text:
Talk:Local government in the United States

Terminology

 * The term "local government" is often not used when describing the governments of major cities. Such establishments are said to maintain municipal governments.

I removed this text because I find "local government" to be used quite frequently to describe big-city governments. -- Beland 17:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Extensive revision of article
I've taken the plunge and just about completely rewritten the article. I don't claim that it's now perfect, but it's hopefully a huge improvement. It's certainly a lot more cohesive in my view.

I've excised a lot of stuff, particularly the various examples of local government from different states. I don't think that it makes sense to detail all fifty-one jurisdictions, which is where this article seemed to be headed; just a few exemplars are needed in my view. There are (or should be) separate articles for each of the states, which is where most of the detail belongs.

PS: I think I was saving my changes at the same time as someone else made some alterations. Apologies to the other person, but after all that writing I was too tired out to carefully review things further (and it's very hot and stuffy where I am at the moment!).

Silverhelm 21:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC).
 * Your rewrite is a huge improvement over what was here before. Doctor Whom 18:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Grand Divisions of Tennessee
Do the Grand Divisions of Tennessee operate as local governments? If so, we should say so and describe their functions, with a source. If not, what is the point of even mentioning them in this article? Thanks. Doctor Whom (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

State section redux
The section on individual states needs to be pared down. First, it should not be a trivia section; most states' systems of local government do not stand out that much. Second, long, detailed discussions of particular states should be broken out into new articles, with references added. I have tagged the article accordingly. Doctor Whom (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

New England towns
Daniel Danny John was here Doctor Whom: what reliable source are you referring to?

Anyhow: see the article on New England towns for more information. "Towns" and "cities" in New England are both incorporated municipalities, operating as governments on the same level of structure (but according to different internal models). In Massachusetts, which is what I'm most familiar with, several municipalities with a city form of government refer to themselves officially as "towns"; the "city" form of goverment didn't even exist until the 1820s, so even Boston was legally a "town" until then—so the "the historical circumstances of their formation", whatever they are, are the same for cities as for towns. But in any case, this article is about local government, not Census Bureau classification, and from a governmental perspective, New England towns and cities are both municipal governmental units of the same type. (Alternatively, they could both be listed under "township governments", since cities as well as towns are "areas into which a county is divided".) AJD (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The reliable source to which I refer is the Census of Governments source cited in the article. You may not agree with everything that it says, and no one is saying that it's Divinely inspired and inerrant. Nonetheless, as far as verifiability is concerned, I still say that it outranks one editor's unsupported say-so. Also, I consider it relevant, since it is, after all, from the Census of Governments.
 * If you maintain that the article should treat New England towns differently from the Census of Governments classification, feel free to explain why, citing sources and avoiding original research. Also, keep in mind that there are states outside of New England that treat some or all of their townships as incorporated municipalities operating on the same level as cities, so you should explain (again, citing sources and avoiding original research) how your reasoning applies both to the New England states and to those other states. Thanks. Doctor Whom (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If the Census of Governments is our source, then perhaps this article should not distinguish "municipal" from "township" governments at all. The Census of Governments distinguishes between them and classifies them separately, but explicitly not in a principled way. In Appendix A of the 2002 Census of Governments, where terminology is defined, "municipal governments" and "township governments" are defined in the exact same way: "Organized local governments authorized in state constitutions and statutes and established to provide general government for a defined area". The only explicit difference between them is in nomenclature: whether a local government is designated a "city" or a "township" (or any of several other terms) by its state—but I think such an arbitrary bifurcation by terminology shouldn't dictate how we classify local governments here. If the Census of Governments, our principal source, can't be bothered to come up with a meaningful difference between the two categories it uses, perhaps we shouldn't regard those two categories as separate at all.
 * The Census of Governments offers a handwaving explanation of its reason for using two categories: "Municipal and township governments are distinguished primarily by the historical circumstances surrounding their incorporation." At this point I'll shift back to talking about Massachusetts specifically because that's what I know best, and I don't know to what extent these facts apply to other states. In Massachusetts, every city was originally incorporated as a town, so there are no grounds for distinguishing between city and town governments in Massachusetts based on "historical circumstances surrounding their incorporation". The general laws of Massachusetts designate towns explicitly as "municipal governments", and it seems to me that if we're going to distinguish between "municipal" and "township" government we should regard Massachusetts state laws as a more reliable source than the Census of Governments. But I'm leaning more and more towards not having the two separate categories in this article at all, and maybe just an annotation saying "the U.S. Census Bureau divides these into 'municipal' and 'township' governments based on various terminological, demographic, and historical criteria'. AJD (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a lot more sympathetic now that you're citing sources rather than just making assertions. In your annotation, perhaps you can add that while some states (like MA, with the sources that you cite) do not strictly observe the distinction between townships and other forms of general-purpose local government below the county level, others do. Doctor Whom (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying that Massachusetts "does not strictly observe the distinction between townships and other forms of general-purpose local government" is strangely POV. More accurate to say to say that some states (like MA) have only one type of general-purpose local government, whereas some states have two or more (say, townships and incorporated cities). Anyhow, I'm at a conference now; when I'm home and have time I'll return to this article to fix up that section. AJD (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't POV, let alone "strangely POV." It's intended to ensure that the various sections of the article make sense within the context of the whole article and thus to overcome what has traditionally been one of the deficiencies of this article. Consider the example of Virginia, which departs from the Census Bureau's paradigm at least as much as Massachusetts does and more so than most states do. No one is suggesting that we rewrite the article to suit Virginia; instead, we have a thumbnail description relating Virginia's system of local government to the standard model, with a link to Political subdivisions of Virginia to give a fuller description of Virginia's system of local government on its own terms. Doctor Whom (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thing is, I think you're overstating the degree to which Massachusetts is atypical. Lots of states have only one type of subcounty incorporated entity: California, Georgia, Texas, and many other states all have only cities as sub-county entities, and no civil townships or other levels of incorporation. But you wouldn't say that those states "do not strictly observe the distinction between townships and" cities; you'd just that that they don't have townships. Massachusetts is like California, Georgia, and Texas in this respect rather than like, say, Michigan: there are no civil townships, and there's only one level of subcounty governmental entity. It's just that what in California, Georgia, and Texas are designated "cities" are in Massachusetts sometimes "cities" and sometimes "towns", depending on their internal legislative and executive structure. But it's not the case that Massachusetts "does not strictly observe the distinction between townships and" other this; there just aren't any townships. AJD (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction
It states: "although the took things outvaries [sic] from state to state, typical examples include the city, town, borough, and village." I'm not sure what it's supposed to say. Maybe: "although the local government varies from state to state..."? Melofshanoah (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)MelofshanoahMelofshanoah (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
As county governments are already fully discussed in the Local government in the United States article, the County government in the United States article is redundant. Strongly suggest merging the county government article with Local government in the United States. 71.139.153.191 (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Comment Wouldn't County (United States) be a better merge target? I agree that the article isn't needed and should be merged somewhere. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

 * That might be even better. 71.139.153.191 (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Support merger to County (United States). IMO, the article topic is worthy of a separate article, but the new article County government in the United States is (1) redundant with existing articles in both its scope and its specific content and (2) essentially devoid of references (indeed, it could be characterized as original research). The county article appears to be a more appropriate redirection target than the Local government article, as county government is more of a focus of the county article. --Orlady (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support merge to County (United States) per Orlady. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is significant content specific to county government to warrant a separate article. County government is inherently significant as a level of government to warrant its own article. Furthermore, this article was created out of a need to deal with issues arising from the category of the same name. There is no way all the content that is worthy of coverage can fit into the local government article, and it is still a matter of debate as to whether or not county government is local government at all. Greg Bard (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support merge to the county (US) article. Or perhaps we could merge some content to it and some content to the local government article?  This is closely connected (too much so) to both of them; the title and some of the contents are more suitable for the county article, but tons of the contents are more suitable for the local government article.  Nyttend (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Since County government in the United States consists of content already in one or both of the other articles plus unreferenced original research, there isn't all that much that's appropriate to be merged. Possibly the main issue here is where the title should redirect. --Orlady (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That occurred to me as well. I'd support a redirect to County (United States).  In fact, I'm going to start the BRD and redirect it now, and we can discuss it over there, maybe? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I went ahead and redirected it and started a discussion at Talk:County_government_in_the_United_States. If there's anything worth merging we can get it from the history, I think. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

