amphibious IFV
 * ZSL-10 Amphibious APC
 * ZTD-05 Amphibious Assault Gun
 * ZBD-05 Amphibious IFV
 * ZSD-05 Amphibious APC
 * WZ551 Wheeled APC

 * Aircraft
 * Z-9WA attack helicopter
 * Z-9C utility helicopter
 * Z-18 transport helicopter

 * Artillery and ammunition
 * PLZ-07B self-propelled howitzer
 * PLL-09 self-propelled howitzer
 * Type 89 self-propelled howitzer
 * HJ-8 Anti-tank missile
 * HJ-73 Anti-tank missile

Chinese marines use the QBZ-95 as their main armament, though this is set to change as the PLA is set to replace the QBZ-95 with the QBZ-191 as its standard service rifle. The Type 07 Oceanic Camouflage used by the marines is likewise scheduled to be replaced by the Xingkong camouflage pattern. The marines also make use of GPS and night vision systems to enhance their fighting capabilities.

The PLAN marines are equipped with amphibious light tanks and armored personnel carriers. The Type 63A is the newest light tank in Chinese service. It is based on the hull of the older Type 63 (which in turn is based on the Soviet PT76 amphibious light tank). The Type 63A features a number of improvements, in particular the new welded turret which features much greater armor protection and the 105mm main gun (capable of firing standard NATO projectiles as well as the gun launched anti-tank missile). The marines are believed to have continued operating the Type 63 and the non-amphibious Type 62 light tanks as secondary units. The Type 77 amphibious APC was the standard armored transport for the marines for many decades. However, new designs have been adapted from the army to complement these aging transports. These include specially modified versions of the Type 89 and Type 63 APCs, with enhanced swimming capabilities. The Type 86 (or WZ501) IFV is also in service with the marines. Based on the Soviet BMP-1, it is armed with a single 73mm main gun and mounts an HJ73 ATGM (with max range of 3000 meters).

For air defense, Chinese marines employ a mix of automatic and manually operated anti-aircraft artillery systems, as well as short range surface-to-air missiles. The marines have been seen operating the new Type 95 self-propelled air defense platform on an amphibious hull similar to the Type 77 APC. This platform is armed with four 25mm cannon with a short ranged SAM combination to achieve effective killing capabilities against low flying targets at short ranges. The Type 89 self-propelled 122mm gun is the first SP artillery system in service with the marines since 1999. This adds additional accurate firepower to the PLAMC.


text: User talk:NRS11

title: User talk:NRS11


text:
Talk:M1 Garand

Untitled

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Move to M1 Garand
I propose that we move this article to. "Rifle" is an unnecessary qualifier, and should be removed. See also M4 Sherman etc.-- Patton t / c 23:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Agreed. "Rifle" is redundant.  M1 Garand rifle should redirect to M1 Garand.  I believe for this you just have a mod delete M1 Garand, move M1 Garand rifle there, and then make the redirect.  Good call.  MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Agree. The term "rifle" is only needed as a disambiguation if there is such a thing as the "M1 Garand toenail clipper". It's pretty well a given that there will only be one M1 Garand to choose from. And, yes, I did just disagree with you on the M3 article.  I'll caution you to tread lightly as there is a consensus on this as well... that I disagreed with but still a consensus.  --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Agree- the "Rifle" aspect of the title is redundant and there is nothing else known as an "M1 Garand" except the rifle. Most other firearm articles also omit the "rifle" suffix (except where the name is inherently non-descriptive), and there's no reason for M1 Garand to be any different.Commander Zulu (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment: I've added this proposed rename at Requested moves. That way, if (and only if) there's a consensus to rename, generally after five days or more, an admin will see it and rename the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. No-brainer, per WP:NAME. Nice to see that firearms articles are gradually moving towards current naming conventions. Even if there were another M1 Garand, the correct title would be "M1 Garand (rifle)" anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Disagree - Personally I prefer "M1 Rifle (Garand)". "Garand's M1 Rifle" or "Garand M1 Rifle" at worst. If this is an encyclopedia than it should use and promote factually correct terms, names and titles. Not culturally dumbbed down terms, names and titles. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That, I didn't expect. You propose to make it more confusing? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Our naming conventions explicitly favour "dumbed down" article titles if they are the most commonly-used titles for the subject and they are unambiguous. It goes so far as to state that articles should not be placed at "official" titles above popular ones. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Then by all means, change it to "Gurrand (gun) yo". --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, that's one way to handle it. How about something constructive, though. Your suggestion was to make it more complicated however technically slightly more correct than it is now.  Problem is, that's not per Wikipedia guidelines. You can get super-techincal and title the article the exact nomenclature the US Army used.  Something like, "United States Rifle, M1. Caliber .30".  Frankly, I don't want to be writing redirects till my fingers are numb like this: M1 Garand when 99% of the time people are seeing "M1 Garand" in the wikified article. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

 * There is no consistency in that... The term "United States Rifle, M1. Caliber .30", is not appropriate in my opinion. Let me use the article on the P226 as an example which is "SIG P226", appropriate, as is Garand M1 Rifle. Manufacturer than model. As for consistency, you want to use English that is popular and used by the majority of people in articulating a title for this article. Than you better write it in English that is used by the giant majority of English speakers as well, not correct English grammar. Remove all "an"s before vowels, maybe even replace "a"s with "uh"s for example. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

 * This isn't the right venue to argue with Wikipedia's general naming conventions (and frankly these are arguments which are old and settled by now). Nor are straw man arguments about replacing titles with a series of grunts likely to sway anyone's opinion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Support Per WP:COMMON and nom. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 17:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I support this attempt. M1 Garand 'rifle' is redundant. There is no confusion with simply using 'M1 Garand' as the title, given that there is no such thing as an "M1 Garand Tank" and the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenden (talk • contribs) 09:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Caliber listing for M1 Garand
In the article about the Garand, the caliber is listed as .30-'06 or 7.62 x 51 mm NATO. The 7.62 x 51 mm NATO (.308) is used in the M1A. The metric description for the .30-'06 should be 7.72 x 63 mm. Further in the text, there is reference to a civilian version of the Garand offered in .30-'06 and .308. The .308 version would be an M1A offered by Springfield Armory. BOSF53 (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

