text:
Talk:Combat medic

Offensive Arms
To 69.201.27.21, you may know what you mean by "arms that qualify as offensive", but it needs an explanation. How can any arms not qualify as offensive? Any weapon can be used offensively. -- Necrothesp 12:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Necro but I wrote that when I wasn't signed in on accident. I'll try to explain it.... First, a 9mm is defined as defensive, no one attacks an enemy position with a 9mm. Second, rifles can only be used defensively, that means that a medic can't shoot first. All other weapons are considered to be offensive. You can't say you were defending yourself with a sniper rifle. And technicaly a 50cal or Mrk19 can't be used on people, only on equipment. -- Blinks

 * Which is what I mean when I say it needs more explanation. You may know that, and I had an idea that's what you meant, but this is an encyclopaedia and is read by people who don't. And as an former British Territorial soldier, I have to say that I've never heard the distinction made between offensive and defensive weapons - and I doubt whether an SAS trooper, for instance, would define a 9mm as defensive only, since they're considered primary weapons in CT operations. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 14:24, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I reworded this section, let me know what you think! Also, does anyone know what Isrealie combat medics would wear for insignia? (before the adoption of the red crystal) would it be the red star of David? one more thing, what does everyone think about possibly merging this with the Battlefield medicine article? Mike McGregor (Can) 13:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The reworded paragraph makes much more sense. I'm not sure about Israeli insignia, so I can't help you with that. As for mergng with the Battlefield medicine article, I don't think they have enough in common to warrant a single merged article. While combat medics fall under battlefield medicine, the role is too significant to merge with a general article. --Scottie theNerd 15:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Israeli medics (& medical vehicals/equipment) used the red Star of David (Magen David Adom). See discussion here. Also note that the Red Crystal need only be used outside Israel - the red Star of David can still be used within Israel, so I believe the IDF will continue using it. altmany 22:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Generally, a medic holding his/her weapon is considered to be an armed, military threat." Perhaps someone could go a bit deeper into this issue. When a medic is forced to defend himself (or his care), does he lose his legal protection? Can someone cause a medic to lose his legal protection by provoking him to draw a weapon?

The Geneva Convention defines what is offensive and defensive, as well as what they can be used on and who they can be used by.

The Geneva Convention only says that a medic has specific protections as long as they don't go outside the parameters defined by the Conventions. The medic can freely choose to fire first, use a crew served weapon, and not have to worry about any violations besides the ones that apply to his fellow soldiers. The medic merely loses his Geneva status and is treated like his fellow soldiers when he makes this decision.

The 9mm pistol is generally given to medics not because it's a 'defensive weapon', but because it can easily be used with one hand if the medic must maintain pressure on a wound or perform some other medical procedure that cannot be interrupted without destabilizing the patient further. Rifles have probably been used more offensively than any other weapon since gunpowder was first used in war. Medics are given rifles so they have similar training and armaments to the line units they may be assigned to. The rumor of the 'ma deuce' and the MK-19 only being able to be used on equipment would ban their use in the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts. Machine guns have always been understood to have been designed primarily as an anti-personnel weapon that can also take out light vehicles and aircraft. As long as the weapon is not designed to cause 'undue suffering', it can be fired on an enemy combatant. 72.198.72.14 (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

german vs nazi
Perhaps someone should change "Nazi" to "German". Not all Germans were Nazis, and this is supposed to be a neutral point-of-view encyclopedia. How much they get paid? please research and post as soon as possible.
 * In the context I think the use of "Nazi" is appropriate, given that British/American/Colonial forces are referred to as "Allied" regardless of nationality Graphia 04:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Nazi" is a misleading term, as a "Nazi unit" implies an actual Nazi armed force, such as the Waffen SS rather than the German army, the Wehrmacht. "German" is the conventional term to identify the major Axis proponent in WWII. As the German armed forces were separate organisations to the German government/Nazi party, I've changed the moniker. --Scottie theNerd 12:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

soviet-cold war passage
I think the statement regarding Soviet forces being ordered to target equpment with the red cross needs some sort of attribution or citation. otherwise it just seems like a unsubstanietated claim about the red menace.Mike McGregor (Can) 22:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC) the statement about the japanese targeting medics could probably also benifit from some backing up. Mike McGregor (Can) 22:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

(lol). The japanese statement is true. I looked it up in my big book on WWII (The World at Arms).

Medic armament
Which current armed forces equip medics with submachine guns? --Scottie theNerd 05:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * British medics were certainly carrying them in the Falklands War, since the SLR was too bulky, although now they carry SA-80s along with everyone else. -- Necrothesp 00:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed web address for a clotting agent as it seemed to be more of an advert (69.3.223.166 (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

Medic Picture
This is a bad picture for the article because it does not have clear insignia. St.isaac 23:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Legal protection for armed medic
"Generally, a medic holding his/her weapon is considered to be an armed, military threat." Perhaps someone could go a bit deeper into this issue. When a medic is forced to defend himself (or his care), does he lose his legal protection? Can someone cause a medic to lose his legal protection by provoking him to draw a weapon? 22 August 2006

A medic is authorized to use a personal weapon to defend himself and his patients. Personal defense weapons in the US are basically the M9 and M-16 variants. Something like the M249 SAW, or crew served weapons are "offensive." That being said, a .50 cal weapon cannot legally be used against personnel, just equipment. Weapons and uniforms are equipment though... Seem vague? I think so too.

Most Whiskey's are not trained to fire any weapon with a higher caliber than a 7.62mm weapon. We are supposed to only return fire to protect ourselves and our patients. Any soldier that is capable of returning fire should do so and usually will. In the current war situation, the enemy has been known to target a medical vehicle knowing that we are lightly armed and have no 50 cal. on board. The new enemy has no regard for the Geneva Convention and usually does not honor it.--Texdoc41 (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd disagree with the notion that medics are trained not to fire back. I spent my first 8 years as a 68W (and 91W for that matter) in an Infantry Brigade Combat Team. My training from Basic in 2004 to Bagram in 2012 was to ensure fire superiority and either slap on a tourniquet or at least make sure the wounded soldier was putting it on themselves. The reasoning behind this was that taking an additional rifle out of the fight increased the likelihood that the enemy would injure or kill another soldier which would degrade the situation even further. Additionally, you're not going to be doing any major medical treatment while under fire without exposing yourself. Helping to fight the enemy allows a medic to more quickly reach the point where either the enemy retreats or his element can get to an area where we can do more in depth treatment. 72.198.72.14 (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Doing away with combat-mission medics?
My neighbor, an Army seargent, claims that they're doing away with medics in the combat field. Soldiers are instructed to ask a wounded soldier "You OK?", and if the guy says "Yes", then the other soldier continues to shoot while instructing the wounded guy to put on first aid. COuld somebody help verify this so we can add it to this article? Thanks. --Bwefler 12:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This right here is ludacris..... I don't who you spoke to but that is so wrong. I'm a medic in the army and we aren't going anywhere. ---Blinks

That's only partially true. The US Army is incorporating a strategy of TC3, or Tactical Combat Casualty Care. It's a three part system. Part 1) Shoot, gain tactical fire superiority. 2) Do only care that prevents death, ie tourniquet or breathing tube. Part 3) More involved care.

Basically, if the situation permits the medic will spend time on the patient to correct the issue, but if the patient can do something on his own, the medic can still fire down range in that effort to gain fire superiority. -SoldierMedic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.134.2 (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The TC3 protocol actually applies to Combat Lifesavers rather than Combat Medics (i.e. 68W) Combat Lifesavers are soldiers with a nonmedical primary MOS, they are less equipped and only go through three to four days of medical training. Their primary mission is to continue to engage the enemy and later perform medical duties. Combat Medics have a primary duty to assist wounded soldiers. Also phase 1 of TC3 is engaging the enemy and applying a tourniquet. Phase 2 involves all other medical procedures. Phase 3 is the MEDEVAC/ CASEVAC of wounded soldiers although the phases of TC3 do not have to be performed in numerical order based on mission allowances.I work for a defense contractor teaching CLS. 24.28.160.54 (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Jon

Hi my name is LaShelle. I'm 17 yrs old and a senior. I was doing a research project and came across this. I'm thinkin about becoming a combat medic and would like to know some more about it. If any of ou can let me know what experiences I would have or what exactly I'd be doing, that'd be great! Thanks~!~ October 02, 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.107.113.74 (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you want to know? I love being a medic. My soldiers love me, mainly because I dispense medications and I am the one that takes care of them when they are hurt, so they take care of me. But it isn't all great. My aidbag is about 45 lbs, so that's 45lbs more you will have to carry than anybody else. But that is the only drawback. -SoldierMedic-

I can also help you with any information you may want about being a medic. I've been on three combat rotations and love my job. As SoldierMedic said they are one or two draw backs but mostly perks and it takes a certain personality to stay in this field.Blinks

Medic and squad leader - compat with info in this article?
Christopher Speer is described as "leading a squad assigned the task of going through the ruins, looking for weapons, and evidence of terrorism", and also as "a medic in an American special forces unit". In my ignorance, this use of medic seems possibly at odds with the picture painted in Combat medic article. Comments? SmithBlue 10:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Civilian Equivalents
Maybe we could have some comparisons of various medics to civilian occupations - EMT, Paramedic etc. - 121.208.89.95 (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In the 68W article it lists the specific skill identifiers for American Combat Medics. I believe that all American combat medics are required to be NREMT-B certified. There are also identifiers for flight medic(F6) which might cross over to Certified Flight Paramedic (FP-C) but I'm not sure. Combat medics can also be civilian licensed LPN's with an identifier of M6. I would stress however that care should be exercised when comparing them so that people do not get the idea that they are interchangeable. After I graduated from nursing school I wished to maintain my old MOS and therefore though I was civilian licensed nurse in my reserve unit I could not perform any medic duties. However due to increased pressure many more of the Army medical programs are requiring civilian certification so those things would carry over to the civilian world. 24.28.160.54 (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Jon

If you look at the job description of a 68W and a Tactical Paramedic, you will see they are basically the same job. I am advocating for the use of former 68W with current certification to be crossed over into such civilian placements.Texdoc41 (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

68 Whiskey
I believe that the Military Occupational Specialty for US Army medics changed from 91W to 68W in October 2006, not December 2005. The official title used in the US Army is Healthcare Specialist, though this is identical to calling a Navy Corpsman a 'Hospital Corpsman'. I'll change the month/year once I find verifiable sources and figure out how to do footnotes if there are no objections (I am a 68W so I may need help with POV). Shifty-Mo (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The MOS tag did change as of 1 October 2006. All 91W were to given a time frame to complete the requirements for the new identifier. If they did not complete the training they were required to reclass into a new MOSTexdoc41 (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)--Texdoc41 (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I added a confusing tag
I added a confusing tag. I believe the third paragraph here contradicts the first two. The third paragraph is about non-combatant medics. It begins:

 * 1) We already cover non-combatant medics elsewhere.
 * 2) I don't know how many countries currently send non-combatants to the battlefield -- but the USA does not.