 * oppose County government is an extension of state government, not to be confused with local municipalities' governments. Merging them only causes increased confusion and reduces wiki's value as a reference.Redddbaron (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)PS If you feel you have to merge for some reason, then the only reasonable place to merge county government is into state government, since structurally, county government is state government in every state I know about. Unless someone can reference me a state where counties are not an arm of the state government? However, I see no reason for merging at all.Redddbaron (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Question: Are there any references that unambiguously show that counties in fact function as an extension of state government? In every state I'm familiar with, counties are fully autonomous authorities within the bounds set out by the state. older ≠ wiser 12:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure! Here is a good online one that simply states it unambiguously. http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/Overview.aspx but you can also find the three main models in text books. At least you could 35+ years ago when I went to school. What they teach these kids now-a-days I have no idea. http://www.naco.org/Counties/Pages/HistoryofCountyGovernmentPartI.aspx Redddbaron (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see anything that unambiguously states that county governments are in today's world arms of state government. These references discuss the origins of counties, but then go on to describe how the function of counties has greatly expanded. So no, I'm not convinced. Once again, in all the several states in which I've lived, counties operate autonomously within the bounds set out by the state. The state only extremely rarely directly intervenes in the operations of a specific county (such as when there is a fiscal crisis or some sort of malfeasance). This is for all practical purposes directly analogous to how municipalities operate. Indeed, if you follow Gregbard's line of reasoning, then townships are also extensions of state government. older ≠ wiser 13:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this says "The longest-lasting, and potentially most profound, change in county governments was home rule. In general, this new concept simply meant that state legislatures would give their counties grants of broad, general powers, under which the counties could actually function as units of local government." I think the sources you provide more clearly support counties being units of local government in today's world, regardless of their origins. older ≠ wiser 14:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Subsequently, early state constitutions generally conceptualized county government as an arm of the state." ..... "These regional variations in county government structure and importance were repeated as the nation expanded westward in the century after the Revolution. Virginia’s strong counties became the model system for the southern colonies, while Pennsylvania’s system of at-large election to strong county governments was replicated throughout most of the western United States.  New England maintained (and maintains to this day) its greater vesting of authority in cities and towns." How unambiguous do you need? Redddbaron (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC) The concept started as county governments being "an arm of the State" and as the United States expanded the new states copied the model. I really haven't studied GregBards rational or his arguments. So I'll let him argue his own case. All I noticed was that he stated that county governments are an extension of State Government, and that is true. Whether your township statement is true or not, I don't know. Do you have any reference that unambiguously states that townships are an extension or an "arm of the state"? There are a lot of townships in the USA. Do you even have a reference that states as a general rule they are modeled in a fashion that makes most of them extensions of State Government?Redddbaron (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the quotes you selected are about the origin of county government. The issue at hand is how they currently operate, and from what I see at the pages there, county government has evolved far beyond the original forms and currently are a form of local government. No, I don't think townships are an extension of or an arm of the state in the same way that I don't think counties are. The origin of townships parallel that of counties. They were originally administrative subdivisions of a county. If we go by the origin of counties being administrative subdivisions of the state, the townships therefore are merely a third-level arm of the state government. However, in practice, just as counties have evolved beyond the original form, so have townships. Both are in today's world forms of local government. older ≠ wiser 14:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Evolved is an interesting choice of words. hmmmm How to explain it...... OK try this. County governments are the local branches of state governments. Each state has its own right to decide how much administrating jurisdiction and power it delegates to its counties. But there is a clear distinction structurally between federal, state, and municipal governments. EXCEPT where municipal governments have been merged into county governments ie Now under state jurisdiction. You'll not see county governments "merging" into state governments. That's because county governments ARE branches (or arms or extensions) of state government. When that happens between county and state, you see instead the statement that the county government was eliminated. (ie they closed down that branch) I think the issue you are missing has to do with an equivocation of the word "local". A "local" branch, even a powerful branch, of the state government is still part of the state government structure. Municipalities are also "local" but in a different sense. They are not part of the state government structure. To make an analogy comparing it to business models. You may have a "local" McDonalds, but it is just a part of the larger McDonalds corporation, you may also have a "local" mom & pop burger joint that actually is locally owned and run.(with the exception being if they get bought out by the bigger chain) Counties are that "local" branch of the larger entity, while municipalities are generally locally ran. (with a few exceptions where they got "bought out" by the state ie. merged with the county)Redddbaron (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's all fine and good from a theoretical and historical perspective. Practically speaking, and the way I read it, NACO agrees with this, counties currently function as units of local government, regardless of how they may have originated. As for your analogy, counties (at least in the states I'm familiar with, are for all practical matters treated on much the same basis as municipalities with regards to state oversight and governance. That is, the state authorizes the counties to perform certain functions and requires them to perform certain other functions, and beyond that it is up to the counties as to how that is done. The state does not generally have any role in the day-to-day operations of counties and there is no formal hierarchy by which counties are administered by the state. older ≠ wiser 15:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redddbaron, your own sources on my reading contradict your point. Obviously they describe how early state constitutions conceptualized county government in order to contrast it with how counties function now, which is as local governments.  What part of Changes in structure, greater autonomy from the states, rising revenues, and stronger political accountability ushered in a new era for county government. says to you that counties are branches of state government?  As for the fact that states mandate certain responsibilities for counties, so what?  States mandate certain responsibilities for cities and towns as well, how do you then claim that municipal governments aren't agencies of the state?  The fact is that none of them are.  Note that the federal government also mandates certain responsibilities to the states, which certainly doesn't make states agencies of the federal government.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sighs... This will be my last post because I can already see the wall of willful ignorance that caused Greg Bard to go off his rocker. That same feeling is starting to build up in me too. So before I get banned and censured or whatever you guys do here at Wiki, I will simply bow out and let you guys keep thinking the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. It is not worth the aggravation to me to continue this any more. I wish you all well. I mean that sincerely. I will go back to editing agricultural and ecological wiki pages and leave the political pages to people more suited to a political mentality. Taking this off my watch list so I am unlikely to answer. If you wish to message me use my talk page. Cheers. PS I may not be discussing it any further, but my vote still stands, for what it's worth. Redddbaron (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Links
>> Detroit Bankruptcy Prods Cities to Target Pensions: Muni Credit(Lihaas (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)).

dual sovereignty and multiple government definitions
The US, being a dual sovereign system, each state gets to define what its local governments are. The US Census, as a unit of the sovereign federal government gets to put out its own definition. The 51 definitions do not agree which means that unless you qualify who is doing the counting, your government counts are going to be wrong. At present (and I've looked for it) there is no comprehensive listing of all governments in the USA. TMLutas (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Texas
"Texas does not have townships" Is this correct? I always thought The Woodlands, TX was a township? Since I'm not an expert on the intricacies, I'll throw it in the Talk instead of an edit.216.227.244.219 (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

 * No. It is the Town Center Improvement District which renamed itself as the The Woodlands, although it's a little convoluted how. Acts 1993, 73rd R.S.,ch. 289, General and Special Laws of Texas, also known as SB 1373, 73rd Regular Session, says:

"[...] there is hereby created and established within Montgomery County, Texas, in the form and manner hereinafter set forth, a special district, to be known as the Town Center Improvement District of Montgomery County, Texas, [...]"

"[...] The name of the district may be changed by resolution of the board of directors of the district at any time. [...]"

 * Later, Acts 2009, 81st R.S.,ch. 1397, General and Special Laws of Texas, also known as SB 2515, 81st Regular Session, mentions (without referring to what "district" means in the act, although it's plain by it's consistent references to other acts which define it as the Town Center Improvement District):

"[...] The legislature ratifies and confirms all governmental acts and proceedings of The Woodlands Township and its board and of The Woodlands Township Economic Development Zone and its governing body before the effective date of this Act, in: [...] changing the name of the district to The Woodlands Township; [...]"

 * Its website also connects the two names:

"The Town Center Improvement District (TCID) was created in 1993 by the Texas Legislature as a governmental agency charged with promoting economic development in The Woodlands Town Center, a 1,000-acre business and commerce district. In January 2010, all of these entities came together under one governmental organization called The Woodlands Township."

 * The district also has an "as amended" form of the 1993 act (amended as of 2015) that still calls it a "special district". Int21h (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

nonpartisan
What is the background that made many states (e.g. California) to require municipal government to be nonpartisan? – Kaihsu (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Standardized Name of state's local government
There appears to be no reigning naming convention on the different article names, such as the difference of Administrative divisions of Alaska, with Local government in California, should one be adopted? Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  23:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think all administrative divisions, necessarily, are also a local government. I think administrative divisions could potentially include things like state agency districts or regions, or even special state-chartered corporations with defined operating areas. It allows more flexibility. Since many unknowns might potentially be worthy of inclusion, I have been partial to "administrative divisions". int21h (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm, but wouldnt local government imply any form of government inside of a state? I agree with you in terms of administrative divisions being a better name, if a standardization is to take place I think it would be administrative divisions. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  04:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Possibly true, but even if an administrative division is local-ized, can't its government still be non-local/centralized? It just seems to me that while a state subdivision will always be local-ized geographically (or otherwise), its government need not be. "Local government" is just one of those set-piece phrases already in use in the US. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm true, I see the virtue of the two phrases. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  06:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As do I, it's not clear. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 07:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Local government in the United States. 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/20090630013226/http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp to http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Broken link and apparent error in number of local governments
As of 2017-10-28, the article claims "there were 89,004 local government units in the United States", and cited a page (2012 http://www.census.gov/govs/cog2012) that says, "Sorry, the page you requested has either been moved or is no longer available on this server." (It's officially not a broken link, which is why a bot didn't catch it.)

With a little more searching, I found https://www2.census.gov/govs/cog/g12_org.pdf, which reported that there were "90,106 state and local governments ... in existence [in the US] on June 30, 2012."

I don't feel I can afford the time now to try to revise the article with this in mind, especially since this is far from my area of expertise. However, I hope that this comment will help someone more competent than I make appropriate changes. It's clearly important, because this article has averaged 370 page views per day over the past 90 days, and the plot suggests a steady increase from roughly 270 per day 90 days ago.

Thank you to all who helped bring the article to this point. DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


text:
125 mm smoothbore ammunition

The following is a list of ammunition fired by the 125 mm smoothbore gun series used in the T-64, T-72, T-80, M-84, T-90, PT-91, T-14 Armata, and other tanks derived from those designs, as well as the 2A45 Sprut anti-tank gun.

APFSDS-T
Armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) using a sabot and tracer (APFSDS-T). Typically used against other modern tanks.