 * No, you're wrong on all counts. Garand was offered in .308 as well as 30-06. Metric designation is not "7.72mm" anything. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

 * The M1A is a version of the M14 not the M1. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

7.72mm was a typo. Should have been 7.62mm. Would you not agree that the primary round was .30-'06 (7.62 x 63mm)? Some M1's were 'modified' for .308. Don't know what your source is, but the Military Channel's program listed the cartridge for the M1 as .30-'06. All the military manuals I have refer to it as .30-'06, and all the ammo I have bought at matches for the Garand have been standard issue .30-'06. BOSF53 (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the confusion here is the way the layout is done. Reading .30-'06 7.62 x 51 mm makes it seem that the two are equivalent, rather than .30-'06 and 7.62 x 51 mm. BOSF53 (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

 * The US Navy converted over 30,000 M1 rifles to 7.62mm NATO after 1963 as sufficient numbers of M14 were not available to them for issue. The US Army also experimented with this prior to the development of the T44/M14, and held out the possbility for performing further conversions as a contingency should a major war break out before enough M14 could be built.  --D.E. Watters (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Not even going to justify the "Military Channel" reference. I'll just chalk this up to ignorance of the facts.  Read D.E. Watters' post above.  Military Channel... . --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your post Mr. Watters. Perhaps I am ignorant to the facts as Mr Nukes points out. That's why I ask questions and try to learn things. Were the M1's that were converted to 7.62 NATO issued as .30-'06 and re-barreled, action modified, etc, or were they 'manufactured' as 7.62 NATO? It would seem the modifications would be quite extensive if starting with a stock Garand. 24.136.247.14 (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

 * The 7.62mm M1 rifles were all converted from .30-06. Actually, it didn't require much reworking.  Some conversions used a chamber insert in the original .30-06 barrel, while others were rebarreled.  The other requirement was a spacing block in the magazine to compensate for the difference in cartridge length.  I can't remember if they had to play with the size of the gas port in the barrels using the chamber inserts.  --D.E. Watters (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Excuse my curt posts above. The only modification required for the .308 (7.62x51mm) in a Garand was a chamber insert.  These were inserted in the chamber and a cartridge fired to seat them.  Later, problems with the inserts coming out and imperfect 'fixes' to keep them in prompted the manufacture of new barrels and rebarreling troubled rifles.  There are other things that can be done to tune a Garand to work better with .308, but they are not necessary.  Primary user was the Navy however it became popular with civilian shooters as well.  Commercial Garands were also produced in .308 as well as the Italian series of Garands and later Garand descendants, many of which were in .308.  These are distinguishable from the M14 which is an entirely new weapon. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

 * For clarity, the M1 Garand is available in both calibers. The CMP currently issue both I believe but their matches require the weapons to be specifically .30-06 and no .308 re-chambered weapons are allowed.Ref If the CMP re-arsenals such that it is rendered a .308, then they will stamp it as such. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 20:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The original M1 Garands were designed for 30.06, the standard rifle round of the American military. The previous uses of the 30.06 round in American use include(but are not limited to) the m1903 springfield, the 30.06 chauchat, and the BAR. Before Nato, it was common for countries to have their own calibers. Blamazon (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I am wrong about that. I think John Garand's first design was in .273, but the military wanted him to make it in 30.06 so he did that and created the M1.Blamazon (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The "distinctive Ping" heard from the clip being ejected?
This has already been discredited as being hearsay. The only thing that you can hear whether you are 75 yards or 15 yards away and downrange is the bolt racking forward after reload. The person operating the weapon may hear a ping however slight but he/she is the one handling the weapon and not a german, italian or japanese downrange listening for a distinctive ping waiting for the right moment to charge. By the time they would hear anything,(which would be the bolt racking forward) it would be too late. Just ask any dead japanese or german soldiers. So, can we remove this nonsense from the article? These are always the things that are heard by people who have never been on the battlefield or simply put the myth to the test. 71.60.202.180 (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)R.G. Infante Jr. LCDR, USN (Ret)