The simplest fix would be to simply remove the third paragraph.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I think it is crystal clear. See Medics are afforded protections under the Geneva Convention if they are "acting" as a medic "at the time" tending to the "sick and wounded".  If they engage in offensive military operations, they lose the protections of the Geneva Convention(s).  It seems pretty clear to me.  As for the United States military, they do send non-combatants to the battlefield, depending on the service and size of the force.  Special Forces tend to use cross-training so that a member of any team is also trained as a medic should the need arise for his services.  But he is first and foremost a member of the team who works in an offensive capacity.Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Are you quoting article 25, as you did in another thread? If so, are you sure you aren't misquoting it?  Article 25 applies to "nurses, hospital orderlies and auxiliary stretcher bearers" -- not "medics".  Geo Swan (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Dear Geo Swan - Thank you so much for your response. Medics qualify as "nurses" under Article 25, as I previously explained.  I also note that articles 24 and 40 do not mention the term "medic" either.  I can understand your confusion as to this point.  I hope that cleared it up for you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I continue to believe my correspondent is mistaken. Navy Hospital Corpsman Joshua Chiarini won a Silver Star for [his actions on February 10, 2006:
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"

 * Many of Chiarini’s missions took place in Al Anbar province, a hotbed of violence in early 2006. The morning of February 10 started out like so many others – with a patrol for Chiarini, a combat medic spending his third tour of duty with the 1st Platoon, 2nd Marine Division...
 * Many of Chiarini’s missions took place in Al Anbar province, a hotbed of violence in early 2006. The morning of February 10 started out like so many others – with a patrol for Chiarini, a combat medic spending his third tour of duty with the 1st Platoon, 2nd Marine Division...

 * ...One by one, Chiarini helped guide each person to safety. Chiarini led the interpreter, who had a mangled arm, to a secure Humvee. He guided the M-16 fire of a blinded Marine toward the insurgents. Chiarini then made three separate trips from the Humvee to the battlefield to treat and retrieve each of the wounded, all while braving a high volume of incoming rounds and laying down cover fire. For much of the time, Chiarini applied aid to the wounded with one arm, while providing suppressive fire with the other. After moving the team to safety, Chiarini stayed on the battlefield and unleashed M-16 fire at the enemy forces. He continued the fight as reinforcements arrived, eliminating several insurgents.

 * }
 * Chiarini clearly acted as a combatant. And he won a medal. rather than being admonished, because it is understood that combat medics are combatants first, medical personnel second.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Thank you so much for your response. Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 22 states that "[t]he following conditions shall not be considered as depriving a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 19: (1) That the personnel of the unit or establishment are armed, and that they use the arms in their own defence, or in that of the wounded and sick in their charge..." .  Chariani's actions were in full accord with the dictates of Article 22, and his actions were taken in defense of himself, and the wounded and sick in his charge.  Your good faith assertion that Chariani's courageous actions in saving the wounded Marines under his care merited some sort of disciplinary action on the part of the United States military is not well placed, and does not take into account the guiding force of international law as further cited supra.  Again, thank you so much for your comments on the subject.Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

 * In order to alleviate any further confusion or unnecessary debate, I have cited to the relevant parts of the Geneva Conventions that apply to this subject. As the matter should no longer cause any confusion when these relevant portions of the Geneva Convention are reviewed, I now propose removal of the confused tag as the matter, and any confusion as to this matter, has now been fully clarified.  Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Could you please observe the indentation conventions?

 * No offense, I don't find the interpretation you offered credible.

 * What we are agreed on is that Chariani sounds like a brave soldier. We are agreed that he deserves a medal.

 * You quoted this passage:
 * Let me repeat the final sentences of the passage about the incident that earned Chariani's medal:
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"

 * After moving the team to safety, Chiarini stayed on the battlefield and unleashed M-16 fire at the enemy forces. He continued the fight as reinforcements arrived, eliminating several insurgents.
 * After moving the team to safety, Chiarini stayed on the battlefield and unleashed M-16 fire at the enemy forces. He continued the fight as reinforcements arrived, eliminating several insurgents.

 * }
 * Chariani continued to fight, "After moving the team to safety..." He wasn't acting to defend the wounded.  He had passed them over to the care of others.  He "stayed on the battlefield".  He "continued to fight".  Please reconsider whether you are going to continue to maintain this was the actions of a noncombatant.

 * Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I would really appreciate it if you made a greater effort to refrain from misquoting me. I never wrote that Chariana deserved disciplinary action.  I never wrote that, and I don't believe it.  If combat medics, like Chariana are, as I contend, merely soldiers first, cross-trained to serve as medics, with no obligation to only fire in self-defense, then nothing in the account of the incident merits anything but a medal -- recognition of his courage.  I never wrote anything else.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Thank you so much for your reply. Your exact quote was:  "he won a medal. rather than being admonished."  If you wrote that, what else did you mean?  As for his actions, "defending the wounded" includes making certain they are not over-run.  In other words, this was a defensive tactic, Geo Swan.  You may want to recheck tactics before commenting further.Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I do think Geo Swan is wrong here, and I don't think the Chariani case is very enlightening. "If combat medics, like Chariana are, as I contend, merely soldiers first" is an individual, uncited opinion that really has no bearing here, (might even be construed as insulting. "Merely a soldier?" In this context, that sounds pretty close to "merely another target")  However, if anyone wants to cite Geneva Convention rules, they should do so with cases where opposing national armies (are at least claiming to) respect the Conventions under which Medical personnel ordinarily do qualify as non-combatants. Chariani was fighting a non-state force unlawful combatants (unprivileged combatants). The Geneva convention does not apply in such conflicts. Try lookin up rules of combat for Military Occupational Specialty (MOS)68W, recently known as 91W, the MOS was changed effective October 1, 2006. Formerly known by the MOS codes 91B (9 1 Bravo) and 91A (91 Alpha).(often pronounced as Six-Eight Whiskey using the phonetic alphabet)68W is the Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) for the United States Army's healthcare specialist, also known as the combat medic.Cuvtixo (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Cuvtixo, you don't have to answer this, but I think it would be useful for this discussion, if you told us whether you were a veteran. Are you?  How about you Yachtsman1?

 * You wrote:
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"

 * ''"However, if anyone wants to cite Geneva Convention rules, they should do so with cases where opposing national armies (are at least claiming to) respect the Conventions under which Medical personnel ordinarily do qualify as non-combatants."
 * ''"However, if anyone wants to cite Geneva Convention rules, they should do so with cases where opposing national armies (are at least claiming to) respect the Conventions under which Medical personnel ordinarily do qualify as non-combatants."

 * }
 * Do you know the story of the CIA captive known as "triple-X"? He was captured in Iraq, and fell under enough suspicion that he was secretely shipped to one of the CIA's "black sites", for further interrogation.  But Jack Goldschmit said secretly shipping him out of Iraq was a violation of the Geneva Conventions.  So Tenet secretly shipped him back to Iraq.  Tenet then asked Rumsfeld to "keep him off the books".  So the GIs guarding him didn't know his name.  The Red Cross never visited him, because he wasn't on the official list of prisoners.  And, after going to all the trouble of hiding him, so the CIA could continue to interrogate him without any namby-pamby Red Cross observers, they promptly lost track of him.

 * My point in raising his story is that even at the height of its abrogation of its Geneva Convention obligations the Bush Administration acknowledged that the Geneva Conventions fully applied in Iraq. Cuvtixo you are completely incorrect to state or imply that American GIs are only obliged to follow the Geneva Conventions when they think they are fighting opponents who also comply with the Geneva Conventions.

 * If an American GI, or a British Tommy, or an Iraqi soldier in one of the new brigades the Americans trained, is going to continue to be eligible to be considered a lawful combatant himself or herself, then he or she has to full comply with the Geneva Conventions, even if they think their opponents are not complying. If they capture an opponent who they think breached the Geneva Conventions, by, let's say, fighting out of uniform, they are still obliged to treat that captive as a POW.  The Geneva Conventions have a procedure for stripping captives who committed war crimes, like firing on non-combatant medics, of the protections of POW status.  The USA has Army Regulation 190-8 specifically for this.  During the 1991 Gulf War the USA convened over 1300 AR-190-8 Tribunals.  The 1991 Tribunals confirmed that 400 of those captives were properly classified as POWs.  They determined that the other 900 were innocent civilians, who should be released.  They did not strip any captives of POW status because they were suspected of war crimes.

 * What should an Army General Staff do if they anticipate entering conflicts where opponents will not respect the proscription against firing on non-combatant medics, wearing a Red Cross? It is a trade-off, they should perform a cost-benefit analysis.  One of the choices is continue to field non-combatant medics, who wear a Red Cross, and accept a high attrition rate among them.  The other choice is to field soldiers who are cross-trained to serve as either a soldier or a front-line medic, as the situation requires.  It is my understanding that the USA made the second choice.

 * If an Army is still fielding non-combatant medics (and non-combatant chaplains), what are they supposed to do when they believe the position they are attached to is about to be over-run by the enemy? I believe that a non-combatant is not supposed to pick up a gun, and contribute their fire to making sure the position is over-run.  In theory, if the opponents also comply with the Geneva Conventions, when they burst in, they are supposed to be selective who they shoot at.  If they don't surrender first my understanding is that they can shoot any able-bodied combatant.  But the occupant wearing the Red Cross (or equivalent) markings, or the Chaplain's markings, is supposed to be off-limits -- as would be any combatant who was too wounded to provide resistance.

 * I saw a CNN interview back in 2003 or 2004, where a GI, or maybe it was the chaplain himself, described a routine roadblock position being surrounded by a larger opposing force. The CNN story describes the chaplain himself picking up an M16, and firing back at the opponents. Well, if that chaplain was wearing chaplain's markings he committed a war crime.

 * If the brass think the opponents they face won't respect the Geneva Conventions about not harming those already too wounded to resist, and not harming those wearing the markings that show they are non-combatants, they shouldn't allow those non-combatants anywhere near the front lines.

