text:
Nevado de Toluca

Nevado de Toluca is a stratovolcano in central Mexico, located about 80 km west of Mexico City near the city of Toluca. It is the fourth highest of Mexico's peaks, after Pico de Orizaba, Popocatépetl and Iztaccíhuatl. The volcano and the area around it is now a national park.

Etymology
It is often called by the Nahuatl name Xinantecatl which is usually translated as The Naked Lord, Señor Desnudo in Spanish, although other etymologies have been suggested such as "Lord of the Corn Stalks" (Chinantecatl), Tzinacantepetl (Mountain of the Bats), or Tzinacantecatl (person from Zinacantepec). Further evidence regarding the etymologies of this mountain has surfaced after many archeology discoveries in and around the area. It has been concluded that its correct etymology is Chicnauhtecatl meaning "Lord of Nine", probably referring to the various deep lakes at the top of the cone.

Description
The volcano has a 1.5 km wide summit caldera which is open to the east. The highest summit, the 4680 m Pico del Fraile (Friar's Peak), is on the southwest side of the crater and the second highest, the 4640 m Pico del Aguila (Eagle's Peak), is on the northwest.

There are two crater lakes on the floor of the basin at about 4200 m, the larger Lago del Sol (Sun Lake) and the smaller, but deeper, Lago de la Luna (Moon Lake).

A road formerly ran into the caldera to the lakes, but is now gated 2 km before the lakes.

From the southeast, Nevado de Toluca looks flat-topped, like shoulders without a head. A Nahuatl legend (recounted as part of the legend of Popocatépetl and Iztaccíhuatl) provides a mythical explanation.

Geology
It is believed that Nevado de Toluca may once have been as tall as Popocatépetl, until an enormous eruption nearly 25,000 years ago blasted the top of the cone off and reduced its height by as much as 900 m. The same eruption generated thick lahars, or mudflows, which coated the sides of the mountains. An eruption approximately 500 years later deposited layers of pumice on the mountain's east and northeast slopes.

The last major eruption of Nevado de Toluca occurred about 10,500 years ago (10.5 ka BP), as the volcano erupted a total estimated volume of 20 km3 for a VEI strength of 6 (comparable to the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo). The eruption emplaced 1.5 m of pebble-sized pumice in the City of Toluca region and ~50 cm of medium to fine sand in the Mexico City region. Distal lahar deposits derived from the Upper Toluca Pumice event incorporated mammoth bones and other mammals in the basin of Mexico.

The volcano became inactive after a volcanic plug formed in the volcano's vent. The plug eventually became known as El Ombligo ("the Navel").

Climate
Near the summit, Nevado de Toluca has a cold alpine climate (Köppen climate classification ET) with cold temperatures year round. There is little variation in the temperatures and frost and snow can occur in any month. The winter season covers from November to April and precipitation is low, averaging 7.5 mm in March, the driest month. Temperatures during this time are cold, averaging 2.3 C in January. The summer season spans from May to October and precipitation is very high, averaging 235.4 mm in July. Temperatures during this time are warm, averaging 5.3 C in May. The summit is often foggy, averaging 78 days with fog, most of it during the monsoon season. The wettest record month was July 2008 when 513.5 mm of precipitation fell and the wettest recorded day was July 16, 1999 when 90.5 mm of precipitation fell. The highest temperature ever recorded was 23 C on August 16, 1993, and the lowest temperature recorded was -10 C on February 2, 2004.

Archeological sites
There are 18 registered archeological sites in the park, as this was a ritual center during pre-Hispanic periods. Bernardino de Sahagún wrote about the lakes as a place where the indigenous held ceremonies and sacrifices. The lakes themselves are considered to be two sites, as a large number of offerings, especially copal, were deposited in the lakes. These deposits can be found all over the lakebed as the burning copal was set adrift on the lakes’ waters until it sank. Other objects have been found such as ceramics and sculpted stones. Divers used to sack many of the pieces found here but now authorities carefully monitor those who dive.

Most of the other sites are found on the crater's walls and peaks. One of the sites is called Xicotepec which is at the top of a rocky dome known as the Cerro de Ombligo (Spanish for "the navel"). Principally green obsidian blades and multicolored ceramic has been found here. On the north side of the crater is Pico Sahagun, with ceramic pieces, Picos Heilprin North and South in which various types of objects have been found, and El Mirador, which is thought to be related the marking of the zenith of the sun. A stele found here seems to indicate this. The site at the highest altitude is Pico Noreste at 4,130 meters above sea level. It is a small platform with drainage on which has been found highly deteriorated ceramic pieces. On the west side is the Cerro Prieto Cave, which is really a rock shelter which is more than 60 meters high. Not only does it contain evidence of pre-Hispanic visits but also has been a shrine to the Archangel Michael since the colonial period.

There have been intermittent archeological excavations here with the most recent occurring in 2010 sponsored by INAH which found artifacts dating from the Epi-Classic (650-900 AD) and Post-Classic (900-1200 AD) periods and showed that the crater was a meeting place for astronomer priests to predict the growing season.

title: Nevado de Toluca


text:
Chamber Orchestra of Philadelphia

The Chamber Orchestra of Philadelphia is an American chamber orchestra based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Its principal concert venue is the Perelman Theater of the Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts, of which the orchestra is a founding resident company. The orchestra's current music director is Dirk Brossé, since 2010. The orchestra's current executive director is Anne Hagan, since December 2018.