 * You'll need a reliable source debunking this if the information is to be removed as the statement you question is sourced by two works. I have also wondered about the pings from time to time, seeing has how a soldier is rarely alone (meaning that even if one guy has an empty rifle, you'll probably get shot by his buddy if you charge when one rifle is empty) and how can a ping be heard over the sound of gun fire prevalent on the field of battle etc. What you say makes a lot of sense, but as I said, you'll need a source.--Sus scrofa (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I asked my dad about this years ago (he was an infantryman in Korea). He never heard of this issue and he sas someone who liked to take local knowledge seriously. Amcalabrese (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I own one, and I could barely here the ping when my clip ejected since my buddy fired his M14 at the same time as it did. To be fair, I was wearing earmuffs, but on a battlefield a lot more shooting would be going on. And yeah, you'd need a more reliable source than me. 174.5.11.131 (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Agreed. I also own a match-grade M-1, and served for fifteen years as a Marine, all but 3 of those years in infantry units.  Riflemen in combat typically do not wear hearing protection.  Once the firing starts, you aren't hearing a bloody thing for several hours.  Since this is both common sense and practical experience - neither of which are recognized by Wikipedia, it does not count as a source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The sentence in the Function section of the main article "It was even harder and slower to reload than the M1903 rifle" relates to the infamous "ping" of the ejected clip. Actually the M1 is to my knowledge the quickest and easiest battle rifle to reload bar none. Given any service rifle or rifles you may like (including an M1) let them all start with a single round in the chamber, simulating the last round. Let all rifles fire their last round simultaneously and begin to reload and fire another shot. I'm assuming all shooters are well familiar with their rifles. I'll wager the M1 will beat all with the next round fired. After the last shot the bolt is locked to the rear and the magazine is empty. A new clip is retrieved and inserted. The loading hand is swung out of the way and the rifle returned to the shoulder and the trigger pulled. I think it is a very rapid and easy procedure and simpler (i.e. fewer steps) than any other service rifle. Relating to the ping, the enemy soldier, even if he heard it would have to be very close and quick to beat the rapid reload and following shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktate749 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I particpate in military matchs. Several particpants and competitors use M1 Garand and '03 Springfield rifles. My observations (yah, I know, WP:OR, but this Talk:M1 Garand) are that (a) the "ping" is inaudible over gunfire, sometimes with M1 Garand shooters on either side of me, and (b) the Garand guys reload with en-bloc clips faster than the Springfield guys using stripper clips.(Course of fire is standing off-hand, ten rounds per target, with most Garand shooters using one clip loaded with two and one with eight, which would mean ejection of two empty clips per target.) My father fought in New Guinea and the Philipines in WWII and never recounted an "M1 clip ping" story. My first encounter with the "M1 clip ping" was a 1950s war comic book. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, all I've heard indicates that the "ping" is actually from the ejected clip hitting a hard surface, not from the ejection itself. If the clip landed on dirt, leaves, grass, or any other such soft surface, it wouldn't make that noise. Icanhasaccount has an account 19:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The clip definitely pings as it is released from the rifle. It can make another as it hits a hard surface, but there's always one from the release. You can youtube "garand ping" for real world examples, as well as real-world "proof" (such as a camera's microphone can give) that the ping is indeed hard/impossible to hear when it happens during live-fire. Nothing RS enough to change the article though. Crow  Caw  20:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The ping is from the ejection, you prove this by racking the bolt before firing the last round. You aren't going to able to hear the ping during a firefight, and chances are its a bad idea anyway to charge when you think you hear the ping since that might be the only person reloading. If you want to hear the ping, load one round into the clip and insert. Then rack the bolt and the clip will pop out with a ping. The idea that german, italian, or german forces timed their attacks using the sound of garand pings is at best, far-fetched. For one thing, garands aren't the only weapon used. LMGs, SMGs, and pistols do not have audible and recognizable sounds for reloading besides a lack of. Second, it is unlikely that enough rifleman would be reloading at the same time for an attack to be a good idea. This idea has been well known in military history. Third, japanese "banzai" attacks are often exaggerated in their effectiveness and their quantity. As you can guess, charging through the open with melee weapons against a modern army(meaning they have machine guns) is a bad idea and is very wasteful. The Japanese realized this and stopped doing it afterwards. The first battle where banzai tactics were no longer used was on Peleliu. American forces on Peleliu and several battles afterward believed that banzai attacks were coming, and deployed against them. This ended up costing time and resources for the Americans. (Infromation on Peleliu is drawn from "WITH THE OLD BREED" by E.B.Sledge)Blamazon (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Canada
Canada used the M1 with the 1SSF. Also, post war in Europe some troops were issued them to have compatibility with US troops. These rifles were marked with a W. In addition, the Dominion Arsenal in Quebec made en blocs. 174.5.11.131 (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

What is T1E1?
The "Development" section talks about T1E1, T2E3, etc, but doesn't indicate what these terms mean. What are they? --Badger151 (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Experimental versions as seen here. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  01:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Origin?
While Mr. Garand may have been Canadian, does not necessarily mean the country of origin was Canada. In fact, Garand was working for a US company (Springfield Armory)in the US, meaning the country of origin is the United States rather than Canada... I find it odd either way that Canada is listed as an origin country of such a mass produced firearm, yet they do not even use it. AloDurranium (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The inventor was a US citizen at the time of the product's patent and production. The patent reads that he was of Springfield Massachusetts. In the 1920's, as later, the US naturalization process may have required a renunciation of foreign citizenships, even Canadian. In a formal article, it may be best to simply describe the inventor as Canadian-American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Did it increase total ammunition expenditure in action ?
Or did it simply allow more rapid fire at key moments ? I'm thinking that you could chew up a lot of ammunition pretty quickly with it. What about overheating : would it limit total ammunition expenditure ? If the former, did ammunition supply to the frontline to support it require extra resources compared to troops equipped with bolt-action rifles ? Do we know how many rounds an infantryman equipped with it expended compared to troops in similar action with bolt-action rifles ? Rcbutcher (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Without looking at actual statistics, I'd guess it probably did, man for man. Knowing how much that number increased is pretty hard, tho. Unlike, frex, the American Civil War (in which, legend has it, repeaters were discouraged because the logistics train couldn't support the added expendtiture), by the time the Garand appeared, crew-served weapons like the M1917, not to mention vehicle-mounted MG, would eat up mountains of ammo, & the supply train to keep them fed was well-developed. Also because of that, the number of rounds dedicated to the Garand is a bit hard to break out. (IDK what the individual carry ammo was; had it gone up from the 60/man of the ACW?) Hope that's some help.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  14:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

 * The basic load for a US Army rifleman was 88 rounds (ten clips plus one in the rifle, 11 X 8 = 88).
 * Of course many soldiers carried a lot more than that, but that's what the standard was.
 * Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  20:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Most likely yes, but I doubt it was wasteful. Semi-automatic weapons have much more potential and capabilities than bolt-action rifles. It can give a single soldier more firepower than several soldiers with bolt-action rifles(for a short time). This makes it more effective at suppressing enemies.