There are different ways to measure penetration value. NATO uses the 50% criteria against 260BHN Steel, while the Soviet/Russia standard is higher (80% had to go through).

3VBM3/3BM9/10
Entered service in 1962. The projectile is Maraging steel.
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Projectile dimension: 410 mm 10: 1 L/d
 * Projectile weight (including sabot): 5.67 kg
 * Projectile weight: 3.6 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 1800 m/s
 * Muzzle energy: 5.8 MJ
 * Penetration: 245 mm at 0° at 2000 m, 140 mm at 60° at 2000 m, (energy at 2000 m is 4.2 MJ)

3VBM6/3BM12/13
Entered service (estimated) in 1968. Essentially the same as the 3BM9 projectile with a tungsten carbide plug.
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Projectile dimension: 410 mm 10: 1 L/d
 * Projectile weight (including sabot): 5.67 kg
 * Projectile weight: 3.6 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 1800 m/s
 * Muzzle energy: 5.8 MJ
 * Penetration: ?

3VBM7/3BM15/16
Entered service (estimated 1972). A slightly longer 3BM12 projectile.
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Projectile dimension: 435 mm 12: 1 L/d
 * Projectile weight (including sabot): 5.9 kg
 * Projectile weight: 3.9 kg including 2.9 kg and 0.27 kg tungsten carbide plug
 * Muzzle velocity: 1785 m/s
 * Muzzle energy: 6.2 MJ
 * Penetration: 400 mm at 0° at 2000 m, 150 mm at 60° at 2000 m

3VBM8/3BM17/18
Entered service (estimated 1972). An export version of the 3BM-15 without the tungsten carbide plug. Hence, it is an all-steel penetrator with inferior performance.
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Projectile dimension: 450 mm 12: 1 L/d
 * Projectile weight (including sabot): 5.9 kg
 * Projectile weight: 3.9 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 1780 m/s
 * Muzzle energy: 6.2 MJ
 * Penetration: 150 mm at 60° at 2000 m

3VBM9/3BM22/23 (3BM22 "Zakolka")
Entered service 1976. Tungsten carbide penetrator core sheathed in steel. Enlarged cap help to increase positive normalization and hold a much larger penetrator.
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Projectile dimension: 400 mm 11: 1 L/d
 * Projectile weight (including sabot): 6.55 kg
 * Projectile weight: 4.485 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 1785 m/s
 * Muzzle energy: 7.0 MJ
 * Penetration: 420 mm at 0° at 2000 m, 170 mm at 60° at 2000 m

3VBM10/3BM29/30 (3BM29 "Nadphil-2)
Entered service 1982. Depleted uranium-nickel-iron alloy sheathed in steel.
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Projectile dimension: 450 mm 12: 1 L/d - including 250 mm core
 * Projectile weight (including sabot): 6.55 kg
 * Projectile weight: 4.85 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 1700 m/s
 * Muzzle energy: 7.0 MJ
 * Penetration: 360 mm at 0° at 2000 m, 210 mm at 60° at 2000 m

3VBM11/3BM26/27 (3BM26 "Nadezhda-R)
Entered service 1983. Tungsten-nickel-iron alloy penetrator core sheathed in steel. Utilised new 4Zh63 high-energy propelling charge. Penetrator is base-installed to prevent deflection during penetration against multi-layered composite armour. Improved penetrator cap made of aluminium alloy.
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Projectile dimension: 395 mm 11: 1 L/d
 * Projectile weight (including sabot): 7.05 kg
 * Projectile weight: 4.8 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 1720 m/s
 * Muzzle energy: 7.5 MJ
 * Penetration: 410 mm at 0° at 2000 m, 200 mm at 60° at 2000 m

3VBM13/3BM32/33 (3BM32 "Vant")
Entered service in 1985. The projectile is an integrated depleted uranium-nickel-zinc alloy penetrator.
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Projectile dimension: 380 mm 13: 1 L/d
 * Projectile weight (including sabot): 7.05 kg
 * Projectile weight: 4.85 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 1700 m/s
 * Muzzle energy: 7.0 MJ
 * Penetration 395 mm at 0° at 2000 m, 230 mm at 60° at 2000 m

3VBM17/3BM42 (3BM42 "Mango")
Entered service in 1986. The projectile is double tungsten alloy rod sheathed in low melting point alloy covered with steel, intended to increase penetration against non-explosive reactive armour (NERA) such as Chobham armour. Is slowly being replaced by newer models such as 3BM59/60.
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Penetrator dimension: 532 mm 17: 1 L/d
 * Round weight: 20.4 kg
 * Projectile weight: 4.85 kg
 * Projectile weight (including sabot): 7.05 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 1700 m/s
 * Muzzle energy: 7.1 MJ
 * Penetration: 230mm @ 2000m at 60° and 520mm @ 2000m at 0° against standard 260BHN Steel Target

3VBM19/3BM42M (3BM44M "Lekalo")
From 1994, remained experimental and eventually evolved into the 3BM-59/60 meaning the outside design remained the same, the length of cartridge remained pretty much unchanged but the penetrator was further improved from the initial jacketed design which was improvement over the standard 3BM-42
 * Country of origin: Russia
 * Penetrator dimension: 570 mm 25: 1 L/d
 * Round weight: ? kg
 * Projectile weight (including sabot): 6.95 kg
 * Projectile weight: 4.6 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 1750 m/s?
 * Muzzle energy: 7.04 MJ
 * Penetration: 270mm @ 2000m at 60° against standard 260BHN Steel Target

3BM42-2 (3BM44-2 "Mango-2")
Currently in Experimental Phase, most famously seen at the Expo 2019 alongside 3BM-42 and 3BM-60. Uses the initial jacketed 3BM-42M penetrator but the cartridge is shorter over the Lekalo, designed to fit in the standard autoloader and is most likely to replace the standard 3BM-42 as main service round soon
 * Country of origin: Russia
 * Cartridge dimension: 685mm
 * Penetrator dimension: 570 mm 26: 1 L/d
 * Round weight: ? kg
 * Projectile weight (including sabot): ?
 * Penetrator weight: ?
 * Muzzle velocity: 1700 m/s
 * Muzzle energy: ?
 * Penetration: 280 mm at 2000m at 60° against standard 260BHN Steel Target

3VBM20/3BM46 (3BM48 "Svinets")
Entered service in 1991. Uses a new advanced high elongation uranium Monoblock penetrator.
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Penetrator dimension: 546 mm 21.84: 1 L/d
 * Round weight: ? ;kg
 * Projectile weight (including sabot): ?
 * Projectile weight: 4.85 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 1700 m/s
 * Muzzle energy: 7.4 MJ
 * Penetration: ~300mm @ 2000m at 60°, ~660mm @ 2000m at 0°

3VBM23/3BM60 (3BM60 "Svinets-2")
Entered service : 2016.

the new round uses a new sabot design, and a Tungsten Alloy penetrator of increased length compared to prior generation Russian APFSDS ammunition. Used on 2A46M-4/5 with new autoloader.
 * Cartridge dimension: 735 mm
 * Penetrator dimension: 640 mm 28-29: 1 L/D
 * Round weight: ? kg
 * Projectile weight (including sabot): 8.4kg
 * Penetrator weight:
 * Muzzle velocity: 1660 m/s
 * Muzzle energy: 12.1 MJ?
 * Penetration: 300mm at 2000m at 60° against standard 260BHN Steel Target

3VBM22/3BM59 (3BM59 "Svinets-1")
Entered service: 2016. Uses a new sabot design, and a new depleted uranium penetrator. Used on 2A46M-5 with new autoloader.
 * Country of origin: Russia
 * Cartridge dimension: 735mm
 * Penetrator dimension: 640 mm 28-29: 1 L/D
 * Round weight: 22.0 kg
 * Projectile weight (including sabot): 8.5 kg
 * Penetrator weight:
 * Muzzle velocity: 1650 m/s
 * Muzzle energy: 12.1 MJ
 * Penetration: ~315-330mm at 60° at 2000m

3VBM?/3BM69 "Vacuum-1"
Uses a new sabot. Reported to be uranium alloy. For use on 2A82-1M cannon on T-14 Armata.
 * Country of origin: Russia
 * Projectile dimension: ?
 * Round weight: ?
 * Projectile weight (including sabot): ?
 * Projectile weight: estimated 11 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 2050 m/s
 * Muzzle energy: 15–24 MJ (described 15MJ probably refer to high-explosive shell)
 * Penetration: estimated 500 to 650 mm at 0° at 2000m

3VBM?/3BM70 "Vacuum-2"
Uses a new sabot. Identical to 3BM69 in dimensions, the difference being that the projectile is made out of tungsten.
 * Country of origin: Russia
 * Projectile dimension: ?
 * Round weight: ?
 * Projectile weight (including sabot): ?
 * Muzzle velocity: ?
 * Muzzle energy: ?
 * Penetration: 400-550mm at 0° 2000m steel target

125-I
First-generation Chinese sabot round in service since 1993, also license produced by Pakistan.
 * Country of origin: China
 * Projectile dimension: 554 mm
 * Round weight: 21.3 kg
 * Projectile weight (including sabot): 7.37 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 1730 m/s
 * Muzzle energy: ?
 * Penetration: 220mm @ 2000m at 61.5° against 4340 Steel

DTW-125
Second-generation Chinese sabot round introduced in 1999. Initially 125-IIM acted as the export version with reduced velocity but with the introduction of DTC10-125, the DTW-125 itself became exported under the name “BTA4”
 * Country of origin: China
 * Projectile dimension: 642 mm
 * Round weight: 21.36 kg
 * Projectile weight (without Sabot): 4.1kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 1740 m/s
 * Muzzle energy: ?
 * Penetration: 230mm @ 200 at 68.5° against 4340 Steel

DTC10-125
Third-generation Chinese sabot round which was introduced in 2010 and the subject of a data leak on the War Thunder forum in June 2022 (leaked data is used here). This performance value is identical to value shown on Chinese state media, CCTV7.
 * Country of origin: China
 * Projectile dimension: 665 mm
 * Round weight: ?
 * Projectile weight (including sabot): ?
 * Muzzle velocity: 1760 m/s
 * Muzzle energy: ?
 * Penetration: 220mm @ 2000m at 71.12° against 4340 Steel

TAPNA
Produced by MSM Group in Slovakia. The penetrator is made from tungsten alloy.
 * Country of origin: Slovakia
 * Projectile dimension: 610mm
 * Round weight: 20 kg
 * Projectile weight (including sabot): 7.15 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 1690 m/s
 * Muzzle energy: ?
 * Penetration: 270 mm @ 2000 m at 60° against standard 260BHN Steel Target

HEAT-FS
High-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) fin stabilized (HEAT-FS) rounds. Typically used against lighter or older tanks and armoured personnel carriers.