History
In 1963, Marc Mostovoy had the idea of establishing a chamber orchestra in Philadelphia to collaborate on recording with Marcel Tabuteau, a retired oboist with The Philadelphia Orchestra. Tabuteau expressed enthusiasm for Mostovoy's idea, but died before the recording collaboration could occur with Mostovoy and the orchestra. Continuing this concept of a new chamber orchestra for Philadelphia, and with an initial name of the Wynnefield Concerto Orchestra, Mostovoy formally founded the orchestra under the new name Concerto Soloists 16, in 1964. In its early years, the orchestra's primary performing venue was the Harrison Auditorium of the University of Pennsylvania. Along with the initial plans for recording with Tabuteau, Mostovoy had also intended this chamber orchestra to provide performance opportunities to young professional musicians emerging from the Curtis Institute of Music, the University of Pennsylvania, Temple University, the New School of Music, and the Philadelphia Musical Academy. One specialist feature of this orchestra was to have orchestra musicians stand during performance where appropriate, in a nod to earlier baroque and classical era traditions.

The orchestra has a core roster of 33 musicians. The ensemble has had several names over its history, which have included:
 * 16 Concerto Soloists
 * The Mostovoy Soloists
 * Concerto Soloists of Philadelphia
 * Concerto Soloists Chamber Orchestra of Philadelphia

Renovations to the Harrison Auditorium forced the orchestra to discontinue concerts at the University of Pennsylvania. The orchestra continued to perform around Philadelphia, including service as the accompanying orchestra for baroque opera, in 17 different venues. These venues included the Walnut Street Theatre, where the orchestra had residence from 1975 to 1983, and again from 1990 to 1996. In 2000, the orchestra changed its name to The Chamber Orchestra of Philadelphia, and took up permanent residence at the Perelman Theater of the Kimmel Center upon the formal opening of the center.

In 1982, Mostovoy invited Max Rudolf to appear as a regular conductor. The orchestra granted Rudolf the title of conductor laureate, and Rudolf continued to appear with the orchestra until 1993. Mostovoy concluded his tenure as music director in 2004.

In 1994, Ignat Solzhenitsyn, a concert pianist and conducting graduate from the Curtis Institute of Music, joined the ensemble as assistant conductor. In 1998, he was named principal conductor, and he became music director in 2004. During Solzhenistyn's tenure, financial concerns led to the reduction of its 10-concert season to 4 concerts in 2009. Solzhenitsyn stepped down as music director in 2010, and became conductor laureate.

The Belgian conductor and composer Dirk Brossé had guest-conducted the orchestra in 2008 and in 2009. In September 2010, Brossé became the orchestra's music director. In January 2017, the orchestra extended Brossé's contract through the 2021-2022 season.

The orchestra has also performed new music, with a focus on regional Philadelphia composers. The orchestra has premiered over seventy new works. In 2017, COP began their Composer-in-Residency through generous support of the American Composers Forum - Philadelphia Chapter and the Steven R. Gerber Trust.

Past executive directors of the orchestra have included Peter Gistelinck and Janelle McCoy. In July 2016, the orchestra announced Bill Rhoads as its new executive director, and he formally assumed the post in September 2016. Anne Hagan began her tenure as executive director in December 2018.

Music Directors

 * Marc Mostovoy (1964-2004)
 * Ignat Solzhenistyn (2004-2010)
 * Dirk Brossé (2010-present)

COP/American Composers Forum Philadelphia Chapter Steven R. Gerber Composer-in-Residence
In 2017, by generous support of the ACF Philadelphia Chapter and the Steven R. Gerber Trust, the Chamber Orchestra began an annual season-long Composer-in-Residence. This residence was designed to not only create composition output for composers, but, to engage the composers to perform workshops with various community-driven student groups to usher in the next generation of musicians. Through a rigorous application process by ACF, the Chamber Orchestra announced Adam Vidiksis as their first Composer-in-Residence.

 * Adam Vidiksis (2017-2018 Season)

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

title: Chamber Orchestra of Philadelphia


text:
User talk:AlexKarpman~enwiki

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! HKT talk 15:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thanks
I got it. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 20:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

block
85.65.0.0/16 is unblocked. Ilya K 20:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you! conio.h • talk 21:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called AlexKarpman. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name AlexKarpman~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 21:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:AlexKarpman~enwiki


text:
List of storms named Andres

The name Andres has been used for eight tropical cyclones in the Eastern Pacific Ocean:
 * Hurricane Andres (1979), Category 2 hurricane that made landfall in Mexico as a tropical depression.
 * Tropical Storm Andres (1985), formed near the Mexican coast but moved out to sea.
 * Tropical Storm Andres (1991), stayed well clear of land.
 * Tropical Storm Andres (1997), formed near Central America and made landfall in San Salvador.
 * Tropical Storm Andres (2003), remained in mid-ocean.
 * Hurricane Andres (2009), Category 1 hurricane that tracked parallel to the southwestern coast of Mexico.
 * Hurricane Andres (2015), Category 4 hurricane that remained in the open ocean and never affected land.
 * Tropical Storm Andres (2021), remained over the open ocean.

title: List of storms named Andres


text:
Yoshiaki Fujiwara

Yoshiaki Fujiwara (藤原 喜明) is a Japanese professional wrestler, trainer and wrestling promoter. He is famous for his long career in wrestling, having worked in New Japan Pro-Wrestling (NJPW), Pro Wrestling ZERO-ONE (ZERO-ONE), and the two incarnations of shoot style promotion Universal Wrestling Federation. Fujiwara is known for his catch wrestling expertise, having been praised by fighters like Josh Barnett and Ken Shamrock. He was trained by Karl Gotch and has trained many MMA fighters and professional wrestlers. Fujiwara also has a strong background in Judo and Muay Thai.