 * Don't forget that America was not the only country with semi-automatic rifles. The Germans had the g41 and g43. I think the Russians had the SVT-40. So it was definitely a recognized advantage for riflemen. The notion that you could inadvertently waste ammunition seems far-fetched to me. You have to pull the trigger every time you want to fire a round, and the kick from a rifle round is enough that you can't really spam the trigger and get any useful effect(unless you aren't trying to hit something).

 * Logistically, ammo was distributed in units of fire(one unit per weapon/soldier per day). For the Garand, a unit of fire was 100 rounds. This was supposed to last one day of heavy fighting. This is probably more than a unit of fire for the 1903 springfield, but I still doubt it required any significant ramping up of production for rifle cartridges. After all, a unit of fire for the LMG(BAR in this case) is 1500 rounds. I can only imagine what a unit of fire was for the M1919 belt-fed machine gun. But given how much more ammo the machine guns would probably need, I doubt that semi-automatic rifles require really any extra cartridge production.(unit of fire data taken from "WITH THE OLD BREED" by E.B.Sledge)Blamazon (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on M1 Garand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061109091157/http://www.springfield-armory.com/Manuals/M1GarandManual.pdf to http://www.springfield-armory.com/Manuals/M1GarandManual.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 23:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

To edit or not to edit
We used M1 rifles on rare occasions for target practice in the Greek army (in 2004) in addition to the normally distributed G3A3 rifles we had. I suppose they did that simply to get rid of old ammunition. Should I edit the entry under Users from "Still in use for ceremonial duties by the Presidential Guard." to "Still in use for ceremonial duties by the Presidential Guard and for training." or is my first person testimony too vague and too unencyclopaedic? Iago 212 12:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Personal recollection is not considered a reliable source, I'm afraid. If you can find a source for this info (e.g. a magazine article), we're in business.--Sus scrofa (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

 * The most recent American Presidential inauguration showed ceremonial guards armed with M1 Garands.Blamazon (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Demilitarized models ?
"Demilitarized models have modifications to prevent reversion. The gas cylinder lock screw is welded to the gas lock and gas cylinder and the firing pin hole is welded closed on the bolt face. The barrel is drilled-out, plugged and welded at the chamber mouth and then welded to the receiver". Can somebody please translate this to meaningful civilian language. Demilitarized ? Reversion ? The basic idea being ? Rcbutcher (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

DONE...--RAF910 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps demilitarized should be changed to read "drill rifles". Are there other civilian, non-military uses, besides drilling - (how boring!). For example, CMP rifles may have been part of the US civilian marksmanship program. Also, in the separate drill article, it seems that those doing the most drills/drilling is still the military, so the term de-militarized just does not seem to fit, either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on M1 Garand. 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/20080915225950/http://www.civilianmarksmanship.com:80/fieldstrip.html to http://www.civilianmarksmanship.com/fieldstrip.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140921011646/http://www.ruger.com:80/products/mini14/index.html to http://ruger.com/products/mini14/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Editing back-and forth re commie use in Vietnam -why?
This does seem to be a simple fact, with US weapons received in small numbers directly from the OSS, further tiny amounts captured or stolen from the French in the South or the Chinese in the north (or abandoned by them), considerable amounts received from the Chinese, captured during the Korean way, even before the fighting escalated in the south. Anmccaff (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 * By itself, perhaps, but with the non-standard formatting, this is typical of an IP-hopping user that adds unsourced info to several articles at a time. Also, users of small numbers of captured weapons aren't generally included in Users/Operators lists. It'll need a reliable source that verifies the significance of the usage. - BilCat (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 * See these contributions for an example IP. Both IPs locate to Bangkok, Thailand, so are presumably the same user. - BilCat (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 * Ah, but what if it's Alan Dawson?

 * Joking aside, yeah, those are valid points, and there doesn't seem to be a real standard across articles where to draw the line. Sometimes that varies, too, with specific using units: 50 oddball pistols used by some kind of oddball special forces might be significant, while a thousand obsolescent or personally owned weapons out of an army of a million might not be.  There's a couple of intel reports floating around DTIC that might be useful, if memory serves, but the only one I could dig up now, this, doesn't get into numbers of weapons, just their basic loads. This claims that substantial conversion of VC to standard PAVN armament occurred in 1964.  Anmccaff (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 * Who's Alan Dawson? This one is dead, so if he was editing WP, I wouldn't dare revert him! Anyone alive will have to cite reliable sources. The DTIC mention would probably be notable, as it's about conversions. - BilCat (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 * Dawson is a Canuckistani newsie who was living in the US when he got an invitation to join the army, or go back north. Decided to join. Became a war correspondent, was bureau chief in Saigon when it fell; his book on this is one of the standard texts.  Last I heard, he was newsicating for the Bangkok Post. Dunno if he's still around.
 * Good reporter. I worked for an old arty colonel who knew him, and later ran into himself on the old relay BBS nets. Worth reading. Anmccaff (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 * A suggestion on fixing this: why not make a clean section break between the "standard" weapons and the substitute, occasionally used, captured, &cet? Anmccaff (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 * PS: still kicking, still writing, still with the Post,still, from the look of some recent articles, a damned good newsie. This looks like it might be of some use on some other pages.
 * Getting back to the article,, any thoughts on splitting the sections into common or standard weapons on the one hand, and rara aves on the other? Anmccaff (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

1919
,, I looked at the AfD for the model 1919, and it looks, frankly, like a POV based decision. I think it might deserve an article, even though its influence was mostly indirect. Anmccaff (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't seeing a particular POV, but it didn't look like strong opposition, either. Problems with who wrote it can be overcome, if the original pagedata is salvageable, & I'd be happy to redo, if it is. The merge &/or notability issue remains...  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  23:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Any admin should be able to userfy it for you, if it's not a copyvio. But I don't know if it would need to go though Deletion Review to be restored to mainspace. I've no opinion on notability, as I haven't seen the sources. - BilCat (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