 * The argument that Chiarini could be a non-combatant medic, and also lay down covering fire, and prevent positions from being over-run, is nonsense. I do not believe Chiarini breached the Geneva Conventions rules on the behavior of non-combatant medics because I do not believe he was, at any time, a non-combatant.

 * That goofy movie, "Courage under fire", has plucky Meg Ryan command a medevac helicopter -- armed with a door gunner. She decides to taker her helicopter in to attack an Iraqi tank.  Both violations of the Geneva Conventions.

 * Note: One's opponents may not be trusted not to fire on medical personnel wearing the markings that should show they are non-combatants, simply because they are an illiterate tribal militia, who are not well-educated enough to fully understand the complexity of the Geneva Conventions.

 * Why are non-combatant medics and chaplains allowed to carry a side-arm on the battlefield for self-protection? Are they authorized to use their weapon if they think their position is going to be over-run?  Would that use be consistent with their obligations under the Geneva Conventions?  I do not believe they would be.  So, why the side-arm?  Battlefields are dangerous places -- always have been.  And the fire from enemy soldiers is just one of the dangers.  Historically, some battlefields were infested with lawless looters, who would wait until the action moved a relatively safe distance away, and then move in to strip the dead and wounded left on the battlefield of their valuables.  Since chaplains and medics might be left behind to minister to the dead, dying and wounded, when all the soldiers had moved down-range, they and the wounded under their care would be vulnerable to looters, and deserters.  I believe this is the sole justification for non-combatants carrying side-arms.  Oh, and the soldier or prisoner who "goes postal", snaps, goes beserk.  If a crazed soldier on their side, or a crazed prisoner, threatened them, or someone in their care, I believe they would be justified in using their side-arm.

 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Your questions: Why are non-combatant medics and chaplains allowed to carry a side-arm on the battlefield for self-protection?  Are they authorized to use their weapon if they think their position is going to be over-run?

 * The Answer: So they can defend themselves and those they are protecting, which they are allowed to do under the terms of the Geneva Convention. They are not allowed to take part in offensive operations, but are certainly not required to look at the enemy with wide eyes while they get massacred.  Thank you again for your comments. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In theory, medics are considered to be given the Geneva coverage applied to medical personnel. In practice, any line medic is going to willingly disregard these protections because they will not be given to him by today's enemy and he is more effective returning fire even (or especially) if he has no patient to protect. Remember that the Geneva Conventions stipulate that the protections are theirs to lose based on their choices on the battlefield. Medics do not break any treaties by attacking the enemy, they merely void protections that most likely wouldn't be wouldn't be honored. We take part in offensive operations, we train with and fire crew served weapons if needed, and we'll do this whether a soldier is injured or not. 72.198.72.14 (talk) 08:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

stretcher bearer?
There are many references to "stretcher bearer" (or "stretcher-bearer", which I'm not convinced is correct usage!) within WP articles, but it is not obvious where to point a redirect. (Currently, two pages point to stretcher bearer, and two to stretcher-bearer. Many other potential links exist within article text.)

What were the functions of a stretcher bearer (beyond the obvious!)? Were they given any medical training? (etc). I think this is a hole in WP's coverage related to 'combat medic'.

EdJogg (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 * That's an interesting point to raise. "Stretcher bearer" is a task not a title, I guess - traditionally carried out by both medics and other "non-fighting" troops such as bandsmen, cooks, pioneers, who would take stretchers loaded with ammunition and resupplies to the forward area and bring them back loaded with casualties. 81.132.66.172 (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Reason for lacking identifying insigna?
The text in the wiki article is under Modern Day where it states how because enemies faced today do not recognise the Geneva Convention, medics are indistinguishable from regular troops. I do not have sources on me, but have heard from various places that snipers were on the increase and medics and chaplains were being targeted in Afghanistan due to the effect on morale if one of them took a hit or died. If any of that is true, then the reason for medical personnel not being instantly identifiable is because they are more attractive targets, not that they become normal soldiers. The wiki article on Sniper states as much, and has two references for that, but unfortunately Wikipedia is in the unique position of being able to create as well as process, collate and distribute information. Wiki cites a reference, the main hits in Google become those references, every other article either cites Wiki or those references. Art imitating life imitating art. It warrants changing in my humble opinion but I currently lack time, is it better to remove the paragraph or leave it there till appropriate sources are found? 124.170.22.217 (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

combat medic
dear sir. just to rectify you on your statement re combat medic being also clasified as a medic. there is a big differance in a medic and a oprational medic.i am in the front line,busy with a contact. bullits all over,casualty in progress.you call a casavac in and 4 if need be steps to do for keeping the wounded alive. there is no tea party for that.its in and out,all arranged,the show must go on. now a medic is operating in a sickbay,hospital,clinic, its a nother life my friend,pampering the survived,no stress.nice life, how can you compaire the two factors.just for you to know, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.119.129 (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You compare it like this. In the Army there is no medic and operational medic, there's Healthcare Specialist. Your current duty station might have you on patrols, but your next PCS might have you in one of those clinics living the nice life. As you move up in rank, the chances of being in a clinic get higher because the knowledge you have accumulated goes far beyond what you learned in AIT. Years of lifting patients, litters, and your aid bag also speed along the process. It's still all covered in the same job however. 72.198.72.14 (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

History of Combat Medics in WWII
This book might be relevant for expanding the article, or adding history sections in WWII articles: Tracy Shilcutt, Infantry Combat Medics in Europe, 1944-45 , Palgrave Macmillan May 2013. DOI: 10.1057/9781137347695 Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Globalise modern day
The section "Modern day" only discusses the American forces and an American POV.

There is also lots of OR in it. For example "However, the enemies faced by professional armies in more recent conflicts are often insurgents who either do not recognize the Geneva Convention, or do not care, and readily engage all personnel, irrespective of non-combatant status." So the Japanese in World War II (who it is true were not insurgents), recognised the Geneva Conventions and did not engage in the brutal killing of any medical personnel or patients they could lay their hand on? So this is not a new situation. The us or non use of symbols is optional and just because the US have not use such identification in some war does not mean that they have abandoned the practice for all conflicts.

As to globalisation:
 * For example what did other NATO forces do in Afghanistan do?
 * What is the position of counties such as China, India and Russia?
 * What is the position of the combatants in the Ukraine?
 * What happened in the 90s in the former Yugoslavia, did any of the ICTY war crime trials include criminal charges for maltreating or killing combat medics?
 * etc.

-- PBS (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Combat medic. 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/20080918023456/http://home.att.net:80/~steinert/ to http://home.att.net/~steinert/#Brief%20History%20of%20the%20Medical%20Corps

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Combat medic. 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/20140123105822/http://www.aetc.af.mil:80/shared/media/document/AFD-071026-035.pdf to http://www.aetc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-071026-035.pdf

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) 11:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Combat medic. 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/20131103200014/http://www.aetc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123211901 to http://www.aetc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123211901

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Introduction and Continued Education of Combat Medics
Changed EMT in the introduction to EMT-B. EMT-B is currently the minimum equivalent level tested for in the military by Combat Medics. EMT-A, EMT-I, and EMT-P must be tested for after advanced training. Each EMT certification level is tested separately outside of the respective branch that Combat Medic belongs to. No branch of the Military is known to provide these certifications; they are provided by the NREMT (National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians). State certifications are an additional qualifier to consider. This was important to change because it leads to misinformation and gives recruits researching the topic an unclear idea of what specific certifications they will have. You can test for and challenge EMT-B certification after advanced training in one of the respective branches, but EMT-P, EMT-A, or EMT-I will take additional training past basic/advanced. I believe a continued education section would benefit this article/entry. Each branch of the U.S. Military (with its own Medics) has distinctive education benefits that could be contrasted and compared. A redirect to the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Coast Guard* (Coast Guard is DHS not DoD [Department of Homeland Securty not Department of Defense]*. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubersuperman (talk • contribs) 12:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Highly misleading
The current version of this article is highly misleading. The following passage, for instance, implies that US field medics can choose whether or not to wear a Red Cross. This section is unreferenced, and, I believe, wildly incorrect.

Non-combatant medics are entitled to carry sidearms. This is permissible under the Geneva Conventions. However, their weapons are supposed to be reserved for defending themselves, and their patients, from rogue elements. Dangerous civilian looters, or dangerous deserters, former soldiers, who are no longer lawful combatants, because they have rejected their chain of command.

If a genuine non-combatant medic is treating wounded who are too wounded to engage in combat, and all the able-bodied soldiers are off somewhere else, and a squad of enemies approaches, he or she is not supposed to reach for their weapon, or otherwise fight back. If the enemy also observes the Geneva Convention, the medic's patients are not supposed to require defense, because the enemy has an obligation to take prisoner wounded soldiers, and make sure they are (1) given medical care; (2) fed; (3) evacuated to a rear area where they can be safely interned.

If the enemy does not observe the Geneva Conventions there is no point wearing a Red Cross.

I have tried to determine when the USA stopped sending non-combatant medics to the front lines. Near as I can determine this predates the War in Vietnam.

In the 19th century, and earlier, armies were routinely followed by "camp followers". Wives, and, well, whores, and also merchants who would fence loot soldiers acquired, on the battlefield, and elsewhere. When a battle took place the less reputable camp followers would wait on the sidelines. When the fighting moved on to some other part of the battlefield, leaving dead, wounded, and discared or damaged but still valuable equipment, they'd descend on the inactive area. They'd loot dead bodies. Individuals too wounded to fight back could face not only having their pockets picked, but having their gold teeth yanked out. If they tried to resist the looters would kill them.

Non-combatant medics carry weapons to fight off looters. Individuals who are wearing a Red Cross, indicating they are non-combatants, who subsequently engage in combat, fire upon enemy soldiers, are not engaging in "questionable ethics". They are committing a serious war crime.

If the topic of this article is US soldiers classified as "combat medics" then the lead sentence should clearly state they are combatants, who do not qualify for the protections the Geneva Conventions extend to non-combatant medical personnel. Geo Swan (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

US only?
Combat Medics are a part of every country's army, however the article (which includes examples from other countries) describes the specialty as part of the US Army. This is very restrictive. Why does the article open in that way? TynoPk (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Combat medic


text:
Yle TV1

Yle TV1 (Yleisradio - Finnish Broadcasting Company TV1; Yle TV Yksi, Yle TV Ett) is a Finnish television channel owned and operated by Finnish public broadcaster Yle. It is the second oldest (after TES-TV) and the oldest existing television channel in Finland. More than 70% of the channel's programs are documentaries, news, or educational programmes. Its name is commonly referred to as Ykkönen; it derives from Yle's ownership of channels Spots 1 and 2 by default in Finland; the other, spot 2 channel, is Yle TV2.