3VBK7/3BK12
Entered service 1962.
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Projectile dimension: 680 mm
 * Projectile weight: 19 kg
 * Max dispersion: 0.21 mil (0.21 mrad)
 * Muzzle velocity: 905 m/s
 * Charge: shaped charge, steel liner, A-IX-1 (RDX phlegmatized with 5% wax), I-238 detonator
 * Penetration: 420 mm RHA at 0 degrees

3BK12M
Entered service 1968, replacing steel liner with a copper liner. "M" means медь ("copper" in Russian) Uses 3V-15 detonator. Due to Soviet Union's copper economize policy production of the model is limited. Penetration performance claimed to be 10% higher than steel liner version.
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union

3VBK10/3BK14
Entered service 1968.
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Projectile dimension: 680 mm
 * Projectile weight: 19 kg
 * Max dispersion: 0.21 mil (0.21 mrad)
 * Muzzle velocity: 905 m/s
 * Charge: shaped charge, steel liner, Okfol (phlegmatized HMX with 5% plasticizer) ; 3V-15 detonator
 * Charge weight: 1.62 kg
 * Penetration: 450 mm RHA at 0 degrees

3BK14M
Improved version, replacing steel liner with a copper liner.

3VBK16/3BK18
Entered service estimated 1975. Introduced wave-shaping booster.
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Round weight: 29.0 kg
 * Projectile dimension: 680 mm
 * Projectile weight: 19 kg
 * Max dispersion: 0.21 mil (0.21 mrad)
 * Muzzle velocity: 905 m/s
 * Charge: shaped charge, steel liner, Okfol (phlegmatized HMX with 5% plasticizer); 3V-15 detonator
 * Penetration: 500 mm RHA at 0 degrees

3BK18M
Improved warhead. Entered service estimated 1978, replacing steel liner with a copper liner. Improved wave-shaping booster.
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Projectile weight: 19.02 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 905 m/s
 * Penetration: 550 mm RHA at 0 degrees

3VBK17/3BK21
Entered service estimated 1980. Enhancements to improve reliability of the copper jet formation.
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Projectile dimension: 680 mm
 * Projectile weight: 19 kg
 * Max dispersion: 0.21 mil (0.21 mrad)
 * Muzzle velocity: 905 m/s
 * Charge: shaped charge, copper liner, Okfol (phlegmatized HMX with 5% plasticizer); 3V-15 detonator
 * Penetration: 550 mm RHA at 0 degrees

3BK21B
Entered service estimated 1982. "Material B" depleted uranium alloy liner to enhance penetration of advanced composite armours like Chobham.
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Projectile dimension: 680 mm
 * Projectile weight: 19 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 905 m/s
 * Penetration: 750 mm RHA at 0 degrees

3VBK21/3BK25
Entered service estimated 1985.
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Muzzle velocity: 905 m/s

3VBK25/3BK29 "Breyk"
Entered service estimated 1988. A new type of explosive-filling was applied, which improved focusing of the jet stream.
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Round weight: 28.4 kg
 * Projectile dimension: 680 mm
 * Projectile weight: 18.4 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 915 m/s
 * Penetration: 350mm to 400mm RHA at 60 degree tandem-charge

3VBK25M/3BK29M

 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Projectile weight: 18.4 kg
 * Charge weight: 1.62 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 915 m/s
 * Penetration: Estimated at 800 mm tandem-charge HEAT

3VBK27/3BK31 "Start"
First seen publicly in 1998. Reportedly a triple charge warhead intended to reduce efficiency of NERA elements.
 * Country of origin: Russia
 * Projectile weight: 18.4 kg
 * Charge weight: 1.62 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 915 m/s
 * Penetration: Estimated at 800 mm (triple charge HEAT)

HE-frag-FS
High explosive fragmentation fin stabilised. General purpose rounds, for use against infantry, bunkers and light vehicles and other "soft" targets.

3VOF22/3OF19
Entered service in 1962. Uses the 3V-21 detonator (mass = 0.431 kg, reliability = 0.98). The 90% lethal zone for infantry is reported to be 40 m wide and 20 m deep.
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Round weight: 33.0 kg
 * Projectile weight: 23.0 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 850 m/s
 * Max dispersion: 0.23 mil (0.23 mrad)
 * Charge weight: 3.148 kg
 * Charge: TNT

3VOF36/3OF26
Entered service in 1970. Uses the 3V-21 detonator (mass = 0.431 kg, reliability = 0.98). The projectile creates between 600 and 2,000 fragments. The body is made up of 45Kh1 steel or 60S2 high-fragmentation steel for modern projectiles. Modern projectiles creates up to 2,500 effective fragments.
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Round weight: 33.0 kg
 * Projectile weight: 23.0 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 850 m/s
 * Max dispersion: 0.23 mil (0.23 mrad)
 * Charge weight: 3.4 kg
 * Charge: A-IX-2 (73% RDX, 23% aluminium powder, phlegmatized with 4% wax) 3.4 kg

3VOF128/3OF82
Entered service in 2014. Uses the 3VM-18 programmable detonator. The projectile contains 450 tungsten rods, each weighing 3 grams and creates 2,500 fragments in a cone formation ahead of the projectile when air burst mode is set. Air burst mode for use against infantry, light vehicles and helicopters, delayed mode use against bunkers and other constructions. Is currently used on the 2A46M-5 gun, mounted on the T-90M.
 * Country of origin: Russia
 * Round weight: 33.0 kg
 * Projectile weight: 23.0 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 850 m/s
 * Max dispersion: 0.23 mil (0.23 mrad)
 * Charge weight: 3.0 kg
 * Charge: A-IX-2 (73% RDX, 23% aluminium powder, phlegmatized with 4% wax) 3.0 kg

3VSh7/3Sh7 "Voron"
Entered service in 1975. Uses the 3VM-17 time detonator. For use against wide area infantry and light vehicles. Time of detonation setting is mechanical, for modernization, the shell fuze could be set automatically by improved "Ainet" systems or "Kalina" systems, which are available on the T-90K commander tank or the regular main battle tanks such as the T-90A, T-90M, T-80UA, and the T-14 Armata main battle tank.
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Round weight: 31.3 kg
 * Projectile weight: 21.3 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 900 m/s
 * Projectiles contain: 4,700 flechette weighing 1.26 g each
 * Charge weight: 0.08 kg (A-IX-1)

3VSh8/3Sh8 "Ainet"
Entered service in 1988. Uses the 3VM-12 programmable detonator. A part of Remote detonation system "Ainet" on T-80UK commander tank.
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Round weight: 31.3 kg
 * Projectile weight: 21.3 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 900 m/s
 * Projectiles contain: 4,700 flechettes weighing 1.26 g each
 * Charge weight: 0.08 kg (A-IX-1)

9M112 Kobra

The 9K112 Kobra (NATO reporting name is AT-8 Songster) is also fired from the 125 mm main guns of the T-64 and T-80 series of tanks
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Projectile weight: 23.2 kg
 * Warhead weight: 4.5 kg
 * Guidance system: Radio-command guided
 * Range: 100 – 4000 m
 * Penetration: Estimated at 700 mm after ERA tandem-charge HEAT

9M119 Refleks
The 9M119 Svir and 9M119M Refleks (NATO reporting name: AT-11 Sniper) anti-tank guided missile has semi-automatic command to line of sight (SACLOS) laser beam riding guidance and a tandem shaped charge HEAT warhead. It has an effective range of 75 m to 5000 m, and takes 17.6 seconds to reach maximum range. Refleks can penetrate about 900 mm of steel armour and can engage low-flying air targets such as helicopters.
 * Country of origin: Soviet Union
 * Projectile weight: 16.5 kg
 * Warhead weight: 4.5 kg
 * Guidance system: Laser beam riding
 * Range: 75 – 5000 m
 * Penetration: Estimated at 900 mm after ERA tandem charge HEAT

3UBK21 Sprinter
Designed for the 2A82-1M gun on T-14 Armata tanks, the 3UBK21 Sprinter has millimeter wave semi-automatic command to line of sight (SACLOS) guidance and a tandem shaped-charge HEAT warhead. It has an effective range of 50 m to 12000 m. and can penetrate 950 mm of steel rolled homogeneous armour (RHAe) after explosive reactive armour (ERA). It can also engage low-flying air targets such as helicopters.
 * Country of origin: Russia
 * Projectile weight: ?
 * Warhead weight: ?
 * Guidance system: millimeter wave
 * Range: 50 – 12000 m
 * Penetration: Estimated at 950 mm after ERA tandem charge HEAT