 * IMO, it's safe to guess I can get it back up; I rescued Hiroahata Merc Hirohata Merc after it was taken down off a copyvio, & that only needed rewording; this wouldn't even need that. It would, tho, be right back at the "non-notable" that got it nom'd AfD in the first place...& unless we can get more than just us agreeing it's worth putting back, it's a waste of effort. Much as I want to bluelink it, I'm not doing a futile exercise... So, I'm going to flag it at MilHist & Firearms & see if it gets any interest.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  11:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC) (link correction 23:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC))

 * It's up on the post-wiki wiki The article would, I think, survive a good-faith AfD, although it is kinda thin; given the subject matter, and the former filer, it'd still be vulnerable. So, yeah, maybe waiting on a few better sources will have to do. Anmccaff (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Better to put material into this article as part of the background and development rather than try and build a separate borderline-AfD article??. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe a section here, but that seems a bit OT, & over-emphasis 1 type to the exclusion of others... (If I had my way, they'd all get a page.)  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  19:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd thought about the mis-labling, also, that really should be named Garand primer-actuated rifles or suchlike. Anmccaff (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Adding sourced information here is a good first step. If someone objects that it's too much information, then it would be easier to make a case for splitting it to its own article. (There's more than one way to work a bureaucracy!) - BilCat (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that's our solution! Well done, M. Poirot. :D Who knows the Admin to ping for release of the relevant pagedata? Will you oblige us?    Agatha Christie   I always knew you weren't French  23:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to incorporate elements of the userfied recovered page into M1 Garand and use Model 1919 as a redirect. Over at the Milhist talk page, there was a ref to "M0" that I'm less sure of using.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  00:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That "M0" was a joke...a pun on predating the M1.  The Unknown Comic   get the last laugh  00:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's a reference and images for the Garand's 1919 and his other prototypes...https://www.nps.gov/spar/learn/historyculture/experimental-rifles-by-john-garand-1919-36.htm However, please do not overstate the importance of the 1919. It had nothing in common with the M1. It's just one of the many designs that John Garand worked on. He didn't start working on the M1 prototype until 1926.--RAF910 (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking that perhaps, it would be better to only generally mention that John Garand work on other prototype firearms on this, the M1 rifle page. However, we can go into more detail about his earlier designs on the John Garand page. There, it would be more appropriate to discuss the milestones on his journey to develop the M1 rifle. We can also go into more detail on his post WWII works such as the T20 which led the way to the M14 which he also consulted on.--RAF910 (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on M1 Garand. 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/20100503023852/http://www.rifleshootermag.com/featured_rifles/RS_minigrowsup_200804/index.html to http://www.rifleshootermag.com/featured_rifles/RS_minigrowsup_200804/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060509040711/http://www.gunsmagazine.com/bm59/GCA0283.pdf to http://www.gunsmagazine.com/bm59/GCA0283.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160205063717/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/tr/a/a4/Newsweek_26_A%C4%9Fustos_1974_kapak.jpg to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/tr/a/a4/Newsweek_26_A%C4%9Fustos_1974_kapak.jpg

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) 17:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Yugoslavia
The stuff recently added looks quite possibly partly true, but so badly sourced I nuked it awaiting something more authoritative. Anmccaff (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good call, I translated and read the source. No mention of Yugoslavia use of Garands in it. Samf4u (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M1 Garand. 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/20111027203952/http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/Berettatypee.pdf to http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/Berettatypee.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429075927/http://www.expoyeosu2012turkey.com/assets/Uploads/46658052569aff040907z.jpg to http://www.expoyeosu2012turkey.com/assets/Uploads/46658052569aff040907z.jpg

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) 04:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

To claim it's a refuted myth, you need to cite better sources than this one, and present them on the talk page
(Re ruses based on clip ejection) On the other hand, he didn't claim it was a refuted myth in the article, he merely removed it from there....which I think might have its points. I know of no contemporaneous cites for this at all, and if it were common enough to be worth mentioning in an article there should be. Anmccaff (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

 * The IP removed an existing source, claimed either there was no source or that it was unreliable, and claimed it was a myth that had been refuted. If they or anyone else wants to challenge the reliability of the cited source, they can do that, but to simply remove it per their edit summary is disingenuous or misleading.

 * Frankly, I removed it myself once as trivial, but was reverted. Clearly enough people want this in the article that removal needs to be discussed first. If the consensus is to delete it for whatever reason, I'm fine with that. - BilCat (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Well, I think this also has the usual prove-a-negative problems too, yes, but I think you did the right thing removing it before. Anmccaff (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Either way, its removal needed to be discussed. That's now happening, so however it turns out is good. - BilCat (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm responsible for adding this in March 2015. After checking every book I have on the subject I've failed to find a specific mention of the occurrence. I have changed the article to properly reflect the info in the Canfield book and I sincerely apologize for my mistake (especially to you Bilcat). Samf4u (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

 * The oldest known source for this is Roy E. Dunlap's 1948 book "Ordnance Went Up Front", which is cited in the article. However, both this and the idea that Aberdeen Proving Ground tested plastic clips to alleviate it are discussed in the video "Four Annoying Gun Myths" by Ian McCollum and "Bloke on the Range" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rv337snZ9k. The arguments in the video as to why this is a myth and how it came to be in Dunlap's book seem pretty persuasive, but I think consensus should be reached before the information is removed. --Chuckhoffmann (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't Dunlap the fellow who wrote "I do not like the M-1 rifle, and never have?" An expert, surely, but maybe a bit of bias. Anmccaff (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: John George's Shots fired in anger : a rifleman's eye view of the activities on the Island of Guadalcanal... another contemporaneous classic, gives a fairly good disection of all the weapons used in that campaign, mentions disapprovingly the inability to top off a magazine- and the habit some troops had of firing off a round or two just to allow reloading, IMS, and says nothing about faking the clip ejection ping.
 * PPS A lot of good works that used to be only found here and there are coming up on Hathitrust now. Anmccaff (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M1 Garand. 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/20081002055115/http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl05-e.htm to http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl05-e.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Ljungman
Ljungman was used quite commonly for direct-gas systems, including some that had only a passing resemblance to the AG42. Anmccaff (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Foot Note 1
Foot note 1 is mostly already contained in the lede. Why the redundancy? --84.132.147.249 (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are the official US military designations.--Sus scrofa (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Add picture of M1 used by another nation
Could someone help me include the picture from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Copenhagen_2014-05-21_(14109673437).jpg showing Norwegian Drill soldiers with their M1's? Bjs5005 (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that picture might be good to illustrate the unit, but as an illustration of the M1? It really only shows the rifles’ slings. Qwirkle (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Garand Reloading
I have been digging up information on the Garand since I knew WWII existed. But I still have the same question I had since then.