History
The channel started test transmissions on 13 August 1957, and began regular broadcasts on 1 January 1958 as Suomen Televisio and the second Finnish TV channel at the time. When Yleisradio took over the Tampere-based Tamvisio in 1964, Suomen Televisio was renamed TV-ohjelma 1 and Tamvisio became TV-ohjelma 2, and when they started broadcasting in colour in the 1970s, they were rebranded again, as TV1 and TV2.

Notable programming

 * Arto Nyberg
 * Sorjonen
 * Puoli Seitsemän (At half past six talk-show)
 * Uutisvuoto
 * Urheiluruutu (Sport-News)
 * Ylen aamu (Yle's morning)
 * Yle Uutiset (Yle News)
 * A Studio
 * Strömsö (Finland Swedish cooking show)
 * Ođđasat (Northern Sami newscasts, with both Finland-specific and all-Nordic versions airing)

Imports

 * 🇸🇪 ABBA The Music Hour
 * 🇬🇧 Blue Lights
 * 🇬🇧 Black Ops
 * 🇬🇧 Beyond Paradise
 * 🇫🇷 🇬🇧 Marie Antoinette
 * 🇳🇴 Mødintuard
 * 🇬🇧 SAS: Rogue Heroes
 * 🇬🇧 Shakespeare & Hathaway: Private Investigators
 * 🇬🇧 Silent Witness
 * 🇫🇷 Savages
 * 🇺🇸 Tell Me Your Secrets
 * 🇳🇴 The Capturn Returns In Oslo
 * 🇬🇧 The Capture
 * 🇬🇧 The Rig
 * 🇫🇷 🇬🇧 The Tunnel
 * 🇬🇧 World on Fire

Discontinued imports

 * 🇳🇴 Fleksnes
 * 🇳🇴 Brødrene Dal
 * 🇳🇴 Borettslaget

Upcoming imports

 * 🇦🇺 Black Snow
 * 🇬🇧 Champion
 * 🇮🇪 Kin
 * 🇬🇧 🇦🇺 Ten Bound Poms
 * 🇬🇧 The Following Events Are Based on a Pack of Lies
 * 🇬🇧 We Hunt Together

Previous inports

 * 🇦🇺 800 Words
 * 🇺🇸 13 Reasons Why
 * 🇬🇧 Agatha Christie's Marple
 * 🇬🇧 Agatha Christie's Poirot
 * 🇦🇺 A Place to Call Home
 * 🇸🇪 Anxious People
 * 🇬🇧 Better
 * 🇺🇸 Blue Bloods
 * Bedrag
 * 🇬🇧 Bloodlands
 * 🇩🇪 Biohackers
 * 🇬🇧 Baptiste
 * 🇬🇧 Call the Midwife
 * 🇬🇧 Coronation Street
 * 🇬🇧 Coronation Street
 * 🇬🇧 DCI Banks
 * 🇬🇧 Death in Paradise
 * 🇬🇧 Doctor Foster
 * 🇺🇸 Dawson's Creek
 * 🇬🇧 Doc Martin
 * 🇬🇧 Father Brown
 * 🇮🇱 Fauda
 * 🇬🇧 Happy Valley
 * 🇬🇧 Harlos
 * 🇬🇧 Heartbeat
 * 🇺🇸 House of Cards
 * 🇬🇧 Inspector George Gently
 * 🇬🇧 Luther
 * 🇫🇷 🇬🇧 Liaison
 * 🇫🇷 Lupin
 * 🇬🇧 Line of Duty
 * 🇬🇧 Midsomer Murders
 * 🇨🇦 Murdoch Mysteries
 * 🇬🇧 Moving On
 * 🇫🇷 Marseille
 * 🇺🇸 Ozark
 * 🇬🇧 Our Girl
 * 🇬🇧 Peaky Blindes
 * 🇺🇸 Reasonable Doubt
 * Shetland
 * 🇸🇪 The Bridge
 * 🇬🇧 The Fall
 * 🇫🇷 The Returned
 * 🇬🇧 The Royal
 * 🇬🇧 Time
 * 🇫🇷 The Bureau
 * 🇺🇸 The Calling
 * 🇺🇸 The Blacklist
 * 🇮🇹 🇫🇷 The Young Pope
 * 🇫🇷 🇬🇧 Versailles
 * 🇬🇧 Waterloo Road
 * 🇫🇷 🇬🇧 War of the Worlds
 * 🇬🇧 Wreck

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

title: Yle TV1


text:
Yle TV2

Yle TV2 (Yle TV Kaksi; Yle TV Två) is a Finnish television channel owned and operated by Yle. TV2 was launched in 1965 as the successor to the former television channels TES-TV (Tesvisio) and Tamvisio, and broadcasts public service programming, sports, drama, children's, youth, and music programmes. With Yle TV1, it is one of the three main television channels of Yle.

An HD simulcast of Yle TV2 began broadcasting in January 2014.

History
Kakkoskanava, or TV Programme 2, originated with the purchase of Tesvisio by Yleisradio in 1964, which was unable to compete with Yle's Suomen Television for viewers and with Mainostelevision for advertising revenue, and was running into bankruptcy. A few weeks later, Yle also bought Tamvision in Tampere. The deal, which was considered to be overpriced, weakened Yle's finances for a long time to come. Finland was the first in the Nordic countries to have a second television channel, while in Sweden SVT2 (then TV2) did not start until four years later, in December 1969. In Norway and Denmark, only one channel remained until the mid-1980s and 1990s. TV2's reach gradually extended throughout Finland, and it was not until the late 1980s that the channel reached the entire Finnish population.

1964-1975: Operation to Tampere, management to the Coalition Party
TV 2's first manager was Docent Helge Miettunen, who was in favour of locating the channel in Helsinki. However, for reasons of regional policy, the Board of Directors of Yle decided to locate the station in Tampere. In terms of party politics, TV2 was initially under the mandate of the coalition party, whose alternatives for the management of the channel were TV and radio personality Niilo Tarvajärvi and film director and set designer Hannu Leminen, who was then elected. The channel was running at a loss of ten million marks a year, and in 1967 the director-general of Yle, Eino S. Repo, proposed that the production units of the two television channels should be separated from their channels so that they could produce programmes for both channels. The proposal was narrowly defeated by the board of directors of Yle. The future of Channel Two was unclear until 1969, when, after the threat of closure, the YLE Board finally decided to expand the channel's transmission network.

Inhouse productions

 * Ajankohtainen kakkonen (1967-2015)
 * Akuutti
 * Galaxi - featuring cartoons for children ages 7 and up
 * Jopet Show
 * Kummeli
 * Pasila
 * Pikku Kakkonen - featuring cartoons for children ages 0–6
 * Se on siinä
 * Tankki täyteen
 * Tartu mikkiin (ended, date unknown)
 * Uusi Päivä (ended some time between 2017 and 2021)
 * Uuden Musiikin Kilpailu (Finnish national selection for Eurovision Song Contest)

Imported

 * 🇫🇮 Aetier Colosseum
 * 🇬🇧 Criminal Record
 * 🇫🇮 Crusha
 * 🇫🇮 Dawn
 * 🇬🇧 Doctor Who (Revived series only)
 * 🇫🇮 Öddman la Helsinki
 * 🇫🇮 Eletino Post
 * 🇩🇪 Man in Berlin
 * 🇺🇸 Rabbit Hole
 * 🇫🇮 Sprinter Call un Finland
 * 🇺🇸 Tell Me Lies (TV series)
 * 🇺🇸 The Last of Us

Pikku Kakkonen

 * 🇺🇸 🇨🇦 Elinor Wonders Why
 * 🇬🇧 Palomies Sami (Fireman Sam)
 * 🇦🇺 🇨🇦 Guess How Much I Love You (TV series)
 * 🇬🇧 Pipsa Possu (Peppa Pig)
 * 🇺🇸 🇨🇦 Ryhmä Hau (PAW Patrol)
 * 🇬🇧 Thomas & Friends

Galaxi

 * 🇯🇵 Bakugan Battle Planet
 * 🇯🇵 Beyblade Burst
 * 🇬🇧 Danger Mouse
 * 🇺🇸 It's Pony
 * 🇬🇧 Late Lammas (Shaun the Sheep)
 * 🇺🇸 Näin meillä (The Loud House)
 * 🇫🇷 Kawak
 * 🇺🇸 🇫🇷 🇮🇪 Poika Tyttö Koira Kissa Hiiri Juusto (Boy Girl Dog Cat Mouse Cheese)
 * 🇨🇦 Slugterra
 * 🇫🇷 Supersisarukset (50/50 Heroes)

Anime Imports

 * 🇯🇵 My Hero Academia

Sport programming on Yle

 * European Championships
 * FIFA tournaments by FIFA World Cup and FIFA Women's World Cup
 * FSI (Cross-Country Alpine Ski Freestyle skiing Nordic Combined Snowboarding & Ski Jumping)
 * International Biathlon Union
 * International Skating Union
 * IBSF (Bobsleigh & Skeleton)
 * IIHF World Championship
 * UEFA European Qualifiers
 * Mestarien liiga (UEFA Champions League) (1992-2018)
 * 🇺🇸 🇨🇦 National Hockey League (2022-present)
 * Olympic Games
 * 🇫🇮 Veikkausliiga
 * World Rally Championship (2021&2022)
 * World Athletics Championships