Sokol-1
The Sokol-1 guided shell is fired from the 125 mm main gun, it borrowed design from the 152mm artillery shell 3OF75 Santimetr-M and both have very similar appearance, but with an added shaped charge cap into its design similar to the M712 Copperhead, intended to defeat heavily armoured targets. It uses the technique that is referred to as the Russian concept of impulse corrections (RCIC), an impulse steering flight control system to correct the projectile's trajectory. 12 km (indirect fire)
 * Country of origin: Russia
 * Projectile weight: 23.0 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 850 m/s
 * Guidance system: Semi-Active Laser/Passive target contour-based
 * Range: 0.1 – 5.0 km (direct fire)
 * Warhead: High-explosive/700 mm penetration shaped charge

3UBK14F1/9M119F1
The 3UBK14F1 guided shell is fired from the 125 mm main gun, its design was modified from 9M119 missile, removing the rocket motor and replacing it with an extra thermobaric warhead, turning it into a guided shell. Its range was decreased to 3.5 km, and it is claimed to have three times the explosive power of regular thermobaric variant 125 mm guided missiles.
 * Country of origin: Russia
 * Projectile weight: 16.5 kg
 * Muzzle velocity: 284 m/s
 * Guidance system: Laser beam riding
 * Range: 0.1 – 3.5 km
 * Warhead: Thermobaric estimated 15 kg TNT equivalent

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

title: 125 mm smoothbore ammunition


text:
Talk:Edguy

Soft Rock
We should decide whether Soft rock should be included in their genres. I haven't seen anywhere where they are labeled Soft rock. Hard rock, Heavy metal, Power metal have all been used to label Edguy, but Soft rock hasn't, please cite a source for this genre to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.201.211 (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Untitled
Snowflake you reverted when an edit would better serve. --DB0 14:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry if that seemed harsh. I simply got used to reverting changes by means of the rollback button. I should have used more tact. Again, I am sorry. --Sn0wflake 21:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No worries. You will see that I have reverted to my version with your format guidelines, so all's well :) --DB0 22:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

no drastic changes?
In my opinion, the sentence "However no drastic consequences have occurred to their style." should be changed. It was probably written before the album Rocket Ride came out, and for sure Rocket Ride seems to me like a pretty drastic change (compared to Theater of Salvation for example). What do you think? Could someone write a bit about the last album? --IronChris 04:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

how is their name pronounced is it "ed guy" or is it suposed to be "edgy"?

 * It's ed-guy. Like the name "Ed" and the word "guy" :P Not too sure how that works out in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). --IronChris 16:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Impartial?
"With their uncomplicated easygoing melodies and Sammet's high voice, Edguy is representative of typical European power metal."

In my humble opinion, the sentence above is not 100% impartial, and it may be considered a critique of some sort. Is there anyone who actually thinks the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by M3TALL1CA2000 (talk • contribs)

 * I agree that it isn't 100% encyclopedic. Maybe a more suitable wording would be something like "the melodies allied to Sammet's high-pitched voice make Edguy a rather typical example of European power metal". Well, that's a first shot anyway! Iron C hris |  (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I changed it to "Edguy employs uncomplicated easy-going melodies, combined with Sammet's high voice which is typical of European power metal." I believe this wording implies that the high voice is typical of power metal only. The other version, to me, made me think it was saying that "uncomplicated easy-going" melodies were typical of European power metal! That's quite a wide sweeping claim which I'm sure is pretty dubious, so I reworded it to reflect the high voice only. --Dayn 11:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The singer sounds like a cross between Bruce Dickinson and the guy from Queensryche. ---Original research — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.247.30 (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Biography
The last paragraph of the Biography section, telling the story about Kreator, isn't really biographical, if you ask me. It's more of a trivia type factoid or anecdote. I think it should be placed under a seperate section for consistency purposes. Jasontk (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This article has needed cleaning up for a long time, so I finally took care of it. It still needs more information, but it at least looks a little better now. I removed the Kreator story altogether, since trivia is generally discouraged on WP. --Managerpants (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Edguy. 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/20040105170547/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com:80/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=10603 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=10603
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040119032608/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com:80/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=15776 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=15776
 * Added tag to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=37649
 * Added tag to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=42749
 * Added tag to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=64424
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603101727/http://www.gemmus.com:80/edguy-to-support-scorpions-in-germany/ to http://www.gemmus.com/edguy-to-support-scorpions-in-germany/

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) 07:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Monuments is not just a compilation album
Monuments consists of a DVD, two live CDs and two studio CDs. It doesn't fit within a single category, so it's best to stick to the definitions. Five songs is enough for an album to classify as a studio album, and it also being a compilation album does not contradict this. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, if there were just 4 new songs, would it still be enough to be considered as a studio album? What is the real frontier? It is usual that compilations also include new material. Monuments is obviously an album prepared by group to celebrate their 25th Anniversary. From this point of view it's a common compilation. Why don't you place it also into Live album section? Look at the other rock/metal bands' pages, it is never done this way. Each record is always placed only into one subcategory. If it is a pure live record, it goes into Live, if it is a regular studio album it goes into Studio albums etc. And if it is a mixture, it belongs into COMPILATION subcategory. No need to argue. Why do you insist on expanding the Studio album section so hard?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.199.146 (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright. Let's end this argument and wait and see what the band itself classifies Monuments as. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

 * The band seems to consider Monuments as a studio album. As it also meets the "official" definition by having more than four songs, I believe that's the end of this discussion. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Please give me the source of the "official" definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.214.23 (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

 * Album. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

There is only one thing than can be read in the article - Monuments is not a single. It means it doesn't say Monuments is a NEW album. It meets all criteria of a compilation. So there is no argument for placing it among regular studio albums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.214.23 (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Last but not least, as for your note concerning what band itself considers Monuments to be: look at their official homepage, sheet MUSIC - it clearly shows Monuments is among OTHER RELEASES, not ALBUMS. From my point of view, this is the definite end of this discussion. http://www.edguy.net/eng/music.php?section=other — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.214.23 (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's odd, as Sammet has repeatedly insisted that Monuments is a new album, but alright. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, Tobi would be a good marketing specialist (he would do everything to earn more money), but that's a different story :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.214.23 (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edguy. 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/20081227120641/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=105501 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=105501

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) 20:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Random
Dirk has lead guitar for a few songs according to Nuclear Blast Records, Their website, and other reliable sources. Can I add it to the band members and timeline? Brandon mr Anxiety (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Edguy


text:
Bjorn Haneveer

Bjorn Haneveer (born 4 September 1976 in) is a Belgian snooker player and commentator. Haneveer, formerly a professional competitor, now plays at semi-professional level and also commentates on snooker matches for Dutch Eurosport.

Career
A six-time Belgian snooker champion (last title won in May 2007 vs Patrick Delsemme), Haneveer lost in the final of the European Championship in Scotland in June, 2000. He was European Champion at Enschede, Netherlands and at Riga, Latvia in June, 2001. Haneveer won the snooker gold medal at the sixth World Games held in Akita, Japan, in August, 2001. He made a 147 break during the 2003 European Championship at Bad Wildungen in Germany and another during the Belgian Championships, 2007. He won the bronze medal at the seventh World Games held in Germany (21 July 2005).

He was a Main Tour professional for many years, and reached a top ranking of No 53 during the 2004–05 season. Until the arrival on tour of Luca Brecel, Haneveer was by far the most successful Belgian snooker player of all time.

After falling off the main tour, he regained his place by finishing within the top 8 on the PIOS tour 2008/2009.

Haneveer announced on 9 November 2011, that he would retire from professional snooker after the PTC 9 tournament, due to excessive expenses.

title: Bjorn Haneveer


text:
Urban Strike

Urban Strike (subtitled The Sequel to Jungle Strike) is a video game developed and published by Electronic Arts. It was initially released for the Sega Genesis in 1994, with ports handled by Black Pearl Software to the Super Nintendo Entertainment System and Game Gear in 1995 and to the Game Boy in 1996. It is the third game in the Strike series, after Desert Strike: Return to the Gulf and Jungle Strike.

Plot
Urban Strike takes place in 2001 (2006 in SNES/Game Gear/Game Boy release) and centers around the antagonist H. R. Malone, a millionaire media mogul who once ran for President of the United States. Despite losing the election, Malone's charisma has continued to sway many Americans to his side. Malone's agenda is moralistic and appeals to legitimate problems that have concerned Americans, such as violence, political corruption and organized crime.

As the plot begins, one of Malone's men is revealed to be "Agent Ego" (played by co-Designer, Tony Barnes), a spy for the fictional "Strike C.O.R.E." organization and a former co-pilot from the events of Jungle Strike. Ego reports to his superiors that Malone is planning construction of a superweapon with which to destabilize the U.S. government, and that valuable components are being collected in Hawaii. However, he is unaware that Malone has penetrated his cover, and Ego is killed with a car-bomb. The player character takes the news of Ego's death very personally.