While inserting a full en bloc clip into the open magazine well with your thumb on the top of the first cartridge case(not the bullet, because this causes Garand thumb) and completely push the clip into the gun(all the way), you can simply lift your thumb up quickly and the bolt will chamber a round. You can do this because if you have your thumb firmly on the top cartridge case, your thumb has enough friction to hold the bolt back long enough to let the gun automatically chamber the first round without having to hold back the bolt or get Garand thumb.

Am I right about this?Blamazon (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Adjutant General John B. Shuman hyperlink removed
The page to which "Adjutant General John B. Shuman" was linked to did not exist, so I removed it and made it a normal part of the text back on Feb 24 of this year. Chevy217 (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Question on some of the Countries under Users
Under the section of Current Users, some of the countries have the M1 Garand as only a ceremonial weapon, such as Belgium, Greece, and Turkey, which makes sense. But then under Former Users, there are countries which still use it as a standard ceremonial weapon, such as Japan, South Korea, Philippines, and the United States, are not under Current Users, which does not make sense. Is there a reason on why there are not all under the same section or should they be moved to be correct? CloneCommanderFordo (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Yeah i know for a fact that it is still used for training conscripts in the Thai army as i have photos of them in use dated 11/2/24 unsure as to why it is considered former. Bawbagimusprime (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:M1 Garand


text:
Weight Gain 4000

"Weight Gain 4000" is the third episode of the first season of the American animated television series South Park. It first aired on Comedy Central in the United States on August 27, 1997. In the episode, the residents of South Park excitedly prepare for a visit by celebrity Kathie Lee Gifford, whom the boys' third-grade teacher Mr. Garrison plans to assassinate because of a childhood grudge. In the meantime, Cartman becomes extremely obese after constantly eating a bodybuilding supplement called Weight Gain 4000.

The episode was written and directed by series co-founders Trey Parker and Matt Stone. After the South Park pilot episode, "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe", drew poor test audience results, Comedy Central requested a script for one more new episode before deciding whether or not to commit to a full series. The resulting script for "Weight Gain 4000" helped the network decide to pick up the show. It was the first South Park episode created completely using computers instead of construction paper.

Although some reviewers criticized the episode for its profanity and other material deemed offensive at the time of its original broadcast, several others felt "Weight Gain 4000" was a significant improvement over the pilot, particularly for its satirical element regarding American consumerism. The episode introduced such recurring characters as Mayor McDaniels, Bebe Stevens and Clyde Donovan. The show's portrayal of Kathie Lee Gifford was the first time a celebrity was spoofed in South Park.

Plot
South Park Elementary teacher Mr. Garrison announces that Cartman has won the school's "Save Our Fragile Planet" essay contest, much to the anger of his classmate Wendy Testaburger, who immediately suspects him of cheating. The rest of the town becomes a flurry of excitement upon learning celebrity television host Kathie Lee Gifford will come to South Park to present Cartman with an award on national television. Mayor McDaniels plans a big event to showcase the town, with hopes of furthering her own career. Mr. Garrison directs rehearsals for a play with the schoolchildren depicting the history of South Park, which is to be shown at the event. Mayor McDaniels is horrified, however, to learn the historically accurate play includes children playing pioneers who attack and brutally beat the students portraying Native Americans. Garrison later gets fired for badmouthing Gifford.

Unbeknownst to the rest of town, Mr. Garrison relives a traumatic childhood memory in which a young Gifford defeated him in a national talent show. Mr. Garrison is manipulated by his hand puppet, Mr. Hat, to assassinate Gifford out of revenge. He purchases a large rifle from Jimbo's gun shop and plots to shoot Gifford. Meanwhile, Cartman is excited to appear on live television, and Mayor McDaniels instructs him to get into shape for Gifford's visit. Seeing a television commercial for a bodybuilding supplement called "Weight Gain 4000", Cartman asks his mother to buy it for him. Cartman becomes extremely fat from the product, although he believes he is in excellent shape and the excess weight is strictly muscle. Back at the school, Wendy looks through Mr. Garrison's papers and confirms Cartman indeed cheated on the contest by writing his name on a copy of Walden by Henry David Thoreau. Wendy also learns about Mr. Garrison's assassination plan, and enlists the help of her friend Stan to stop him.

Gifford arrives, and most of the town attends the celebratory event, where Chef sings a song to seduce her. Mr. Garrison takes his position in a tall book depository, but he is frustrated to see that Gifford is hidden behind a bulletproof glass bubble. Wendy and Stan arrive and try unsuccessfully to stop Mr. Garrison, saying that they understand his pain, but when Stan accidentally reignites Garrison's anger, he decides to go through with the assassination. Just as he is about to fire, Cartman's new immense weight causes the stage to collapse, catapulting Gifford off it, and causing the bullet to hit Kenny in the head. Kenny is propelled through the air and impaled on a flagpole. Gifford's bodyguards whisk Gifford away, costing a disappointed Cartman his chance to be on television. Wendy takes to the stage and reveals that Cartman cheated on his essay, but the townspeople are too upset about Gifford's departure to care. Mr. Garrison is taken to a mental hospital, where Mr. Hat is placed into a straitjacket. Mr. Garrison apologizes to the kids for costing the town a chance to be on television, although Kyle explains to him that Cartman is now appearing on talk show Geraldo because of his tremendous obesity. Meanwhile, Chef is lying in bed with Gifford post-coital while watching Geraldo.