Upcoming programming aired on Yle TV2

 * 🇫🇮 Broken Finger
 * 🇸🇪 Dead Man
 * 🇫🇮 Port of Summer
 * 🇫🇮 Stelinko Lost 4Ever

Imported

 * 🇺🇸 Amerikkalainen rikoskertomus (American Crime Story)
 * 🇩🇪 Berliinin koirat (Dogs of Berlin) aired on Yle Teema & Fem
 * 🇺🇸 Bones
 * 🇮🇹 Ihana Elisa (Elisa di Rivombrosa)
 * 🇮🇹 Ihanan Elisan tytär (La figlia di Elisa – Ritorno a Rivombrosa)
 * 🇺🇸 ER
 * 🇺🇸 Game of Thrones
 * 🇺🇸 Girls
 * 🇺🇸 Hädän hetkellä (Third Watch)
 * 🇺🇸 Hello Ladies
 * 🇬🇧 Inside No. 9
 * 🇩🇪 Kahden keikka (Ein Fall für Zwei)
 * 🇩🇪 Kettu (Der Alte)
 * 🇺🇸 Kova laki (Law & Order)
 * 🇺🇸 Kova laki: Erikoisyksikkö (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit)
 * 🇺🇸 Kova laki: Los Angeles (Law & Order: Los Angeles)
 * 🇺🇸 Kova laki: Rikollinen mieli (Law & Order: Criminal Intent)
 * 🇮🇹 Kunnian hinta (Orgoglio)
 * 🇬🇧 Matkapassi (Globe Trekker)
 * 🇦🇺 McLeodin Tyttäret (McLeod's Daughters)
 * 🇬🇧 Misfits
 * 🇺🇸 Muistin vanki (Unforgettable) aired on Yle Teema & Fem
 * 🇺🇸 Mies korkeassa linnassa (The Man in the High Castle (TV series))
 * 🇩🇪 Muumilaakson tarinoita (Moomin (1990 TV series))
 * 🇺🇸 Narcos aired on Yle Teema & Fem
 * 🇬🇧 Nolojen tilanteiden mies (Mr. Bean)
 * 🇺🇸 Ovela Pete (Sneaky Pete)
 * 🇺🇸 Onnen Päivät (Happy Days)
 * 🇺🇸 Patriot aired on Yle Teema & Fem
 * 🇯🇵 Pokémon (1999-2004) (2008-2014) (2017-2020)
 * 🇫🇮 Pirunpelto (TV-Series)
 * 🇳🇴 Ragnarokki (Ragnarok (TV series)) aired on Yle Teema & Fem
 * 🇺🇸 Regular Show
 * 🇺🇸 Seikkailuhetki (Adventure Time)
 * 🇺🇦 Servant of the People
 * 🇺🇸 Seitsemäs Taivas (7th Heaven)
 * 🇬🇧 Uusi Sherlock (Sherlock)
 * 🇺🇸 Sopranos (The Sopranos)
 * 🇫🇮 Taivaan tulet (TV-Series)
 * 🇺🇸 The Golden Girls
 * 🇺🇸 The Goldbergs
 * 🇺🇸 True Blood
 * 🇺🇸 True Detective
 * 🇺🇸 The Wire
 * 🇩🇪 You Are Wanted aired on Yle Teema & Fem
 * 🇫🇷 Voltaiee High
 * 🇺🇸 Without a Trace

Pikku Kakkonen

 * 🇬🇧 Angelina Ballerina
 * 🇬🇧 🇺🇸 Angelina Ballerina: The Next Steps
 * 🇦🇺 Bluey
 * 🇺🇸 Caillou
 * 🇬🇧 Chuggington
 * 🇺🇸 🇨🇦 Dot.
 * 🇬🇧 Hei, Taavi (Hey Duggee)
 * 🇨🇦 Hurray for Huckle
 * 🇬🇧 🇮🇪 🇺🇸 Jakers! The Adventures of Piggley Winks
 * 🇬🇧 Kipper
 * 🇬🇧Postimies Pate (Postman Pat)
 * 🇬🇧 Roary the Racing Car
 * 🇬🇧 Sarah & Duck
 * Napero (Pocoyo)
 * 🇺🇸 Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!

Galaxi

 * 🇨🇦 6teen
 * 🇬🇧 Ace Lightning
 * 🇨🇦 Aika härdelli! (Looped)
 * 🇯🇵 🇨🇦 🇺🇸 Bakugan Battle Brawlers
 * 🇨🇦 Big Blue
 * 🇨🇦 Dino Dan
 * 🇬🇧 Dennis & Gnasher: Unleashed!
 * 🇺🇸 DreamWorks Dragons
 * 🇺🇸 Karvinen ja ystävät (Garfield and Friends)
 * 🇺🇸 🇫🇷 Karvinen (The Garfield Show)
 * 🇫🇷 Grizzy & the Lemmings
 * 🇫🇷 Minä, Elvis Riboldi (I, Elvis Riboldi)
 * 🇬🇧 Hirveä Henri (Horrid Henry)
 * 🇦🇺 Itch
 * 🇺🇸 🇨🇦 If You Give a Mouse a Cookie
 * 🇺🇸 Little Big Awesome
 * 🇺🇸 OK K.O.! Ollaan sankareita (OK K.O.! Let's Be Heroes)
 * 🇺🇸 Roni Neutroni (The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius)
 * 🇨🇦 Ricky Sprocket: Showbiz Boy
 * 🇫🇷 🇩🇪 Sherlock Yack
 * 🇦🇺 🇨🇦 (The Deep)
 * 🇺🇸 Madagascarin Pingviinit (The Penguins of Madagascar)
 * 🇫🇷 🇧🇪 🇨🇦 Tintin seikkailut (The Adventures of Tintin)
 * 🇬🇧 The Big Knights
 * 🇦🇺 The Strange Chores
 * 🇫🇷 🇮🇹 🇺🇸 Tenavat (Peanuts)
 * 🇺🇸 🇨🇦 Tervetuloa Tapaan (Welcome to the Wayne)

title: Yle TV2


text:
Kumzari

Kumzari may refer to:

 * Kumzari language, an Iranian language spoken in northern Oman
 * Kumzari people, an ethnic group of Iranian and Arab origin who speak the language

title: Kumzari


text:
Guidon

Guidon may refer to:

Flags

 * Guidon, a type of heraldic flag
 * Guidon, a military flag – see Colours, standards and guidons
 * Guidon (United States), a military standard or flag in the United States military and Coast Guard

People

 * Giachem Guidon (born 1961), Swiss former cross-country skier
 * Niède Guidon (born 1933), Brazilian archaeologist
 * Shimiray Mwissa Guidon, leader of Nduma Defense of Congo-Renovated, a militia group in the Democratic Republic of Congo, from 2014 to 2021

Other uses

 * Guidon (rank), a military rank equivalent to ensign
 * The GUIDON, the student newspaper of Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, Philippines

title: Guidon


text:
Talk:Weak inflection

Merge proposal
I have moved Beland's tag here from the article itself, in case anyone wants to procede with a complete merger, but I think a compromise is best, and I have attempted this. There is still a place for a separate article on "strong", but I have shortened it, since the full discussion only has to be conducted once. That is as good as a merge. --Doric Loon 13:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Strong / weak circular definition
The Strong verb article states:
 * Note that there is nothing objectively "strong" about a strong form; the term is only meaningful in opposition to "weak" as a means of distinguishing paradigms within a single language. Nor is there any distinguishing feature common to all strong forms, except that they are always counterpoints to "weak" ones.

while this article says:
 * In grammar, the term weak (originally coined in German: schwach) is used in opposition to the term strong (stark) to designate a conjugation or declension when a language has two parallel systems. The only constant feature in all the grammatical usages of the word "weak" is that it forms a polarity with "strong"; there is not necessarily any objective "weakness" about the forms so designated.

Erm... is there really no definite definition for this? Strong is not-weak and weak is not-strong. --Swift (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 * That's right, it is a circular definition. Sorry, but until you peg it down to individual cases, that's the way it is.  Once you talk about strong and weak in English verbs, then you have something definite to define and describe.  We have articles which do that.  But this is kind of an overview article showing all the places where this terminology is used, and since they are very diverse, the definition in the head is going to be extremely vague.  But I think there are enough examples further down to show how it is useful. --Doric Loon (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: can you define "female" without making it an opposition to "male"? Some concepts only make sense as a dynamic tension with their opposite. --Doric Loon (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

definition?
Please expand the article with definitions and examples relating to other languages. For example, are there strong and weak inflections in English? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

 * English is already in there, since it is a Germanic language, but perhaps that needed to be spelled out, so I have added another sentence to do so. I don't know examples from other languages, beyond what is mentioned here, but if you look around you may well find them. --Doric Loon (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Weak inflection


text:
John A. Gotti

John Angelo Gotti (born February 14, 1964) is an American former mobster who was the acting boss of the Gambino crime family from 1992 to 1999. He became acting boss when the boss of the family, his father John Gotti, was sent to prison. The younger Gotti was imprisoned for racketeering in 1999, and between 2004 and 2009 he was a defendant in four racketeering trials, each of which ended in a mistrial. In January 2010, federal prosecutors announced that they would no longer seek to prosecute Gotti for those charges.

Early life
Gotti was born in Queens, New York City on February 14, 1964, to Italian-American mobster John Gotti and Victoria DiGiorgio Gotti, whose father was of Italian descent, and mother was of half-Italian half-Russian (Jewish) ancestry. Gotti was raised in a two-story house in Howard Beach, New York, with his four siblings, which include sisters Victoria Gotti, and Angel, and brothers Frank and Peter. Angelo Ruggiero was his godfather and middle namesake, whom he and his siblings considered an uncle. Gotti attended New York Military Academy in his youth.

After graduating school, Gotti's father helped him start a trucking business, Samson Trucking Company, and after the business failed, helped him get a position in the Carpenters Union.

Leadership of the Gambino crime family
According to federal prosecutors, Gotti was inducted into the Gambino crime family on Christmas Eve 1988. According to fellow mobster Michael DiLeonardo who was initiated the same night, Gravano held the ceremony to keep Gotti from being accused of nepotism. He was named a caporegime (captain) in 1990, and is believed to be the youngest captain in the Gambino family's history.

In April 1992, his father, John J. Gotti, received a life sentence for racketeering and related offenses. His father asserted his prerogative to retain his title as boss until his death or retirement, with his brother Peter and his son Gotti Jr. relaying orders on his behalf.

Remembering how his father had been brought down by FBI bugs, Gotti adopted a more secretive way of doing business. He discussed mob business mainly through "walk-talks," or conversations held while walking alongside trusted captains. He also tried to pose as a legitimate businessman. However, several of his button men didn't think much of him, thinking he was incompetent. He was not nearly as good a negotiator as his father had been, and the Gambinos lost out on several disputes with the other families. The Genovese family was so unimpressed with Gotti that it refused to deal with him at all. In 1995, Charles Carneglia and John Alite were involved in a major conspiracy to murder Gotti.