The first mission takes place in Hawaii, where the player character intercepts Malone's attempted theft of giant mirrors and sees to the rescue of a plastic surgeon being targeted by assassins. After the mission's completion, the plastic surgeon reveals that he had operated on a horribly deformed burn victim in Washington DC many years ago, who later turned out to be Malone. The plastic surgeon says he was marked for death because he had recently deduced that the man he actually operated on was Carlos Ortega, who was one of the two main antagonists in (and was presumed killed at the end of) Jungle Strike.

After further missions in Mexico and San Francisco, Malone finishes the superweapon and fires it at New York City, causing mass destruction and chaos. As the player flies out to control the damage and rescue civilians, Malone fires the weapon twice more, allowing Strike C.O.R.E. to track its location: a facility located near Las Vegas. After infiltrating the facility and capturing Malone, the madman attempts to kill the player by detonating a time-bomb strapped to his chest, but the player drops Malone onto his own superweapon as it detonates, destroying them both at once.

Gameplay
Urban Strike is a helicopter based shoot 'em up, mixing action and strategy, retaining its predecessor's core mechanics, and expanding on the model with additional vehicles and settings. This time, the campaign takes the player all over the North American continent, beginning in Hawaii and moving through locations in Mexico, San Francisco, New York, and Las Vegas.

The main model helicopter used in this game is known as the Mohican, which is designed for speed and combat. A larger, heavier model called the Blackhawke (designed for large-scale rescues) can be flown during the first two levels, and an experimental Ground Assault Vehicle (GAV) can be stolen and piloted in the third level. A new feature introduced in this game is on-foot missions, where the player is required to leave the helicopter at certain points and enter internal environments armed with a rifle and missile launcher.

Levels consist of several missions, which are based around the destruction of enemy weapons and installations, as well as rescuing hostages or prisoners of war, or capturing enemy personnel. The Mohican helicopter is armed with machine guns, more powerful Hydra rockets and yet more deadly Hellfire missiles. The more powerful the weapon, the fewer can be carried: the player must choose an appropriate weapon for each situation.

The player's craft has a limited amount of armor, which is depleted as the vehicle is hit by enemy fire. Should the armor reach zero, the craft will be destroyed, costing the player a life. The player must outmaneuver enemies to avoid damage, but can replenish armor by means of power-ups or by airlifting rescued friendlies or captives to a landing zone. The Mohican has a finite amount of fuel which is steadily depleted as the level progresses. Should the fuel run out the Mohican will crash, again costing the player a life. The craft can refuel by collecting fuel barrels. The helicopter also carries limited ammunition, which must be replenished by means of ammo crates.

Development
The game had a marketing budget of £500,000

Reception
Russian magazine Great Drakon felt Urban Strike to be too easy and thus the weakest game in the series. The 88% review in Mega said: "Very good all round, but EA has taken the genre as far as it can go". Reviewing the Genesis version, GamePro deemed it "a top-notch helicopter-combat cart", citing the "ten massive missions", combination of airborne and ground-based combat, new helicopter moves and techno soundtrack.

A critic for Next Generation declared that the Super NES version is more colorful but overall inferior to the Genesis version, due to the less smooth controls and animation, but that it retains all the essential appeal of the Genesis version. He concluded that while the series formula was becoming stale, it still delivers for those who want more of the same, and gave it three out of five stars.

Next Generation reviewed the Genesis version of the game, rating it three stars out of five, and stated that "With all the great scenery, Urban Strike should be the best Strike game yet, but there's nothing new in the gameplay department, which is a shame." In 1996, GamesMaster ranked the Mega Drive version fifth on their "The GamesMaster Mega Drive Top 10."

title: Urban Strike


text:
National Library Board

The National Library Board (NLB) is a statutory board under the purview of the Ministry of Digital Development and Information of the government of Singapore. The board manages the public libraries throughout the country.

The national libraries of Singapore house books in all four official languages of Singapore; English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil. Other than paper books, the libraries also loans CD-ROMs, DVD-ROMs, VCDs, video cassettes, audiobooks on CDs, magazines and periodicals, DVD-videos, Blu-rays and music CDs. Its flagship institution, the National Library, Singapore, is based on Victoria Street.

History
Although the NLB was first formed on 1 September 1995, its history had begun way back in the 1820s when Stamford Raffles first proposed the idea of establishing a public library. This library was to evolve into the National Library of Singapore in 1960, before expanding into the suburbs with the setting up of branch libraries in the various new towns throughout the country.

Library 2000
In 1995, when the NLB took over the duties of the National Library of Singapore, it was also entrusted with bringing to reality the findings of the Library 2000 Review Committee, set up in June 1992 to review the public library system. This committee, headed by Tan Chin Nam, considered the role of information technology in contemporary library services for the next decade, with the aims of

 * 1) Establishing Singapore as an international information hub;
 * 2) Preserving and promoting Singapore's literary heritage;
 * 3) Providing for education, knowledge and research;
 * 4) And promoting a well-read and well-informed society.

The committee also took into consideration the library needs of public library users in general, the linguistic needs of an increasingly bilingual populace, the catering to the needs of professions who require extensive information databases, and the establishment of the library as a nucleus of national culture and heritage. After a year-long review, the Committee published their findings on 5 March 1994, which calls for six "strategic thrusts", which are

 * 1) An Adaptive Public Library System
 * 2) A Network of Borderless Libraries
 * 3) A Coordinated National Collection Strategy
 * 4) Quality Service Through Market Orientation
 * 5) Symbiotic Linkages With Business And Community
 * 6) A Global Knowledge Arbitrage

In addition, the report also speaks of three "key enablers" to bring about these changes, which are

 * 1) the setting up of a new statutory board
 * 2) staff development, and the
 * 3) exploiting of new technology.

The NLB was thus formed as a result of this Report. The NLB implements initiatives arising from the Report's recommendations.

Controversy
In July 2014, the NLB announced that it was pulping three children's books, And Tango Makes Three, The White Swan Express, and Who's in My Family?, following a user's complaint that the books' homosexual themes did not promote family values. In protest, several poets and writers resigned from the Singapore Writers Festival and the Singapore Literature Prize, while several boycotted a panel discussion hosted by the NLB.

A petition was signed by 3,800 signatories to reinstate the books or relocate the books to a different section, while another petition supporting the NLB's decision was signed by 26,000. A group supporting the reinstating of the affected books organised an event called "Let's Read Together" at the atrium of the National Library, where members of the public could bring books of any content to read along with a penguin stuffed toy, drawing 250 people on 13 July 2014. Communications and Information Minister Yaacob Ibrahim later instructed the NLB to place And Tango Makes Three and The White Swan Express in the adult section instead of pulping them; Who's in My Family? had already been pulped. The NLB also later announced that book selection and review processes would be refined.

title: National Library Board


text:
Talk:Korean Wave

List
Hi I've removed this list from the Iran section, (1) Because it doesn't fit with what the section is (foreign relations), (2) Because it appears its inclusion is the result of WP:COATRACK, and (3) It likely belongs in a different article, but certainly not the main article for the Korean Wave. Therefore, I've added it here, so that its not forever deleted.

 * I'm also doubtful about the notability of the whole fan clubs section, which is mostly sourced to press releases from the Korean government or just re-reports of press releases the Korea Times and the like. Nor do I find evidence that the table or the image in that section is really helpful for anyone? Lmk if anyone disputes this, otherwise I'll remove it later. : 3 F4U (they/it) 14:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see in the history that it was added by a sockpuppet. Removing now. : 3 F4U (they/it) 12:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation/Criticism section
I've removed the additions originating from this edit, from IP user @2405:201:E021:4B8C:D988:17B5:E0B3:760C, as I don't think it's relevant for an article on the Korean Wave. These are individual controversies of individual K-pop groups or television programs and not something to do with the phenomenon itself. Bringing it up here in case anyone disagrees, and because I think these are important pieces of information to have on Wikipedia, just not this article. I previously rephrased the section, but it really needs to be moved to a more appropriate Wikipedia page. : 3 F4U (they/it) 13:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

"Hallyu" capitalized?
As title. My guess is yes, given that we title case "Korean Wave"? toobigtokale (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Also is it italicized as per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC? Not sure toobigtokale (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Manhwa
Hi, I plan to add more information to the Manhwa section. I will explain a bit about the history of Manhwa, the difference between webtoons and Manhwa and then maybe explain why Manhwa has just now become more popular outside of South Korea unlike the other elements of the Korean wave. Here are some sources that I found that I am thinking of using:

Berndt, Jaqueline, and Bettina Kümmerling-Meibauer. “Manhwa in Korea (Re-)Nationalizing Comics Culture .” Manga’s Cultural Crossroads, Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, New York, 2013.

Lent, John A.. Asian Comics, University Press of Mississippi, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/utah/detail.action?docID=3039935.

Lynn, Hyung-Gu. "Korean Webtoons: Explaining Growth." 韓国研究センター年報 16 (2016): 1-13. Web.

Parc, Jimmyn, et al. “The Lagged Development of the Korean Manhwa Industry from 1910 to The ...” Semantic Scholar, 2023, ecipe.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Parc.-Park-and-Kim-2023-Manhwa-Industry.pdf. Noarod4 (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Korean Wave


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Larry Sanders show

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already Merged and redirected. android 79  13:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The Larry Sanders show
Already a correct article The Larry Sanders Show Occono 14:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. This did not need to be listed here; you are looking for Duplicate articles. A и D я 01D  TALK  EMAIL  15:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and merged and redirected the article to The Larry Sanders Show. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you both very much. -Occono

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Tony Daniel

Tony S. Daniel (born Antonio Salvador Daniel) is an American comic book writer and artist, known for his work on various books for DC Comics, including Teen Titans, Flash: The Fastest Man Alive, and Batman and Deathstroke and Nocterra as well as many other books as well as many covers for both Marvel and DC Comics.