New Japan Pro-Wrestling and Universal Wrestling Federation (1972–1989)
Fujiwara was the first graduate of the New Japan Pro-Wrestling (NJPW) dojo (Mr. Pogo was the first debutante in the promotion, but he and Gran Hamada had trained with Tatsumi Fujinami before he and Antonio Inoki left the Japanese Wrestling Association). A former Judoka, Fujiwara was easily able to absorb and apply the "Strong Style" of professional wrestling taught by Inoki and Karl Gotch, and he eventually became Inoki's bodyguard and sparring partner. In 1975, Fujiwara won the Karl Gotch Cup (a tournament for rookies named after Karl Gotch and forerunner to the later Young Lion Cup). In the late 1970s, Fujiwara became embroiled in a feud with Allen Coage (a former Olympic judo bronze medal winner who had debuted as a pro wrestler in NJPW, and one of the first gaijins to be trained at the NJPW dojo) over the petty issue of who had the strongest head. Fujiwara would bang his head repeatedly against the ring's corner post's metal face to provoke Coage, and behind the scenes, Coage would advise him not to do so repeatedly, in fear of suffering permanent real-life damage.

All the while, Fujiwara remained a strong member of the undercard, but rarely would he get opportunities for big singles matches or tag teams with better-known stars. On February 2, 1984, however, all that would change when Fujiwara appeared before a match to attack Riki Choshu, then the promotion's main villain. The sight of Choshu beaten and bleeding turned Fujiwara into one of the most popular babyface wrestlers in the promotion and a mainstay in the rivalry against Choshu and his Ishin Gundan faction. In storyline, it was suspected Inoki himself had arranged for Fujiwara's attack. The same year, Fujiwara was among the defectors who created the Japanese UWF.

When he and most of them returned in 1986, they formed their own stable, indicating they would battle major New Japan wrestlers and receive recognition on their own terms. As a member of the UWF stable, Fujiwara, along with Akira Maeda, focused on Inoki's IWGP Heavyweight Championship, pushing him to the limit in the annual IWGP tournaments. But at heart, Maeda and Fujiwara were also rivals - when unable to get the IWGP title, Maeda and Nobuhiko Takada went for and won the IWGP tag team title, Fujiwara and Kazuo Yamazaki split from the main UWF stable, and feuded with them over the title, eventually winning it. This split, also in the wake of Riki Choshu's return to NJPW after leaving in circumstances similar to Maeda and the rest of the UWF roster, eventually weakened the UWF stable.

When Maeda was fired from New Japan for a shoot attack on Choshu during a match in late 1987, all the other UWF stable members except for Fujiwara and Osamu Kido left NJPW to reform the UWF. Kido and Fujiwara attempted to get back into the good graces of the rest of the NJPW roster - and for a time, Fujiwara seemed to go back into the NJPW undercard, although with more respect from his peers. Inoki had already gained respect for him enough to be his tag team partner in 1986 for the annual tag team tournament (despite being affiliated with the UWF stable). In the meantime, Fujiwara trained rookies Masakatsu Funaki and Minoru Suzuki. In 1989, however, Fujiwara felt the need to continue shoot-style wrestling, also due to the rise of Choshu in backstage politics, so he moved to the UWF with Funaki and Suzuki.

Newborn UWF, Pro Wrestling Fujiwara Gumi, and Freelance (1989–present)
In Newborn UWF, Fujiwara was clearly seen as the senior peer to Maeda, but eventually jobbed to him. After Newborn UWF collapsed in December 1990, Fujiwara, Funaki, Suzuki and rookie Yusuke Fuke formed Pro Wrestling Fujiwara Gumi (Gumi [組] in Japanese means "group", but it is used in the underworld lingo to mean organized crime family. Fujiwara styled himself kumichō [組長], literally, the gang leader). Although it was a shoot style promotion, Fujiwara had agreements with SWS, W*ING and Universal Lucha Libre, whereupon he would send talent to compete in them (but not vice versa, in order to keep the shoot-style feel to his promotion). Fujiwara Gumi had a big supercard at the Tokyo Dome in 1992, involving all the great talents in the promotion: Fujiwara, Funaki, Suzuki, Fuke, Yoshiki Takahashi, Yuki Ishikawa, and others.

Problems involving the collapsing Japanese economy and the essence of Fujiwara Gumi's wrestling, however, forced its roster to assess their individual futures. Funaki, Suzuki, Fuke and Takahashi, apparently unsettled by the "performing" direction Fujiwara was taking, abandoned him in late 1993 to form Pancrase. Fujiwara already had back-up talent - Ishikawa, Daisuke Ikeda, Katsumi Usuda, Minoru Tanaka, Mamoru Okamoto, Muhammad Yone, and Shoichi Funaki. In need of funds, however, Fujiwara proposed to cooperate with their root promotion, New Japan. Fujiwara and the rest of the roster began having a small feud with NJPW, Fujiwara challenging the heavyweights (he challenged future partner Shinya Hashimoto for the IWGP title, but failed again), and the rest the junior heavyweight division. The NJPW-PWFG feud, however, did not have the star-studded impression on fans that the NJPW-UWFI feud later had.

In late 1995, Ishikawa and the rest of the Fujiwara Gumi roster abandoned Fujiwara and formed their own promotion, BattlARTS, citing problems with Fujiwara's management team. Since 1996, Fujiwara, the only remaining member of Fujiwara Gumi and thus a free agent (as the promotion no longer operates), has competed in several promotions, mostly in legends matches. He has wrestled for NJPW, All Japan Pro Wrestling, Pro Wrestling ZERO-ONE, WAR, and several independents as of 2022.

Personal life
Fujiwara is also an actor who has had a few parts in Japanese movies and dramas. In 1995, he had a major role in the Toshihiro Sato movie Roppongi Soldier along with Satoru Sayama and Itsumi Osawa, playing an eccentric kickboxer named Sabu.

He is also a prolific artisan potter.