In a 1997 search of the basement of a property owned by Gotti, the FBI found a typed list of the names of the "made" members of his organization, as well as $348,700 in cash, a list of the guests who attended his wedding, along with the dollar amount of their wedding gifts (totaling more than $350,000), and two handguns. Also found was a list of several men who were inducted into other families in 1991 and 1992; a longstanding rule in the New York Mafia calls for prospective members to be vetted by the other families before being inducted. However, normally these lists are destroyed almost as soon as the inductions take place. The discovery enraged Gotti's father as well as the other bosses, since it put dozens of other mafiosi at risk of government scrutiny. The episode earned him the nickname "Dumbfella" in the New York media.

1999 racketeering charges
By 1998, when he was indicted on racketeering charges under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Gotti Jr. was believed to be the acting boss of the family. Many of the charges related to attempts to extort money from the owners and employees of Scores, an upscale strip club in Manhattan. According to the indictment, the Gambinos had forced the owners of Scores to pay $1 million over a six-year period in order to stay in business, with Gotti's share of the money totaling $100,000. In addition to the lists seized in the 1997 raid, prosecutors obtained transcripts of prison conversations in which Gotti Jr. received advice from his father on how to run the family. On April 5, 1999, faced with overwhelming evidence, Gotti Jr. pleaded guilty to four acts of racketeering, including bribery, extortion, and the threat of violence, against his father's advice. His lawyer said he decided to accept a plea bargain because he believed that he would be subjected to repeated prosecutions in multiple jurisdictions if he did not. On September 4, 1999, Gotti Jr. was sentenced to six years and five months in prison and fined $1 million. Federal prosecutors said his uncle, Peter Gotti, became head of the Gambino organization after Gotti Jr. was sent to prison, and he is believed to have formally succeeded his brother shortly before Gotti Sr.'s death in June 2002. Gotti Jr.'s indictment had brought stress on his parents' marriage; his mother, up to that point, unaware of her son's involvement in the Mafia, blamed her husband for ruining her son's life and threatened to leave him unless he allowed Gotti Jr. to leave the mob.

2004 racketeering and kidnapping charges
In 2004, months before he was released from prison, Gotti was charged in an 11-count racketeering indictment which included an alleged plot to kidnap Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels, as well as securities fraud, extortion and loansharking. A radio talk show host for WABC, Sliwa had allegedly angered the family by denouncing the elder Gotti as "Public Enemy #1" on his show. During the trial two former associates, Michael DiLeonardo and Joseph D'Angelo, testified against Gotti. Through his attorney Jeffrey Lichtman, Gotti admitted that he had been involved in the Gambino crime family in the 1990s, and had even been slated to lead the organization after his father was sent to jail in 1992, but claimed he had left criminal life behind after his conviction in 1999. Three juries eventually deadlocked on the charges, the last in 2006, and federal prosecutors decided not to pursue a fourth trial.

2008 racketeering charges
In August 2008, Gotti was arrested and indicted on racketeering and murder conspiracy charges brought in Florida. The charges stemmed from an alleged drug trafficking ring Gotti operated along with former associate-turned-government witness John Alite, and with the murders of George Grosso in 1988, Louis DiBono in 1990 and Bruce John Gotterup in 1991. Prosecutors charge that the ring distributed at least five kilograms of cocaine in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Gotti's trial was later moved to New York, where he pleaded not guilty, and began in September 2009.

In January 2008, Alite pleaded guilty to two murders, four murder conspiracies, at least eight shootings, and two attempted shootings as well as armed home invasions and armed robberies in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Florida, stemming from his alleged involvement in a Gambino crew in Tampa, Florida. Alite agreed to testify in the trial of Gambino family enforcer Charles Carneglia, who was found guilty of four murders and is now serving a life sentence. He then served as a key prosecution witness against Gotti.

During the trial, Gotti allegedly threatened Alite by mouthing the words "I'll kill you", and engaged in a shouting match with his former associate. After the incident, Victoria Gotti told the New York Daily News that Alite was "a pathological liar—a rat caught in a proverbial trap, caught in his own lies..." Alite testified that Gotti was responsible for at least eight murders, among other crimes.

On December 1, 2009, the 12 jurors announced that they had failed to reach a unanimous verdict on all the charges and the judge declared a mistrial. After the trial, jurors said that they did not find witnesses, particularly Alite, to be credible. One of the jurors said, "they should stop this now—it's ridiculous," while another said, "It's abusive. It's almost become a mockery." Gotti, Federal Bureau of Prisons Register # 00632-748, was released on December 1, 2009. After Gotti's fourth mistrial, federal prosecutors had indicated that they would not seek another trial against Gotti. In January 2010, the government decided not to pursue further charges against Gotti.

Gotti Jr. maintains that he has since left the Gambino family, and in a 2015 interview with the New York Daily News, Gotti denied claims that he was an informant, claiming that he did give the FBI information but that it was false information and that no indictments resulted from the information he gave agents.

Personal life
In 1990, Gotti married Kimberly Albanese. They have six children and live in Oyster Bay Cove on Long Island's North Shore. His son, John Gotti III, is a professional mixed martial artist.

In November 2013, Gotti was stabbed while breaking up a fight in Syosset, New York.

Gotti authored a 2015 book, Shadow of My Father.

Biographical film
In September 2010, Fiore Films announced that it had secured the rights from Gotti to produce a movie about his life, in particular his relationship with his father. According to Variety, several producers had expressed interest, but Gotti chose Fiore, a small, newly created production company. The movie, tentatively titled Gotti: in the Shadow of My Father, was to be directed by Barry Levinson. John Travolta was cast to star as Gotti's father, and Travolta's wife, Kelly Preston, played his on-screen wife, Victoria Gotti. Junior Gotti was played by Spencer Lofranco. The production of the film eventually lost Barry Levinson. On July 25, 2016, principal photography on the film, renamed to Gotti, had begun, with Kevin Connolly as director. The film was released on June 15, 2018. On June 9, 2018 the documentary TV miniseries Gotti: Godfather and Son was released.

title: John A. Gotti


text:
ACT Corrective Services

ACT Corrective Services (ACTCS) is an agency of the Justice and Community Safety Directorate (JACSD) of the Australian Capital Territory government in the Australian Capital Territory, Australia. It is responsible for a wide range of activities and services in the area aimed at protecting the community and reducing offending behaviour.

, the executive director of ACTCS is Jon Peach.

Operations
The ACTCS operates the following:
 * Community Corrections
 * Custodial Operations
 * Offender Services and Corrections Programs
 * Sentence Administration Section
 * The Sentence Administration Board

Community Corrections
Community Corrections consists of:
 * Probation and Parole Unit
 * Prisoner Employment Unit
 * New Employment Opportunities (NEO) Program, including Transitional Release
 * Community Service Work Unit
 * Corrections Programs Unit
 * Offender Services

Probation and Parole Unit
The Probation and Parole Unit provides advice to Courts and releasing authorities on the background and attitudes of offenders on Community Based Orders (e.g. bail supervision, probation, and parole) and to refer offenders to appropriate community based or residential services to assist with addressing a variety of issues (e.g. drug and alcohol abuse, grief and loss issues, self-esteem and relationship issues). The Unit aims to reduce offending by the use of empirically sound risk assessment tools and a brokerage case management model, which targets criminogenic needs.

Corrections Programs Unit
The Corrections Program Unit was established in 2001 as the Rehabilitation Programs Unit. The Unit incorporates existing programs and services that focus on targeted intervention and supervision of offenders. The services of the Unit are consistent with a focus on specific programs for offenders that address identified risks and criminogenic needs.

Custodial Operations
Custodial Operations consists of the following:
 * Alexander Maconochie Centre
 * Court Transport Unit

It also formerly consisted of the Belconnen Remand Centre and Symonston Temporary Remand Centre. The Belconnen Remand Centre opened in 1976 and closed in 2009.

Custodial Operations administrates the Remand Centres Act 1976 (RCA) which establishes remand centres in the ACT. The superintendent is responsible for directing and controlling the operations of the ACT adult custodial facilities. The facilities main objective is to carry out the mandate of the court and to ensure the provision of safe care and secure accommodation to those in custody in a controlled environment. The facilities have a responsibility to address a duty of care for each individual, accommodating both genders and a variety of cultures.

Under section 6A of the RCA an official visitor is appointed. The duties of this officer involve visiting and inspecting the facilities at least once each week, and inquiring into complaints by detainees.

Periodic Detention Centre
Periodic detention provides an effective alternative sentencing option for ACT offenders. Currently this sentencing option is served on weekends, starting on Friday 7.00 pm and ending on Sunday 4.30 pm. Detainees make a positive contribution to the community while serving their period of detention by performing unpaid community work. To accommodate the increased number of periodic detainees, ACT Corrective Services is currently investigating the possibility of extending periodic detention to mid-week.

Court Transport Unit
The Court Transport Unit is responsible for transporting prisoners between interstate correctional centres and the ACT, transporting prisoners and remandees (including juveniles) within the ACT, and the provision of safe and secure custody of prisoners and remandees in ACT Courts.

title: ACT Corrective Services


text:
Twinworld

Twinworld (also spelled TwinWorld or Twin World) is a video game, published by Ubi Soft for the Amiga and Atari ST in 1989. Ports for the Commodore 64, Amstrad CPC, and Acorn Archimedes were released in 1990.

Twinworld is a platform game with a fantasy setting. Ulopa is a prince and the sole survivor of the Cariken royal family. Ulopa must travel through 23 levels to find the stolen amulet and confront the evil wizard Maldur.

Gameplay

The 23 levels are set in five different "worlds": a normal rural landscape, a forest, a medieval-style fortress, swamps and finally the temple of the evil wizard Maldur. The first four "worlds" have five levels each, and Maldur's temple has three, with the last being a special "boss" level.

The gameplay mainly involves jumping between different platforms and shooting magical bouncy balls at enemies, which come in the form of various evil-looking fantasy animals. To complete a level, Ulopa must find a piece of the stolen amulet and go through the exit door.

Enemies
Various enemies in Twinworld include:
 * Argous : A predatory bird. Comes in two varieties: one flies around the screen in a pre-defined pattern, the other homes in on Ulopa. Takes three hits.
 * Bothria : Arguably the most dangerous enemy. A three-headed dragon that initially stands motionless, but firing on it separates it into three separate monsters, one walking and the other two flying, each taking several hits. One of the flying monsters will try to escape to the level exit, and if it succeeds, start firing bullets when encountered again. The other flying monster will chase the player akin to the second variety of Argous.
 * Goulou : Resembles a troll or a goblin. Takes three hits.
 * Green Goulou : A kind of lizard. Initially takes one hit but later two hits. In Maldur's Temple, Green Goulous learn to fly.
 * Hiboussa : Resembles an owl. Sits motionless on a tree branch, but will swoop down on Ulopa if he passes underneath it. Takes four or five hits.
 * Maldur : The boss enemy of the entire game. He only appears on the last level. He initially is only on the background, summoning various other enemies, but at the end of the level, he transforms into a giant dragon, shooting bullets at Ulopa and taking very many hits to kill. Maldur is the last enemy in the entire game.