Career
Daniel worked on various titles with Image Comics including his own creation, The Tenth. He also worked on titles for Marvel Comics. He gained status at DC Comics with his run on Teen Titans with writer Geoff Johns. He finished out the short lived Flash: The Fastest Man Alive series with Marc Guggenheim from issues #11-13, which ended with Bart Allen's death.

From there, Daniel began his work for the main Batman title with writer Grant Morrison, beginning his run with issue #670. This issue began the Resurrection of Ra's al Ghul crossover. He and Morrison collaborated on the "Batman R.I.P." storyline during that time. After "R.I.P.", Daniel wrote and illustrated Battle for the Cowl, the main mini-series dealing with the story's aftermath.

In 2009, after Judd Winick and Mark Bagley's four-issue run on Batman, Tony Daniel took over for a six-issue arc handling both writing and art duties. Daniel worked with Grant Morrison again on issue #701-702. He returned as writer and artist starting with issue #704 in November 2010 with his arc on Batman coming to an end at issue #712. Shortly after, Daniel was announced as the writer and artist of the relaunched Detective Comics, which was dubbed DC's flagship series. In addition, he was announced as the writer of DC's The Savage Hawkman series, which he would stay on until the eighth issue. Daniel stayed on Detective Comics until the twelfth issue, by which time he drew an annual for the series as well.

In July 2012, as part of the San Diego Comic-Con, Daniel was one of six artists who, along with DC co-publishers Jim Lee and Dan DiDio, participated in the production of "Heroic Proportions", an episode of the Syfy reality television competition series Face Off, in which special effects were tasked to create a new superhero, with Daniel and the other DC artists on hand to help them develop their ideas. The winning entry's character, Infernal Core by Anthony Kosar, was featured in Justice League Dark #16 (March 2013), which was published January 30, 2013. The episode premiered on January 22, 2013, as the second episode of the fourth season.

Daniel was announced as the artist for a two issue stint on the second volume of Justice League. He was subsequently announced as the primary artist accompanying Andy Diggle on Action Comics, following Grant Morrison's departure. However, after Diggle left the title after only issue #19 (Diggle was co-writer for #20 and co-plot issue #21), Daniel took on the scripting and art duties for the two following issues completing the three-part story "Hybrid", after which he too announced he would depart the series to work on a massive project for DC. This project was then announced in June 2013 to be Superman/Wonder Woman, with Daniel on as the artist. After working with Charles Soule on Superman/Wonder Woman, Daniel again returned to writing duties. Penciling and scripting the relaunch of the Deathstroke title, it sold out and headed off to a second printing.

Dark Horse

 * Adrenalynn: Weapon of War #1-4 (2001)
 * Silke, miniseries, #1-4 (writer/art) (2001)
 * The Tenth: Resurrected #1-4 (2001)

DC

 * Batman #670-674, 676–681, 700-702 (artist), #692-697, 704-707 (writer/artist), #698-699, 710-712 (writer) (2007–2011)
 * Batman: Battle for the Cowl, miniseries, #1-3 (2009)
 * Countdown Presents: The Search for Ray Palmer – Crime Society, one-shot (cover, 2007)
 * DC Universe #0 (3 page interior that preludes to Batman: R.I.P.)
 * Flash: The Fastest Man Alive #11-13 (2007)
 * Nightwing #138 (cover)
 * Teen Titans, vol. 3, #26, 29–31, 34–37, 39–40, 43-44 (covers #26, 29–46, & 48)
 * Teen Titans and Outsiders: Secret Files and Origins 2005 (cover and Teen Titans Hunt story)
 * Detective Comics, vol. 2, #1-9, 12 (writer/artist), #10-11, Annual #1 (writer), #0 (artist)
 * The Savage Hawkman #1-8 (writer, 2011–12)
 * Justice League, vol. 2, #13-14 (2013)
 * Action Comics, vol. 2, #19 (art); #20-21 (writer/art)
 * Superman/Wonder Woman #1-6; #8 (art/cover); #10, 12 (cover) (2013–14)
 * Deathstroke, vol. 3, #1-8 (writer/art); #9-13 (writer) (2014–16)

Image

 * F5, miniseries, #1-4 (writer/art) (2000)
 * Humankind #1-5 (writer) (2004)
 * Shattered Image #1, 4
 * Spawn #38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48 (1995–96)
 * Spawn: Bloodfeud #1-4
 * Tales of the Witchblade #1 (1996)
 * The Tenth #1-14 (1997–99)
 * The Tenth Configuration (sourcebook)
 * The Tenth: Abuse of Humanity #1-4
 * The Tenth #0
 * The Tenth #1/2
 * The Tenth Special (collecting 1/2 and zero)
 * The Tenth: Blackout TPB
 * The Tenth: Black Embrace #1-4
 * The Tenth: Darkk Dawn #1
 * The Tenth: Evil's Child #1-4
 * The Tenth: Nightwalker #1-4
 * Tomb Raider #35-36 (2003)
 * Witchblade #9, 78-79 (1996–2004)
 * Nocterra #1-16

Marvel

 * X-Force Annual #2
 * X-Force #28, 30–36, 38-43
 * Gambit & the X-ternals #1-2

title: Tony Daniel


text:
User:Kristov halski

I am Kristov Halski and i like laughs, do you like laughs? Course you do yay! anyway yep i will update this soon but it may take a while i dont know why but ya know

title: User:Kristov halski


text:
Talk:Robotix

Robotix (competition)
At 19:30 12 September 2006, the article was changed by 202.63.233.8 into an article on the robotics competition. I initially reverted it to version 72309769 at 02:39, 28 August 2006 by 72.66.56.43 and added a see also tag at the top. Then, in fairness, I decided to turn this into a disambiguation page and rewrote it according to WP:DAB. Seeing that at least 9 other mainpages linked here (and I could find 0 that linked to the robotics competition), I decided to revert this page back to version 72309769 discussing the cartoon and added the see also tag at the top. In the future, hopefully edits on the robotics competition will be made on the Robotix (competition) page. --Pixelface 10:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Split the article into Toy and Film?
Perhaps this article should be renamed to "Robotix (the Animated Series)" or similar? I cite two reasons: It refers to the animated series but is listed under construction toys. It covers mostly the animated series. --- 06:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)PidGin128

Agree - I was reading through a category of articles about Construction Toys and was a bit surprised to see an article appearing about a TV show. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny, as a child when these came out, I recall the toy being much more important than the show. There really should be an article about the toy, which was hugely popular for a while, along with construx and capsela. - super βεε cat 09:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The toy was MUCH more popular at the time than the series. It deserves it's own page/article. Good call, superbeecat. RockMSockM (talk) 06:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've placed the related comments together because I also agree that this article should be split. The toys were much more notable, and many cartoons were produced in the 1980s to promote toy lines. --Bobak (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please give the toys their own article. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.129.30 (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of names
I have a copy of the Marvel comic that adapts the series, and it's revealed that we've spelt a few of the names wrong. For example, Nara is spelt consistently with only one "r" in her name, and Compu-Core is consistently spelt with a hyphen. I will go through and fix these names. 2600:1700:96F1:550:61C7:4836:50CA:E1D1 (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Not Transformers
What are you doing? Robotix is not in any way a Transformers series or spin-off. A Transformers Animated guidebook decades later made some jokey statements about it and that’s all.

title: Talk:Robotix


text:
People's Republic of Korea

The People's Republic of Korea (PRK; ) was a short-lived provisional government that was organized at the time of the surrender of the Empire of Japan at the end of World War II. It was proclaimed on 6 September 1945, as Korea was being divided into two occupation zones, with the Soviet Union occupying the north and the United States occupying the south. Based on a network of people's committees, it presented a program of radical social change.

In the south, the US military government disbanded the PRK on 12 December 1945. In the north, the Soviet authorities took over the PRK by installing pro-Soviet Korean communists such as Kim Il-sung into positions of power and incorporated it into the political structure of the emerging Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea).

Establishment
On 15 August 1945, the Japanese Empire surrendered to the Allies. The Imperial Japanese authorities requested that a government be established to ensure the safety of their persons and property after the occupation ended. Whilst the Soviet Union continued to fight the Japanese Empire in Chongjin, Endo Ryusaku, who served in the Japanese Government-General sought to secure the return of the Japanese. He proposed to Song Jin-woo that he take over the security and administrative rights of Korea, but when this was rejected, he asked to meet Lyuh Woon-hyung in Seoul. Under Lyuh's leadership, the newly formed Committee for the Preparation of Korean Independence (CPKI) organized people's committees throughout the country to coordinate the transition to independence. On 28 August 1945 the CPKI announced that it would function as the temporary national government of Korea. On 6 September, CPKI activists met in Seoul and established the PRK.

Security and administrative rights were transferred to Lyuh, and the safety of the Japanese evacuating the Korean Peninsula was guaranteed. Accordingly, Lyuh suggested the following conditions:
 * Immediate release of political prisoners and economic prisoners across the country.
 * Secure food for three months in August, September and October.
 * Don't interfere with political activities.
 * Don't interfere with the education of students and youth.
 * Don't interfere with the mobilization of workers and peasants into workers' councils.