Championships and accomplishments

 * Dramatic Dream Team
 * Ironman Heavymetalweight Championship (1 time)
 * Frontier Martial-Arts Wrestling
 * FMW Brass Knuckles Tag Team Championship (1 time) – with Daisuke Ikeda
 * New Japan Pro-Wrestling
 * IWGP Tag Team Championship (1 time) – with Kazuo Yamazaki
 * NJPW Japan Cup Tag League (1986) – with Antonio Inoki
 * NJPW Karl Gotch Cup (1975)
 * Pro Wrestling Fujiwara Gumi
 * Fujiwara Gumi Heavyweight Championship (1 time)
 * Pro Wrestling ZERO1
 * NWA Intercontinental Tag Team Championship (1 time) – with Shinya Hashimoto
 * Tokyo Sports
 * Effort Award (1975, 1982)
 * Fighting Spirit Award (1987)
 * Technique Award (1989)
 * Universal Wrestling Federation
 * Kakuto Prospect Tournament (1985)

title: Yoshiaki Fujiwara


text:
Ayer Tawar

Ayer Tawar (Jawi: اير تاور; ) is a town in Manjung District, Perak, Malaysia. Its name came from Air Tawar, which literally means "fresh water" in the Malay language.

Geography
Ayer Tawar is located on the eastern portion of Manjung District, about 60 kilometres west of the state capital Ipoh, and about 22 kilometres northeast of Lumut, where the largest Malaysian naval base is situated. Its average elevation is 13 metres above the sea level.

Climate
Ayer Tawar has Tropical Rainforest Climate. It receives the least rainfall in June, with an average precipitation of 139 mm; and the most in November, with an average precipitation of 360 mm.

title: Ayer Tawar


text:
French battleship Dunkerque

Dunkerque was the lead ship of the Dunkerque-class battleship of battleships built for the French Navy in the 1930s. The class also included FRENCH BATTLESHIP Strasbourg. The two ships were the first capital ships to be built by the French Navy after World War I; the planned Normandie-class battleship and Lyon-class battleshipes had been cancelled at the outbreak of war, and budgetary problems prevented the French from building new battleships in the decade after the war. Dunkerque was laid down in December 1932, was launched October 1935, and was completed in May 1937. She was armed with a main battery of eight 330mm/50 Modèle 1931 guns arranged in two quadruple gun turrets and had a top speed of 29.5 kn.

Dunkerque and Strasbourg formed the French Navy's 1ère Division de Ligne (1st Division of the Line) prior to the Second World War. The two ships searched for German commerce raiders in the early months of the war, and Dunkerque also participated in convoy escort duties. The ship was badly damaged during the British attack at Mers-el-Kébir after the Armistice that ended the first phase of France's participation in World War II, but she was refloated and partially repaired to return to Toulon for comprehensive repairs. Dunkerque was scuttled in November 1942 to prevent her capture by the Germans, and subsequently seized and partially scrapped by the Italians and later the Germans. Her wreck remained in Toulon until she was stricken in 1955, and scrapped three years later.

Development

The French Navy's design staff spent the decade following the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty attempting to produce a satisfactory design to fill 70,000 tons as allowed by the treaty. Initially, the French sought a reply to the Italian Trento-class cruisers of 1925, but all proposals were rejected. A 17,500-ton cruiser, which could have handled the Trentos, was inadequate against the old Italian battleships, however, and the 37,000-ton battlecruiser concepts were prohibitively expensive and would jeopardize further naval limitation talks. These attempts were followed by an intermediate design for a 23,690-ton protected cruiser in 1929; it was armed with 305 mm guns, armored against 203 mm guns, and had a speed of 29 kn. Visually, it bore a profile strikingly similar to the final Dunkerque.

The German Deutschland-class cruisers became the new focus for French naval architects in 1929. The design had to respect the 1930 London Naval Treaty, which limited the French to two 23,333-ton ships until 1936. Drawing upon previous work, the French developed a 23,333-ton design armed with 305 mm guns, armored against the German cruisers' 280 mm guns, and with a speed of 30 kn. As with the final Dunkerque, the main artillery was concentrated entirely forward. The design was rejected by the French parliament in July 1931 and sent back for revision. The final revision grew to 26,500 tons; the 305 mm guns were replaced by 330mm/50 Modèle 1931 guns, the armor was slightly improved, and the speed slightly decreased. Parliamentary approval was granted in early 1932, and Dunkerque was ordered on 26 October.

Characteristics
Dunkerque displaced 26500 MT as built and 35500 MT fully loaded, with an overall length of 214.5 m, a beam of 31.08 m and a maximum draft of 8.7 m. She was powered by four Parsons geared steam turbines and six oil-fired Indret boilers, which developed a total of 112500 shp and yielded a maximum speed of 29.5 kn. Her crew numbered between 1,381 and 1,431 officers and men. The ship carried a pair of spotter aircraft on the fantail, and the aircraft facilities consisted of a steam catapult and a crane to handle the floatplanes.

She was armed with eight 330mm/50 Modèle 1931 guns arranged in two quadruple gun turrets, both of which were placed in a superfiring pair forward of the superstructure. Her secondary armament consisted of sixteen 130 mm /45 dual-purpose guns; these were mounted in three quadruple and two twin turrets. The quadruple turrets were placed on the stern, and the twin turrets were located amidships. Close range antiaircraft defense was provided by a battery of eight 37 mm guns in twin mounts and thirty-two 13.2 mm guns in quadruple mounts. The ship's belt armor was 225 mm thick amidships, and the main battery turrets were protected by 330 mm of armor plate on the faces. The main armored deck was 115 mm thick, and the conning tower had 270 mm thick sides.