Production
"Weight Gain 4000" was written and directed by series co-creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone. It first aired on Comedy Central in the United States on August 27, 1997. The South Park pilot, "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe", did not do well with test audiences, and Comedy Central executives were unsure whether they wanted to order any additional episodes. However, they paid Parker and Stone to write another script when Internet buzz began to generate about the duo and their work on The Spirit of Christmas, the 1995 animated short film that served as a precursor to South Park. The network opted not to commit to a full Comedy Central series until they could read the newly commissioned script. The result was "Weight Gain 4000", which the two South Park creators wrote while they were working on their 1997 comedy-action film, Orgazmo.

In writing the script, the duo sought to give Comedy Central executives an idea of what the series would be like and how each show could differ from the others. Parker and Stone also said they would not write another script until the network signed off on the full show with a season of at least six episodes. Comedy Central liked the script and agreed to commit to a series. While "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" was created almost entirely with construction paper, "Weight Gain 4000" was the first South Park episode made completely using computers. It was created in little over a month in a studio in Westwood, California, by about 15 animators using PowerAnimator, the Alias Systems Corporation animation program most commonly known as "Alias", which would be used in subsequent episodes. In the future, South Park shows would be created within a week of their broadcast dates and require about 40 animators. "Weight Gain 4000" was animated in chronological order from beginning to end. Although Parker and Stone sought to improve the details and textures of the characters and overall animation, they also specifically chose Alias because it would allow the animation to maintain the deliberately crude visual style they first created with construction paper in The Spirit of Christmas and "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe".

The South Park creators and animators said they were still developing the characters and trying to figure out the future direction of the show with "Weight Gain 4000", which was more slow-paced than the series would eventually become. The 30-page script was shorter than in later episodes, which would average between 45 and 50 pages. The child protagonists also spoke slower. While recording their voice performances, the actors read the lines slowly and the dialogue was then sped up to create the characters' distinctive voices. At that time, Parker and Stone had not mastered the pace at which they needed to speak. The crowd shots in "Weight Gain 4000" took a particularly long time to animate due to the large number of people featured, and the animators were especially proud of the use of depth and motion in the perspective of the crosshairs in Mr. Garrison's rifle scope as he tried to assassinate Kathie Lee Gifford. Mr. Garrison's hatred for Gifford was foreshadowed in "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe", where the sentence "I'm not positive, but I think Cathy [ sic ] Lee Gifford is much older than she claims to be", can be seen on his classroom's chalkboard. During a flashback scene in "Weight Gain 4000", an eight-year-old Mr. Garrison is shown to already be bald on top with gray hair on the side of his ears. This led to an inconsistency in the first season episode "Cartman's Mom is a Dirty Slut", in which he has a full head of hair during a flashback.

Themes
Describing the general tone of the show, Teri Fitsell of The New Zealand Herald explains that "South Park is a vicious social satire that works by spotlighting not the immorality of these kids but their amorality, and contrasting it with the conniving hypocrisy of the adults who surround them." The humor of the show comes from the disparity between the cute appearance of the characters and their crude behavior. However, Parker and Stone said in an early interview that the show's language is realistic. "There are so many shows where little kids are good and sweet, and it's just not real ... Don't people remember what they were like in third grade? We were little bastards."

Although these elements were established in "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" and the Spirit of Christmas precursor cartoons, "Weight Gain 4000" further pushed the conventions of television, and especially of animated television entertainment. In addition to a continued stream of profanities and the promiscuous activities of Chef, an elementary school employee, the episode presents the character of Mr. Garrison as more and more unhinged. Although entrusted with the care of an elementary school class, Mr. Garrison demonstrates a questionable gender identity, poor teaching and unusual relationship with his Mr. Hat hand puppet.

"Weight Gain 4000" served as a commentary on American consumerism, the equation of personal happiness with consumption and the purchase of material possessions. This satire is particularly demonstrated by Cartman's blind faith in the Weight Gain 4000 bodybuilding supplement product despite strong evidence that the product fails at its primary function. Specifically, the product promises to build muscle, and Cartman believes it has fulfilled this function even after he only becomes extremely overweight. This blind faith is also illustrated by the complete disregard Cartman demonstrates for warnings that Weight Gain 4000 carries a risk of permanent damage to the liver and kidneys. The tremendous amount of product Cartman buys is further indicative of American purchasing habits.

Cartman's impulse to buy a bodybuilding supplement based on a single commercial has been described as a satire of the concept of "identity shopping". The concept involves the obtaining of an identity through what one owns, wears or buys, just as Cartman seeks to remake himself as a bodybuilder by buying Weight Gain 4000. "Weight Gain 4000" also satirizes the obsession with celebrity prevalent among most Americans, particularly through the town's overly enthusiastic reaction to Kathie Lee Gifford's appearance. Additionally, Anglican theologian Paul F. M. Zahl has suggested Cartman's addiction to food in the episode, combined with his blind faith in the Weight Gain 4000 supplement and his insistence to "follow your dreams", reflects the idea that many people falsely cling to the notion of free will when they in fact lack any self-control whatsoever. Zahl wrote, "The two writers of South Park see through the myth of 'free will.'"