Worlds
The levels are divided into five different worlds.

 * "Caves" : The first world is the only one without a name. It is a rural landscape, with various cliff formations that Ulopa can walk on. Spread out through the landscape are doors, through which Ulopa can enter caves. Inside the caves, there are tunnels leading back to the surface and to other parts of the caves. In the caves, Ulopa can collect jewels for bonus points. In the first world, falling through the bottom of the screen on the surface landscape will kill Ulopa, instead of dropping him down to the caves.

 * Dark Forest : The Dark Forest consists of trees that are over ten times as tall as Ulopa. The screen is divided between the tree roots and the tree tops. Doors on the tree trunks lead between the root and top parts, and if Ulopa falls down from a tree top, he drops down to the root part. In the forest, Ulopa can collect various flowers and fruits for bonus points. In the Dark Forest, the game introduces two new items: an eye which makes Ulopa temporarily invulnerable, and a parachute which allows him to fall down from greater heights. The Hiboussa only appears in the Dark Forest.

 * Blackthorn : Blackthorn is a fortress with a moat under it. As in the previous worlds, doors lead between the different parts, and Ulopa can drop down from the fortress into the moat underneath. In Blackthorn, Ulopa can collect various pieces of jewellery for bonus points. Also, Ulopa's appearance seems to change when he reaches Blackthorn. He has a hat and a beard, indicating that he possibly ages during the game. The moat in Blackthorn is the only part of the game that is filled with water. This affects Ulopa's movements, giving him greater inertia. He also swims when he jumps, allowing him to make longer jumps and float down more slowly. Various kinds of fish appear as the enemies in the moat.

 * Swamps of  : The Swamps of mostly resemble the first world, except in this case Ulopa can fall down into the gold mines below the ground when he falls through the bottom of the screen. On the surface, Ulopa can collect flowers and fruits, and in the mines, he can collect gold for bonus points. In the Swamps of, blue bullets (Ulopa's most powerful weapon) don't disappear after they hit an enemy, but instead keep on bouncing onwards. This allows Ulopa to kill more enemies with a single bullet.

 * Maldur's Temple : Maldur's Temple only consists of three levels, rather than five. Two of them are normal levels, and on the third level, Ulopa finally faces Maldur himself. In Maldur's Temple, Ulopa can use doors and stairways to move through different parts of the levels. As in the previous world, blue bullets can kill more than one enemy.

All five worlds also have a "bonus level". For the first four worlds, the last level of the world acts as a bonus level. In the last level of Maldur's Temple, after killing Maldur, a secret door opens to a mini-sized bonus level. If Ulopa dies in a bonus level, he automatically proceeds to the next world, without losing a life.

Reception
"It is an excellent game which is an insane lot of fun." Bernd Zimmermann in ASM issue 2/1990

title: Twinworld


text:
User talk:Jeremyh

Welcome
Hello Jeremyh,

Welcome and enjoy Wikipedia. Your edits are much appreciated.

These links might help you with your contributions:
 * Tutorial
 * Manual of Style
 * Policies and Guidelines

For Wikipedia-wide involvement, visit the Communtiy Portal and the Village Pump.

Be sure to check out Australian resources, like The Australia Wikiportal, Australian Wikipedians' Notice Board, Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight, New Australian Articles and Australian stub articles. You can list yourself at Australian Wikipedians.

Also, assuming you're a Canberrean, have you considered participating in WikiProject Canberra? We need all the help we can get!

Again, welcome.--Cyberjunkie 12:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The b team.png
Thanks for uploading Image:The b team.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jeremyh


text:
Permanent Council

The Permanent Council (Rada Nieustająca) was the highest administrative authority in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth between 1775 and 1789 and the first modern executive government in Europe. As is still typically the case in contemporary parliamentary politics, the members of the Council were selected from the parliament or Sejm of the Commonwealth. Even though it exerted some constructive influence in Polish politics and government, because of its unpopularity during the Partitions period, in some Polish texts it was dubbed as Zdrada Nieustająca - Permanent Betrayal.

History
The establishment of an institution of permanent council, an early form of executive government in the late years of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, was originally recommended by the political reformer Stanisław Konarski. It was intermittently under consideration, as permitted by Poland's intrusive neighbors, during the period of government reforms, beginning with the Convocation Sejm of 1764. The Permanent Council was actually created in 1775 by the Partition Sejm, when Empress Catherine the Great of Russia and her ambassador to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Otto Magnus von Stackelberg, became convinced that it was a way of securing the Empire's influence over the internal politics of Poland (control over the Sejm and the King). The Council had remained in continuous operation and was therefore largely immune from szlachta's liberum veto obstructionism, which could be pursued only during the sessions of the Sejm. The Council was also much less prone than the Sejm to other distractions from minor gentry. Empress Catherine and Ambassador Stackelberg believed that the Council would be dominated by anti-royal magnates and that it would put an end to the King's push toward reforms.

The Council was composed of King Stanisław August Poniatowski (who acted as a modern prime minister and had two votes instead of one), 18 members from the Senate and 18 members from the Sejm's lower chamber. The Council, in addition to its administrative duties, would present to the King three candidates for each nomination to the Senate and other main offices. The meetings were supervised by Marshal Roman Ignacy Potocki.

In reality all the Council's members were nominated in accordance with the wishes of Ambassador Stackelberg, who acted as a representative of the Empress, protectress of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth since 1768. Soon after its creation, the Council became an instrument of Russian surveillance over Poland.

The council was divided onto 5 separate ministries called Departments:
 * 1) Foreign interests
 * 2) Military
 * 3) Police ("Good Order")
 * 4) Treasury
 * 5) Justice

Among the prerogatives of the Council was heading the state administration, preparation of projects of laws and Sejm acts, which were to be later accepted by the parliament, control over law enforcement and interpretation of the law. Although heavily criticized, most notably by the Familia and the so-called Patriotic Party, the Council managed to give rise to a period of economic prosperity in Poland. Its functioning strengthened (despite the intentions of some of its creators) the power of the monarch and reduced the power of the already existing and highly influential magnate-ministers, who were placed under the Council's supervision. The Permanent Council was eliminated in 1789 by the Four-Year Sejm and briefly reinstated in 1793 by the Sejm of Grodno. However, this time it was directly headed by the Russian ambassador. Majority of the Council's members were then bribed by the Russian embassy in Warsaw.

Notable members

 * King Stanisław August Poniatowski
 * Marshal Roman Ignacy Potocki
 * Stanisław Małachowski
 * Tomasz Adam Ostrowski
 * Ludwik Szymon Gutakowski
 * Stanisław Poniatowski (kings' relative)
 * Józef Ankwicz
 * Michał Jerzy Poniatowski (primate of Poland)

title: Permanent Council


text: User talk:68.93.139.14

title: User talk:68.93.139.14


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stardestroyer.net

 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 - no consensus, vote so marred by sockpuppetry and outsiders that it might be best to rerun it at a later date. - SimonP 22:50, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Stardestroyer.net
Vanity and website advertising. Delete. Current version already merged with Star Trek versus Star Wars, previous version was advertising, suffered from serious POV issues and ultimately was an advertisement for a website. Rev Prez 13:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep Given the size and influence of the site, it does merit inclusion as an article. Majin Gojira 17:41, 30 May 2005

Delete. The subject of the article is hardly substantial enough to merit notability. 65.82.235.254 16:42, 30 May 2005

Keep. It should be noted here that Revprez, the person who has started this Vfd, has also repeatedly vandalised the base page, AND was banned from the BBS which the entry discusses due to trollish behavior over there. -Robgea 18:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Neutral for the moment - article seems to big. If author keeps removing VFD tag, delete. --Kiand 18:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC) Delete due to infighting and obvious vote garnering starting to piss me off. --Kiand 22:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep. I do not believe the nominator for VfD is doing this in the interests of removing "advertising" or maintaining the objectivity of Wikipedia but as a part of his personal agenda, considering that he was banned from the site in question. Also, the maintainer of the website is not the author of the article. RDalton 19:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Rev Prez's stance is one solely based on exacting a bitter personal vendetta against a message board which banned him. --Spanky The Dolphin 20:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep' Rev Prez is a known troll who has harassed a great many forums. He has been banned from SD.net for violating board policy and is now seeking a vendetta against SD.net for this. As already mentioned by others this Wiki entry is not authored by the author of Stardestroyer.net Alyeska 20:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep Rev Prez is doing this for personal reasons rather than in accordance with the wiki rules for deletion. Fearghul 20:11, 28 May 2005

Keep Aside from what has already been stated, what are these 'serious POV issues'? - Shroom Man 777 210.213.149.252 20:20, 28 May 2005

Comment can I remind people, that anonymous users, and very new users with no substansial contributions CANNOT vote. --Kiand 20:24, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep It is obvious that revprez is doing this because of personal reasons, not because of an actual fault with the article that he has vandalised several times. Ubiquitous ALI_G.