Modifications
Dunkerque was modified several times throughout her relatively short career. In 1937, a funnel cap was added and four of the 37 mm guns, which were the Modèle 1925 variant, were removed. These were replaced the following year with new Modèle 1933 guns. The 13.2 mm guns were also rearranged slightly, with the two mounts that were located abreast of the second main battery turret moved further aft. A new 14 m rangefinder was installed in 1940 on the fore tower.

Construction and working up
Dunkerque was laid down in the Arsenal de Brest, on 24 December 1932, in the Salou graving dock number 4. The hull was completed except for the forward-most 17 m section, since the dock was only 200 m long. She was launched on 2 October 1935 and towed to Laninon graving dock number 8, where the bow was fitted. After that was completed, she was towed out to the Quai d'Armement to have her armament installed and begin fitting-out. Sea trials were carried out, starting on 18 April 1936, at which time her superstructure was not yet complete, and many of her secondary and anti-aircraft guns had not been installed. Two days later, she returned to Brest and had her machinery inspected before further trials through May. Her formal evaluation began on 22 May and continued until 9 October. On 4 February 1937, Dunkerque got underway for shooting trials to test the ship's secondary guns; she had aboard Vice-amiral (VA—Vice Admiral) Morris and Contre-amiral (CA—Rear Admiral) Rivet to observe the tests. Main battery tests were delayed by bad weather from 8 February to 11–14 February. VA François Darlan, the Chief of the Naval General Staff, came aboard on 3 March to observe further gunnery tests. The tests continued through April.

VA Devin, the Préfet maritime de la 2e région (Prefect of the 2nd Maritime Region), came aboard Dunkerque on 15 May to take the ship to represent France at the Naval Review marking the coronation of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth. The ship left Brest on 17 May for the review and arrived back on 23 May. She participated in another review off the Île de Sein on 27 May, where she hosted Darlan and Alphonse Gasnier-Duparc, the Naval Minister. Gunnery testing resumed after the review and continued into mid-June, at which point she returned to the shipyard in Brest for further work. In late July, she went to sea for further trials before returning to Brest for additional work that lasted from 15 August to 14 October. In early 1938, the crew prepared the ship for her first major cruise to test her ability to operate at extended ranges, which began on 20 January. The voyage took the ship on a tour of French colonial possessions in the Atlantic; ports of call included Fort-de-France in the Antilles (from 31 January to 4 February) and Dakar, Senegal (from 25 February to 1 March). She returned to Brest on 6 March, thereafter conducting more gunnery testing on 11 March.

Dunkerque underwent another period of equipment inspections and gunnery testing after her return from the voyage that continued into May. From 1 to 4 July, she steamed to the English Channel to visit her namesake town, returning to Brest on 6 July by way of a stay in Saint-Vaast-la-Hougue on 4–5 July. George VI and Elizabeth were visiting Boulogne on 16 July, so Dunkerque left Brest that day in company with a group of warships to visit the British monarch there. Dunkerque got underway again on 22 July, bound for Calais, where she saluted the British Royal Family as they left for home. On 1 September, Dunkerque was finally pronounced ready for service and was assigned to the Atlantic Squadron, becoming the flagship of its commander, Vice-amiral d'Escadre (Squadron Vice Admiral) Marcel-Bruno Gensoul.

Prewar service

After entering service, Dunkerque continued her training program, though she was now included in exercises with the rest of the squadron. At the time, the squadron included the three Bretagne-class battleships (the 2nd Battle Division), three cruisers (the 4th Cruiser Division), the aircraft carrier FRENCH AIRCRAFT CARRIER Béarn, and numerous destroyers and torpedo boats. From 18 to 20 October, she took part in maneuvers with Béarn, two torpedo boats, and a sloop off the coast of Brittany. Dunkerque departed Brest on 8 November in company with Béarn and the 4th Cruiser Division for a visit to Cherbourg to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the Armistice with Germany that ended World War I. The ships thereafter got underway for training exercises that concluded with a return to Brest on 17 November. Dunkerque then used the wreck of the old battleship FRENCH BATTLESHIP Voltaire as a target before returning to the shipyard for maintenance that lasted until 27 February 1939.

The next day, Dunkerque sortied to take part in maneuvers with the Atlantic Squadron off the Brittany coast; another stint in the shipyard for repairs followed from 17 March to 3 April. Gunnery training off the coast of Brittany from 4 to 7 April. In response to the Sudetenland Crisis over Nazi Germany's demand to annex the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia, the French naval command sent elements of the Atlantic Squadron, including Dunkerque, three light cruisers, and eight large destroyers, on 14 April to cover the training cruiser FRENCH CRUISER Jeanne d'Arc as it returned from a cruise to the French West Indies; at the time, a German squadron centered on the large heavy cruiser GERMAN CRUISER Admiral Graf Spee was off the coast of Spain. The ships returned to port two days later. On 24 April, the squadron was joined by Dunkerque's sister ship FRENCH BATTLESHIP Strasbourg; the two ships were designated the 1st Battle Division. The ships received identification stripes on their funnels, one for Dunkerque as division leader, and two for Strasbourg.

The squadron went to sea again the next day for exercises that lasted until 29 April. On 1 May, Strasbourg joined Dunkerque for the first time for a cruise to Lisbon, Portugal on 1 May, arriving there two days later for a celebration of the anniversary of Pedro Álvares Cabral's discovery of Brazil. The ships left Lisbon on 4 May and arrived in Brest three days later. There, they met a British squadron of warships that were visiting the port at the time. The two Dunkerque-class ships sortied on 23 May in company with the 4th Cruiser Division and three destroyer divisions for maneuvers held off the coast of Great Britain. Dunkerque and Strasbourg then visited a number of British ports, including Liverpool from 25 to 30 May, Oban from 31 May to 4 June, Staffa on 4 June, Loch Ewe from 5 to 7 June, Scapa Flow on 8 June, Rosyth from 9 to 14 June, before stopping in Le Havre, France from 16 to 20 June. The ships arrived back in Brest the next day. The squadron conducted more training off Brittany through July and into early August.