Accordingly, the Governor-General's Deputy Prime Minister accepted the terms. That night, Lyuh Woon-hyung launched the National Preparatory Committee, basing its structure on the Founding Alliance, an underground secret independence movement that he had formed a year before in August 1944. Subsequently, Lyuh released all the political prisoners in Seodaemun Prison. Two days after the founding of the National Preparatory Committee was established, a systematic organizational network was established, expanded and reorganized. Lyuh was elected chairman and An Jae-hong as Vice-chairman, who made the following declaration:

"Founding Alliance Code

 * 1) Each faction should unite with each other to establish a unified nation and restore the freedom and independence of the Korean people.
 * 2) Cooperate to form a united front against Japan and eradicate any reactionary forces that hinder the complete independence of Korea.
 * 3) In terms of construction, all efforts should be focused on the liberation of the democratic public.

Declaration of the National Preparatory Committee

Humanity longs for peace and history aims for development. With the end of the Second World War, an alleged tragedy of human thought, a day of liberation came to Korea. For the past half century, Korea has been a colony of imperial Japan, blocking the way to freedom in all respects from imperial exploitation and oppression. But we have been fighting for our liberation for the past 36 years. All movements and struggles to open the path to this free development have been stubbornly rejected by imperialism and the reactionary and anti-democratic forces that have colluded with it.

With the international resolution of the post-war problem, Korea moved away from the Japanese imperialist base. However, the liberation of the Korean people was only a new step in the ideological movement, so a great struggle for complete independence still remains, and a great task for the construction of a new nation lies in our hands. Then our current mission is to strive for complete independence and true democracy. Temporarily, the international forces will dominate us, but it will not hinder whether or not we will meet our democratic needs. All progressive struggles to eradicate feudal remnants and open the way for free development have been unfolded nationwide, and several progressive democratic forces in Korea are eager to form a unified front. By these social demands, our National Preparatory Committee was formed.

Therefore, the Preparatory Committee focuses on the construction of a new nation to reorganize our people into a truly democratic regime, and at the same time a completely liberated unified front, from all walks of life, to gather all progressive democratic forces. This is why a popular struggle against all anti-democratic reactionary forces is required: in the past, they colluded with Japanese imperialism to commit grave sins, and in the future they are likely to interfere with the construction of a new democracy, just like in Joseon. Fight against these reactionary forces, that is, anti-democratic forces, to overcome them and to realize true democracy. In order to do so, a strong democratic regime should be established. This regime will be composed of people's committees elected at the National People's Delegation Conference, and it is needless to say that the revolutionary warriors and organizations that have been committed to the Korean liberation movement abroad have to be greeted with respect. Thus, a completely new regime must emerge to represent the general consensus of the entire Korean people and to protect their interests. In the temporary transition period until the establishment of this new regime, the main committee maintains the security of Joseon independently and takes one step further In order to realize an independent state organization, the following code is set forth with the intention of fulfilling one provisional task of establishing a new regime.

Program
 * We intend to build a completely independent country.
 * We are committed to establishing a democratic regime that can fulfill the basic political, economic and social needs of the entire nation.
 * We will maintain national order independently and secure public life in the temporary transition period."

Deployment
The PRK has great significance in that it is the first Korean political organization to implement local autonomy, in the form of the people's committees. By the end of August, more than 140 committees were established nationwide in response to the support of the people. Later it was nominally nominate Syngman Rhee as PRK's leader, Kim Ku and Kim Kyu-sik were also invited to join the cabinet, but all of them refused.

The organizational work of the National Preparatory Committee was also carried out in North Korea. The leader in the North Korean region was Cho Man-sik, a native of Pyongyang, who 'took a non-violent yet uncompromising route' during the Japanese colonial period. Under different regional conditions in the south and north of the Korean Peninsula, Lyuh Woon-hyung and Cho Man-sik simultaneously launched the founding project.

The organization had different names and differences in composition, depending on whether it was led by communists or nationalists. It also provided a foundation for the construction of a new nation as a 'people's self-governing organization', created by both nationalists and socialists who had been engaged in the independence movement during the Japanese colonial period.

Seo Joong-seok, a professor of history at Sungkyunkwan University, said, 'If there was no organization like the people's committees after liberation, there would have been great confusion. This is because major independence movement groups, including the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea, were far abroad. However, before the liberation, the founding alliance was organized mainly by domestic groups, who were able to voluntarily perform major tasks such as security and administration.'

Program
The program of the PRK was presented in its 14 September twenty-seven point program. The program included: "the confiscation without compensation of lands held by the Japanese and collaborators; free distribution of that land to the peasants; rent limits on the nonredistributed land; nationalization of such major industries as mining, transportation, banking, and communication; state supervision of small and mid-sized companies;... guaranteed basic human rights and freedoms, including those of speech, press, assembly, and faith; universal suffrage to adults over the age of eighteen; equality for women; labor law reforms including an eight-hour day, a minimum wage, and prohibition of child labor; and "establishment of close relations with the United States, USSR, United Kingdom, and China, and positive opposition to any foreign influences interfering with the domestic affairs of the state." The motto of the PRK was, accordingly, "Self-reliant and independent state".

Communist takeover in the North
When Soviet troops entered Pyongyang on 24 August 1945, they found a local People's Committee established there, led by veteran Christian nationalist Cho Man-sik. While the Soviet authorities initially recognized and worked with the People's Committees, they made determined efforts to ensure that Koreans friendly to their political interests, especially Korean communists, were placed into positions of power. Immediately after entering Korea, Soviet officials set about shifting the political center of the Peoples' Committees to pro-Soviet leanings, and installed a number of Korean communists into the Peoples' Committees until eventually they formed the majority in these organizations.

By some accounts, Cho Man-sik was the Soviet government's first choice to lead North Korea. However in December 1945, at the Moscow Conference, the Soviet Union agreed to a US proposal for a trusteeship over Korea for up to five years in the lead-up to independence. Most Koreans demanded independence immediately, which included Cho Man-sik, who opposed the proposal at a public meeting on 4 January 1946. Afterwards, he disappeared into house arrest. He was replaced by Kim Il Sung, who alongside most of the Koreans Communists had supported the trusteeship under pressure from the Soviet government. On 8 February 1946, the People's Committees were reorganized as Interim People's Committees dominated by Communists. The new regime instituted popular policies of land redistribution, industry nationalization, labor law reform, and equality for women. Meanwhile, existing Communist groups were reconstituted as the Workers' Party of Korea under Kim Il Sung's leadership.

After the failure of negotiations for unification, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) was proclaimed on 9 September 1948, with Kim Il Sung as premier.

Suppression in the South
After the American arrival in September 1945, the United States Army Military Government in Korea controlled the peninsula south of the 38th parallel. The military governor Lieutenant-General John R. Hodge refused to recognize the PRK and its People's Committees, which were outlawed on 12 December. He later stated, "one of our missions was to break down this Communist government". On 19 July 1947, Lyuh Woon-hyung was assassinated by Han Ji-geun, a member of the far-right White Shirts Society.

Edgar Snow, an American journalist, returned to Korea after its liberation and stayed for two months to report on the situation: "The United States landed in Korea without any preparation. However, there was already a founding committee in Korea and soon after there was political preparation. If the Americans had saved the National Preparatory Committee, the construction of Korea would have been faster and more beneficial."

Some local units of the People's Republic remained active in the Jeolla region and especially on Jeju Island, where their presence, together with marauding anti-communist youth gangs, contributed to tensions that exploded in the events known as Jeju uprising of 1948–1949.

Countrywide
Early November saw the creation of the National Council of Korean Labor Unions (NCKLU) and its endorsement of PRK and its program. December saw the creation of the National League of Peasant Unions, the Korean Democratic Youth League, and the Women's League, and their support of the PRK.

title: People's Republic of Korea


text:
Matthew Cooke (entomologist)

Matthew Cooke (1829–1887) was an Irish immigrant to the United States who pioneered economic entomology in California.

Born in Bushmills, County Antrim, on February 16, 1829, Matthew Cookie immigrated to the United States in 1850. Employed as a youth in the Public Works Department in Bushmills, he was promoted to Superintendent of Works.

In California he first took up a post at the Water Works in Scaremento and in 1875 became a fruit box manufacturer. His business suffered badly when the Codling moth appeared in the state, devastating the apple crop. He studied entomology to solve the problem and by 1879 was able to address the State Fruit Growers on the Codling moth and other serious pests, including those of the important wine crop. In 1881 he was appointed Chief Executive Horticultural and Health Officer of California and drew up quarantine regulations relating to insects. The cherry fruit sawfly Hoplocampa cookei was named for him by W. T. Clarcke.

He died at Sacramento on August 25, 1887, California's first economic entomologist.

Similarities with others
The Matthew Cooke Entomological Chart shows similarities with those produced by Robert Patterson in Belfast. Patterson charts were widely used in the U.S.A.

Works
He wrote numerous pamphlets and articles (mostly published in the Pacific Rural Press and the Sacramento Daily Record-Union).

 * Injurious Insects of the Orchard, Vineyard, Field, Garden, Conservatory, Household, Storehouse, Domestic Animals, etc. with remedies for their extermination
 * Treatise on the Insects Injurious to Fruit and Fruit Trees of the State of California, and Remedies Recommended for Their Extermination. Sacramento: State Office: J. D. Young, Supt. State Printing, 1881.
 * Insects, Injurious and Beneficial, Their Natural History and Classification; For the Use of Fruit Growers, Vine Growers, Farmers, Gardeners and Schools. H. S. Crocker & Co. Sacramento. 1883.
 * Charts on general entomology and pest insects, particularly those of fruit trees for farmers and schools.

title: Matthew Cooke (entomologist)