Keep Stardestroyer.net is a specialist sight which would not be interesting to some one other than if they were looking for information on the startrek v starwars debate. There for it would pointless to advertises this site and there for it is my belief that the page in question dose not constitute advertising. It also may give vital information to some one confused by the purpose of stardestoryer.net and as such should be allowed to stay. 81.153.150.165 21:15, 28 May 2005

Comment. I urge any admin considering this VfD to check the voters' contributions, with Kiand's comment in mind. Phil s 20:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment I also urge any admin considering this VfD to review Revprez's edit histories. He has repeatedly vandalized the page that this VfD is being conducted on as well as the Star Trek vs Star Wars page. He is carrying out a vendetta against SD.net and SB.com for having been banned from those forums. This is a personal vendetta for Revprez and he is using Wikipedia as his tool to try and hurt other forums. Alyeska 20:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment Kaind is mistaken, if he had taken the time to read the actual rules on a vfd, it states quite clearly that new and anon users can contribute and vote, but they MAY be discounted by the admin. Fearghul 20:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I've never met an admin that doesn't anything other than strike and discount votes which are obviously being garnered from external sources. You could also try spelling my name right... --Kiand 21:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment Some info on Revprez. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress&diff=14357364&oldid=14357316 He vandalized someones report of vandalism against him. Alyeska 20:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep - notable authority on its subject matter. However, all that useless forum vanity garbage needs to go. I suggest everyone taking part in personal attacks leave it off this page. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep. - The site is widely reknowned for it's objective stances on the SW vs. ST debate. I am in agreement that touting the forum on a wiki entry may be a bit much, but SDN is what it is and what it has always been. That is, a vast storehouse of SW and ST knowledge compiled over several years from several knowledgeable sources.Chardok 19:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I am convinced that Revprez is nominating this article as a vendetta against Stardestroyer, and I think that Stardestroyer is a notable website, particularly because of its very active forums. Academic Challenger 23:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, no evidence of notability. Whether the VfD nom is good faith or not is irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted or not (likewise the sockpuppetry shouldn't influence voting). --W(t) 23:52, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

First off, there is no sockpuppetry going on, secondly, Something Awful's forums have an entire article devoted to them, so this article is hardly "advertising" 210.131.198.82 00:25, 29 May 2005

 * Comment: Alexa Rank is 260,472. -SocratesJedi | Talk 00:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete nn. ad.  Xcali 01:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep - No less notable than iichan or 4chan. Iceberg3k 03:04, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, needs cleanup. Some notability. Megan1967 04:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment: It should be noted that I was banned from SDN for trollish behavior, as well as from three other forums where I've trolled in discussions related to religion and politics. I guess in the experience of some posting here, that means I should hold a grudge or something.  But even Darkstar has to admit that SDN of the most informative sites related to the Star Trek versus Star Wars debate; his site wouldn't be up if it weren't.  It continues that rare tradition in fan culture of examining beloved content with an empirical eye.  If SWTC has had an impact on the debate noteworthy of its own page, then SDN may deserve its own as well.  And the boards likewise lend themselves to rich discussion; there's nothing else out there that comes close in SDN's category.  So I have no idea where all this "vendetta" crap is coming from.  Still, the entry as stands doesn't even pass the laugh test.  It's a vain, self-serving promotion.  I've tried to work out the POV issues, but if people keep reverting it to the same old crap rather than expanding the stub then I don't see why it should stay. I don't intend to revert it back; the opening hook I wrote is in Star Trek versus Star Wars now.  The question is whether the article is salvageable.  With that, I'm changing my vote to weak keep.  --Rev Prez 06:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment You have also trolled here at Wikipedia Revprez. Would you like me to post what you have done on the Vandalism in Progress page? I see multiple violations on your part. Alyeska 06:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment Sure, you're free to post them. --Rev Prez 06:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The SDN entry is not against the regulations of Wikipedia.--Yenchin 06:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

After reviewing the changes made to this entry today, I'm changing my vote to a keep. --Rev Prez 06:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm changing my vote to delete. The entry is five paragraphs. The half of the second paragraph is an explanation of the SDN abbreviation, and the other half lists Michael Wong's fanfiction (is it customary to advertise individual fanfics?). The fifth paragraph ends with a sentence (there are, again, only two) that simply restates the third paragraph--which in turn restates a fragment in the opening hook. The fourth paragraph--yet again another two sentence number--is half "Michael Wong likes Star Wars" and "AOTC:ICS supports SW over ST"; the Star Trek versus Star Wars article already discusses this. So really, what additional information of value follows the first paragraph? --Rev Prez 08:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, notability not established. Radiant_* 10:45, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, since I'm the only one who's worked on the first paragraph, let's just call it a delete. Final answer. --Rev Prez 15:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep, this article in no way violates wiki protocol. Further, given that the charges of a personal vendetta appear to be true, I suggest keeping it soley to spite to fool attempting to misuse this resource. --D@niel 1136, 29 May 2005 (EST)

 * In what way are they true. --Rev Prez 15:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * You come here and you exclusivley target SDnet and pages related to it for massive deletions of text, without discussing it in the talk pages of the entries. When people ask you to come to the talk pages you ignore it and continue rampant deletion, and slap a VfD on the page to continue this. When you're reported for vandalism of the page in question you go to the Vandalism in Progress page, and edit the entry (seen here), changing it's report from one agaisnt you to one against the person who reported you. Then when you get called on this you come here you admit to being banned because you were a troll, and yet claim you have no vendetta even though you came back there with sock puppets, twice. If that's not a grudge, then I'm Alan Greenspan. Robgea 16:30, 29 May 2005

 * On the Vandalism in Progress page, I apologize and note that I did indicate that a previous revision showed the original. As for the vendetta business, well you're free to believe what you want to.  I cop to my trollish behavior on SD.net and apologize to all who were offended; if that's not enough then we've got nothing more to say on the issue.  If you can add informative material that does more than just restate the opening hook, I'll change my vote yet again.  I doubt you can, though. --Rev Prez 17:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

(It seems I made this entry while I was accidently logged out. Figure I should re-sign it, so I'm not anonymous and can be checked up on. --Mukashi 11:08, 2005 May 30 (UTC))
 * Keep - As stated by Iceberg3k, the site is no less notable amongst its fandom than 4chan or iichan are amongst anime fandoms. While the entry may need some cleaning up, it doesn't violate wiki guidelines from what I can see. If nothing else, even if it did deserve deletion, I don't believe that deleting a page after a VfD started in bad faith would set a good precident for Wikipedia. --138.130.219.71 00:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment - Given the amount of work I've put into trying to fix the entry, I think you'd have a hard time making the case that this VfD was started in bad faith. --Rev Prez 02:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment - "Fix"? The edit history is the smoking gun and puts the lie to your claims you're trying to fix the article. your edits are vandalism, pure and simple. Have A Nice Day.

 * Comment - care to point out this vandalism you attribute to me? Or is this aspie outburst for emotional effect? --Rev Prez 04:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment - Given the simple fact that you are banned from the discussion forums of said site (And IP banned from the server itself?), you are clearly as biased a source of reference for this site as would be the webmaster himself. --Mukashi 11:08, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

 * Keep - If you delete this because a whiny little git wants you to then everything that's hated by a whiney little git will get deleted. --darthdavid (It was me, forgot to log back in)

 * What if said "whiny little git" changes his vote to marginal keep ? It looks like we can draft an informative, useful article about SDN (at least for all those Star Trek versus Star Wars types. Also, just curious, who the hell says "git?" --Rev Prez 06:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Sigh. Delete articles about forums whose sum total contribution to humanity is some Star Trek vs. Star Wars fanfic. A Man In Black 09:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment - I wouldn't be so quick to pidgeonhole the site in this way. The fanfic side of things is hardly the be-all-and-end-all of this site, though the fact that the article might suggest such a thing would be cause for its re-writing. I would be interested to know which revision of the article you were looking at when you made this vote, given the significant evidence towards Rev Prez having both made biased edits to the point of vandalism, and having started this VfD in bad faith. --Mukashi 11:08, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

 * Do you want to list any specific instance where I've vandalized the SDN page, or any evidence whatsoever that this VfD was started in bad faith? No?  I didn't thinkso.  But with all the bitching going on amongst the SDN members, you'd think SDN would send over people with a larger vocabulary than "the," "Revprez" and "vendetta." --Rev Prez 14:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep widely known sf site. JamesBurns 11:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Now changing my vote to a permanent keep. The new revision is excellent.  There are a few NPOV issues, and now there's a framework for expanding on Wong's EvC essays. --Rev Prez 22:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment - That seriously better be your last vote change. You're flopping around more than a bass in the bottom of a fishing boat. --Spanky The Dolphin 22:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment - "That better be my last vote change" or what? Seriously, I'm looking back over the entry and besides the opening hook I see little more than a brief restatement of the STvSW article, some stuff about Mike Wong's political and social views as well as his personal life, and a self-flattering portrait of the forums.  I can't even say keep and merge; I just can't wring anything of value out the entry.--Rev Prez 07:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete wikipedia is not a web guide CDC   (talk)  01:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment We might aswell delete every article about a website, then.--Kross 07:49, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment Bull. Nobody disputes the value of the Google and Slashdot entries anyway you slice it.  What's so special about SDN? PhpBB?  EvC? STvSW? Secular Humanism? Fanfiction? --Rev Prez 14:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you just a fucking moron or did you have to Dumbass U? You actually think Secular Humanism isn't worthy of having an article?  Fanfiction has an entry because its a noteable subject known by alot of people. PHPBB is noteable software.--Kross 14:14, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Aspies go nuts. ;) I mentioned PhpBB, EvC, STvSW, secular humanism and fanfiction as features.  --Rev Prez 20:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment To put it politley, yes, yes he is a fucking moron, and yes he probably actually thinks that Secular Humanism doesn't deserve an entry. (What's even sadder, however, is that he actually went to MIT)--Robgea 15:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah, there ain't no justice. --Rev Prez 20:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Thats the funny thing. Several people checked and according to them, they discovered that he never finished at MIT.  We're guessing he either failed or was expelled.  He uses the whole "I went to MIT" spiel as a crutch to make himself look smarter.--Kross 02:17, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't believe I've ever used the "whole 'I went to MIT' spiel." --Rev Prez 20:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete as per CDC. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The entry simply sounds off on a webmaster's views on life, Star Wars, Star Trek, and death. --Rev Prez 06:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and throw Revprez down a well.--Kross 07:49, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment You gonna need to get your weight up, child. --Rev Prez 14:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, nn. Frjwoolley 02:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, it is nothing more than a vanity article as currently read. If not delete, major cleanup needed. Balancer 07:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Wouldn't it be kind of hard to do a major cleanup, if it were deleted?--Kross 23:19, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The website is well-known within its specialty, and thus deserves its own article. Not to mention the one person rabidly pushing for this deletion apparently has ulterior motives. Neocapitalist 21:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It's a notable enough website within the fan circles to deserve its own Wikipedia article. (Vote is from User:Ryan Hardy)

Delete, notable or not, there's insufficient depth of material here to warrant an encyclopedia article. Aside from the description fo the main site and its forum, this is an article on a personal website: "over the years Mike Wong has expanded the site to cover other topics within his interests " The site is already linked to in Star Trek versus Star Wars; its basic description could be expanded there (as some of the other sites' descriptions are). Sockatume 22:53, 9 Jun 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.