World War II
In August, as tensions with Germany were again heightened, this time over territorial demands on Poland, the French and British navies discussed coordination in the event of war with Germany; they agreed that the French would be responsible for covering Allied shipping south from the English Channel to the Gulf of Guinea in central Africa. To protect shipping from German commerce raiders, the French created the Force de Raid (Raiding Force), with Dunkerque and Strasbourg as its core. The group, which was under Gensoul's command, also included three light cruisers and eight large destroyers, and was based in Brest. British observers informed the French Navy that the German "pocket battleships" of the Deutschland class had gone to sea in late August, bound for the Atlantic, and that contact with the vessels had been lost. On 2 September, the day after Germany invaded Poland, but before France and Britain declared war, the Force de Raid sortied from Brest to guard against a possible attack by the Deutschlands. Upon learning that the German ships had been spotted in the North Sea, Gensoul ordered his ships to return to port after they met the French passenger liner SS Flandre (1913) in the Azores. The Force de Raid escorted the liner back to port and arrived in Brest on 6 September.

By this time, the German raiders had broken out into the Atlantic, so the British and French fleets formed hunter groups to track them down; the Force de Raid was split, with Dunkerque and Strasbourg operating individually as Force L and Force X, respectively. Dunkerque, Béarn, and three cruisers remained in Brest while Strasbourg and two French heavy cruisers joined the British aircraft carrier HMS Hermes (95), based in Dakar. On 22 October, Dunkerque and two cruisers sortied with their destroyer screen to cover Convoy KJ 3 to Kingston, Jamaica, arriving back in Brest three days later. On 25 November, they again went to sea, joining the battlecruiser HMS Hood for a patrol to try to catch the German battleships GERMAN BATTLESHIP Scharnhorst and GERMAN BATTLESHIP Gneisenau, which had just sunk the British armed merchant cruiser HMS Rawalpindi. While cruising off Iceland, Dunkerque ran into very heavy seas; her bow was repeatedly submerged by the large waves, and she had to slow to 10 kn to avoid damage. The Germans had by this time returned to port, so the Anglo-French force returned to its ports.

On arriving in Brest on 3 December, Dunkerque was docked for repairs to her bow. The experience off Iceland had highlighted defects with her design, including insufficient freeboard and insufficiently strong construction. These problems could not be easily corrected, however, leaving the Dunkerques vulnerable to storm damage. On 11 December, Dunkerque and the cruiser FRENCH CRUISER Gloire carried a shipment of part of the Banque de France's gold reserve to Canada. The ships arrived on 17 December and covered a convoy of seven troop ships that was also escorted by the battleship HMS Revenge (06) on the return voyage. While still at sea on 29 December, the convoy met the local escort forces in the Western Approaches, which took over responsibility of the convoy, allowing Dunkerque and Gloire to detach for Brest. After arriving there on 4 January 1940, Dunkerque underwent another period of maintenance that lasted until 6 February. The ship then conducted sea trials and training maneuvers from 21 February to 23 March.

Faced with increasingly hostile posturing by Italy during the spring of 1940, the Force de Raid was dispatched to Mers-el-Kébir on 2 April. Dunkerque, Strasbourg, two cruisers, and five destroyers left that afternoon and arrived three days later. The squadron was quickly ordered to return to Brest just a few days later in response to the German landings in Norway on 9 April. The Force de Raid left Mers-el-Kébir that day and arrived in Brest on the 12th, with the intention that the ships would cover convoys to reinforce Allied forces fighting in Norway. But the threat of Italian intervention continued to weigh on the French command, which reversed the ships' orders and transferred them back to Mers-el Kebir on 24 April; Dunkerque and the rest of the group left that day and arrived on 27 April. They conducted training exercises in the western Mediterranean from 9 to 10 May but saw little activity for the next month. On 10 June, Italy declared war on France and Britain.

Two days later, Dunkerque and Strasbourg sortied to intercept reported German and Italian ships that were incorrectly reported to be in the area. The French had received faulty intelligence that had indicated that the Germans would attempt to force a group of battleships through the Strait of Gibraltar to strengthen the Italian fleet. After the French fleet got underway, reconnaissance aircraft reported spotting an enemy fleet steaming toward Gibraltar. Supposing the aircraft to have spotted the Italian battle fleet steaming to join the Germans, the French increased speed to intercept them, only to realize that the aircraft had in fact located the French fleet. The fleet then returned to port, marking the end of Dunkerque's last wartime operation. On 22 June, France surrendered to Germany following the Battle of France; during the truce negotiations, the French Navy proposed demilitarizing Dunkerque and several other warships in Toulon. Under the terms of the Armistice, Dunkerque and Strasbourg would remain at Mers-el-Kébir.

Mers-el-Kébir

The only test in battle for Dunkerque came in the attack on Mers-el-Kébir on 3 July. The British, misinterpreting the terms of the armistice as providing the Germans with access to the French fleet, feared that the ships would be seized and pressed into service against them despite assurances from Darlan that if the Germans attempted to take the vessels, their crews would scuttle them. Prime Minister Winston Churchill then convinced the War Cabinet that the fleet must be neutralized or forced to re-join the war on the side of Britain. The British Force H, commanded by Admiral James Somerville and centered on HMS Hood and the battleships HMS Resolution (09), and HMS Valiant (1914), arrived off Mers-el-Kébir to coerce the French battleship squadron to join the British cause or scuttle their ships. The French Navy refused, as complying with the demand would have violated the armistice signed with Germany. To ensure the ships would not fall into Axis hands, the British warships opened fire at 17:55. Dunkerque was tied alongside the mole with her stern facing the sea, so she could not return fire.