Cultural references and impact
"Weight Gain 4000" introduced several characters who would maintain important recurring roles throughout the rest of the series. Among them were Jimbo Kern, Mayor McDaniels, and Wendy's best friend Bebe Stevens. It also introduces Clyde Donovan, a student from Mr. Garrison's class who would eventually play significant roles in future seasons, although he was not identified by name. The characters demonstrate the wide range of often-extreme personalities among the adult residents of South Park, as well as serving as individual satires. McDaniels, who imagines herself an instant star upon being seen on television with Gifford, is portrayed as more caring about her own fame than the needs of her constituents, and the neglect with which Jimbo sells a gun to an obviously unstable Mr. Garrison serves as a satire of gun control. Jimbo and his friend Ned (who was introduced in "Volcano") were inspired by caricatures Parker used to draw during high school. In creating McDaniels, Parker and Stone envisioned a sophisticated mayor who was convinced she was better than the other residents of South Park. The episode also marked the first reference to Jesus and Pals, the public-access television talk show hosted by Jesus Christ. The fictional show is mentioned twice in the background during commercials on television sets, although footage from the show itself is not shown until "Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride" later in the season. Jesus and Pals, and the idea of Jesus as a South Park resident, are references to the original The Spirit of Christmas cartoon. Debbie Liebling, who served as a South Park producer at the time of the episode's broadcast, said the inclusion of a television show hosted by Jesus helped convey for audiences the idea of South Park as a place where "anything can happen".

Kathie Lee Gifford, then a television hostess on the morning talk show Live with Regis and Kathie Lee, was the first of many celebrities to be spoofed in a South Park episode. The South Park creators said they chose Gifford completely at random, not based on any particular reason or distaste for her. Shortly after "Weight Gain 4000" aired, the tabloid The Globe hired Suzen Johnson to film herself seducing Frank Gifford, Kathie Lee's husband, for a newspaper story. The incident was the first of what Parker and Stone called the "South Park Curse", in which something tragic or embarrassing supposedly happens to a celebrity shortly before or after they were featured in South Park. Actress Karri Turner provided the voice of Gifford in "Weight Gain 4000", marking her first and only guest appearance on South Park. Gifford appears at a parade hidden inside a bulletproof glass bubble. The bubble was inspired by an appearance Pope John Paul II made in the Popemobile during a trip to Denver, which was attended by Parker and Stone. They thought the design of the Popemobile, which has a bulletproof booth built into the back of a modified truck, was "hilarious". The design of the trophy that Gifford was to give to Cartman is a reference to Parker and Stone's 1997 film Orgazmo.

The line "Beefcake", which Eric Cartman enthusiastically screams after hearing it on a Weight Gain 4000 commercial, became a well-known catchphrase following the episode's broadcast, and clothing items with Cartman shouting the line became very popular. One of the earliest and largest South Park fan sites was called www.beef-cake.com. Matt Stone and site creator Taison Tan decided to shut the site down in April 2001 when the official site South Park Studios launched. South Park: Chef's Luv Shack, a 1999 video game from developer Acclaim, included a mini-game called "Beefcake", in which players control a Cartman character who moves back and forth between the screen eating cans of Weight Gain 4000 that are thrown down at him. The salesmen from "Weight Gain 4000" are featured as antagonists in the mini-game. The "beefcake" commercial featured in the episode is also briefly seen in the third season episode "Two Guys Naked in a Hot Tub", when Stan is quickly flipping through channels on his television.

Release and reception
When "Weight Gain 4000" premiered, many writers in the mainstream media were still debating the longevity and overall quality of South Park. With the series still in its earliest stages, the episode continued to shock many with its frequent use of profanities by children and the apparent instability of school teacher Mr. Garrison. Audiences were especially shocked by the violence depicted among children during a South Park history play, which included the use of guns and portrayed the bloody slaughter of Native Americans at the hands of white settlers. Audiences were also shocked and offended by Chef's sexually suggestive song about Gifford. Nevertheless, several reviewers declared "Weight Gain 4000" a significant improvement over the pilot, "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe", and felt it went in a much more satirical direction.

Jeff Simon of The Buffalo News, who did not like "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe", felt "Weight Gain 4000" proved the series could be funny. He specifically complimented the episode's commentary on American consumerism. Simon wrote, "It's all very bitter social satire, and if it weren't on Comedy Central, believe me, no one in networkland would think it ready for prime time. And you know what else? It's funny." Likewise, The Washington Post critic Tom Shales strongly criticized "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe", but said the second episode was funny and included "cleverly intertwined" plot-lines. Shales said, "[It] suggests the show may be an attempt at satire and not just poopy humor ... Yes, it's still sick and still twisted, but somehow this episode at least appears to have some comic ingenuity behind it, whereas the first was just a smutfest." In 2006, "Weight Gain 4000" was identified by Winnipeg Free Press as one of the ten most memorable South Park episodes, and ranked twelfth in a list of the top 25 greatest Cartman moments, as determined by voters on the Comedy Central website. The Daily Record in Scotland listed the episode's ending, and the "Beefcake!" line, as one of the six most memorable moments in the series.

"Weight Gain 4000" was released, alongside five other episodes, in a three-VHS set on May 5, 1998, marking the first time South Park was made available on video. It was released on the "Volume II" video, along with "Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride"; other featured episodes included "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe", "Volcano", "An Elephant Makes Love to a Pig" and "Death". "Weight Gain 4000", along with the other 12 episodes from the first season, was also included in the DVD release "South Park: The Complete First Season", which was released on November 12, 2002. Parker and Stone recorded commentary tracks for each episode, but they were not included with the DVDs due to "standards" issues with some of the statements. They refused to allow the tracks to be edited and censored, so they were released in a CD separately from the DVDs. In 2008, the duo made "Weight Gain 4000" and all other South Park episodes available to watch for free on the show's official website, South Park Studios.

title: Weight Gain 4000


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markenration Production

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Markenration Production
Five Google hits for "Markenration Production" and two for "Markenration Productions". RickK 04:53, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete CDC   (talk)  05:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, NN K1Bond007 23:42, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.