Dunkerque's crew loosed the chains and started to get the ship underway just as the British opened fire; the ship was engaged by HMS Hood. The French gunners responded quickly and Dunkerque fired several salvos at Hood before being hit by four 15 in shells in quick succession. The first was deflected on the upper main battery turret roof above the right-most gun, though it shoved in the armor plate and ignited propellant charges in the right turret half that asphyxiated all the men in that half; the left half remained operational. The shell itself was deflected off the turret face and failed to explode when it landed around 2000 m away. Fragments of armor plate that had been dislodged by the impact destroyed the run-out cylinder for the right gun, disabling it. The second shell passed through the unarmored stern, penetrating the armor deck and exiting the hull without exploding. Though it did little damage, the shell did cut the control line for the rudder, forcing the ship to use manual control, which hampered the crew's ability to steer the ship as they attempted to get underway.

The third shell hit the ship shortly after 18:00; this projectile struck the upper edge of the belt on the starboard side; since the belt had only been designed to defeat German 28 cm shells, the much more powerful British shell easily perforated it. The shell then passed through the handling room for the starboard secondary turret No. III, igniting propellant charges and detonating a pair of 130 mm shells as it did so. The 15 in round then penetrated an internal bulkhead and exploded in the medical storage room. The blast caused extensive internal damage, allowing smoke from the ammunition fire to enter the machinery spaces, which had to be abandoned, though debris from the explosion had jammed the armored doors shut. Only a dozen men were able to escape using a ladder at the forward end of the room. The fourth shell struck the belt aft of the third hit and at the waterline. It also defeated the belt and the torpedo bulkhead and then exploded in boiler room 2, causing extensive damage to the propulsion machinery. Dunkerque rapidly lost speed and then all electrical power; unable to get underway or further resist the British ships, Dunkerque was beached on the other side of Mers-el-Kébir roadstead to prevent her from being sunk.

The British fire ceased after less than twenty minutes, which limited the damage inflicted; Somerville hoped to minimize the damage done to Franco-British relations. Work on the ship began almost immediately; at 20:00, Gensoul ordered the crew to recover the dead and wounded while damage control teams stabilized the ship. Those not engaged in either work—some 800 men—were sent ashore. Half an hour later, he radioed Somerville that the ship had been largely evacuated. By the next morning, the fires had been suppressed and work to plate over the shell holes in the hull had begun. Wounded crewmen had been evacuated to a local hospital. Gensoul expected that the ship would be ready to sail for Toulon for permanent repairs within a few days and informed his superior, Admiral Jean-Pierre Esteva (Amiral Sud, the commander of naval forces in North Africa) as much. Esteva in turn issued a statement to that effect to the press in Algeria, which had the unintended effect of informing the British that Dunkerque had not been disabled permanently. Churchill ordered Somerville to return and destroy the ship; Somerville, hoping to avoid civilian casualties now that the ship was beached directly in front of the town of Saint André, secured permission to attack using only torpedo bombers.

The second attack took place on 6 July. A flight of twelve Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers, armed with torpedoes modified for use in shallow water, were launched from the carrier HMS Ark Royal (91) in three waves of six, three, and three aircraft. They received an escort of three Blackburn Skua fighters. The French had failed to erect torpedo nets around the ship, and Gensoul, who had hoped to reinforce the idea that the ship had been evacuated, ordered that her anti-aircraft guns not be manned. Three patrol boats were moored alongside to evacuate the remaining crew aboard in the event of another attack, and these vessels were loaded with depth charges. The first wave scored a hit on the patrol boat Terre-Neuve, and though it failed to explode, the hole it punched in her hull caused her to sink in the shallow water. Another torpedo hit the wreck in the second wave and exploded, leading to a secondary explosion of fourteen of her depth charges, which was the equivalent of 1400 kg of TNT, equal to eight Swordfish torpedoes. The explosion caused extensive damage to Dunkerque's bow and likely would have resulted in a magazine detonation had her captain not ordered the magazines be flooded as soon as the Swordfishes appeared. The blast killed another 30, bringing the total killed in both attacks to 210.

Dunkerque had been badly damaged in the attack, far more so than the 3 July shelling; some 20000 MT of water had flooded the ship through a 18 by hole opened in the hull, and a 40 mm length of her hull, double bottom, and torpedo bulkhead had been deformed by the blast. The forward armor belt was also distorted and her armored decks had been pushed up. A survey of the damage was conducted on 11 July, but the scale of the damage was beyond what the local shipyard could repair, as it lacked a drydock of sufficient size. Engineers from Toulon were sent to assist the repair work, which began with the fabrication of a 22.6 by sheet of steel that was bolted over the hull from 19 to 23 August and then sealed with 200 m3 of concrete between 31 August and 11 September. The hull was then pumped dry and re-floated on 27 September, thereafter being towed to a quay in Saint André for further repairs. At this time, torpedo nets were set up around the ship and her anti-aircraft guns were manned. One of the workers accidentally started a serious fire with a welding torch on 5 December.

Work continued well into 1941, and in April she conducted stationary trials with her machinery. Her crew returned on 19 May and she was ready to return to Toulon by July, but heavy fighting during the Mediterranean Campaign forced the French to wait to avoid being caught in the cross fire. On 25 January 1942 another fire broke out from a short circuit. Dunkerque was finally ready to cross the Mediterranean on 19 February; she got underway at 04:00, escorted by the destroyers FRENCH DESTROYER Vauquelin, FRENCH DESTROYER Tartu, FRENCH DESTROYER Kersaint, FRENCH DESTROYER Frondeur, and FRENCH DESTROYER Fougueux. Some 65 fighters, bombers, and torpedo bombers covered the ships while they made the crossing. Dunkerque reached Toulon at 23:00 on 20 February; her crew was reduced to comply with the terms of the armistice on 1 March, and on 22 June, she entered the large Vauban dock for permanent repairs.

Scuttling at Toulon

Repair work proceeded slowly, owing to a shortage of material and labor. After the Wehrmacht occupied the Zone libre in retaliation for the successful Allied landings in North Africa, the Germans attempted to seize the French warships remaining under Vichy control on 27 November. To prevent them from seizing the ships, their crews scuttled the fleet in Toulon, including Dunkerque, which still lay incomplete in the Vauban drydock. Demolition charges were placed on the ship and she was set on fire. Her commanding officer, Capitaine de vaisseau (Captain) Amiel, initially refused to sink his ship without written orders, but was finally convinced to do so by the commanding officer of the nearby light cruiser FRENCH CRUISER La Galissonnière. Since she was still in the dry dock, the locks had to be opened to flood the ship, which would have taken two to three hours. Since she was in the far side of the dockyard, it took the Germans over an hour to reach the vessel, and in the confusion, they made no attempt to close the locks.

Italy received control of most of the wrecks, and they decided to repair as many ships as possible for service with the Italian fleet, but to scrap those that were too badly damaged to quickly return to service. The Italians deemed Dunkerque to be a total loss, and so began to dismantle in situ. As part of this process, the ship was deliberately damaged to prevent the French from being able to repair her if she was recaptured; the Italians cut down the main battery guns to render them unusable. The partially scrapped hulk was in turn seized by the Germans when Italy surrendered to the Allies in September 1943. In 1944, the Germans removed the ship's bow to float her out of the drydock to free up the dock and continue the scrapping process. While in Axis possession, she was bombed several times by Allied aircraft. The hulk was condemned on 15 September 1955 and renamed Q56. Her remains, which amounted to not more than 15000 t, were sold for final demolition on 30 September 1958 for 226,117,000 francs.

title: French battleship Dunkerque


text:
List of storms named Barbara

The name Barbara has been used for thirteen tropical cyclones worldwide: two in the Atlantic Ocean, seven in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, one in the South Pacific Ocean, one in the Western Pacific Ocean, and two in the South-West Indian Ocean. It has also been used to name one extratropical cyclone in the UK and Ireland.

In the Atlantic:
 * Hurricane Barbara (1953), Category 1 hurricane that moved up the U.S. east coast.
 * Tropical Storm Barbara (1954), made landfall near Vermilion Bay, Louisiana.

in the Eastern Pacific:
 * Hurricane Barbara (1983), a Category 4 hurricane that stayed far from land.
 * Hurricane Barbara (1989), a Category 1 hurricane that did not strike land.
 * Hurricane Barbara (1995), strong Category 4 that remained away from land.
 * Tropical Storm Barbara (2001), passed to the northeast of Hawaii.
 * Tropical Storm Barbara (2007), made landfall near the Guatemala–Mexico border.
 * Hurricane Barbara (2013), large Category 1 hurricane that made landfall on the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mexico.
 * Hurricane Barbara (2019), powerful Category 4 hurricane that did not affect land.

In the South Pacific:
 * Cyclone Barbara (1967)

In the Western Pacific:
 * Typhoon Barbara (1946), made landfall in the Philippines.

In the South-West Indian:
 * Tropical Storm Barbara (1960), remained far from land.
 * Tropical Storm Barbara (1975), made landfall in Madagascar twice.

In Europe:
 * Storm Barbara (2016), caused minor damage in Northern Ireland and Wales.
 * Storm Barbara (2023), storm that affected the eastern Medditeranean after the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake.

title: List of storms named Barbara


text:
Talk:T. T. Durai

neutrality disputed
I felt that the neutrality of this article should be disputed as the article covers only the NKF controvesy.

- Done. User:Lowzeewee

Full name
What does TT Durai's name T.T stands for? Please help. Mr Tan 15:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

- Mr Tan, someone just filled in his full name on the article. :-) User:Lowzeewee

Yep
Indeed. This issue is really too complicated, it needs a more neutral tone... Otherwise it will not be a successful Wikipedia article. Ruennsheng 14:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Nkf-defaced.jpg
The image Image:Nkf-defaced.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --05:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:T. T. Durai


text:
FC Zhetysu

Jetisu Taldykorgan (Жетісу Талдықорған футбол клубы, Jetisý Taldyqorǵan Fýtbol Klýby) is a Kazakh professional football club based at the Zhetysu stadium in Taldykorgan. They are founding members of the Kazakhstan Premier League, having missed five seasons because of relegations.

Names

 * 1981 : Founded as Zhetysu
 * 1993 : Renamed Taldykorgan
 * 1994 : Renamed Kainar
 * 1998 : Renamed Zhetysu Promservice for sponsorship reasons
 * 1999 : Renamed Zhetysu

Honours

 * Kazakhstan First Division
 * Champions (1): 2006

Managers

 * 🇰🇿 Vladimir Stepanov (2001)
 * 🇰🇿 Vakhid Masudov (2004)
 * 🇺🇦 Igor Svechnikov (2005)
 * 🇲🇩 Ilie Carp (July 27, 2008 – Sept 26, 2008)
 * 🇰🇿 Yuri Konkov (Jan 1, 2010 – Sept 5, 2010)
 * 🇰🇿 Serik Abdualiyev (Jan 1, 2011 – May 10, 2012)
 * 🇷🇸 Slobodan Krčmarević (June 1, 2012 – Feb 1, 2013)
 * 🇷🇺 Omari Tetradze (Feb 10, 2013–23 Sep, 2014)
 * 🇰🇿 Askar Kozhabergenov (Sep, 2014–20 Apr, 2015)
 * 🇰🇿 Ivan Azovskiy (Apr 20, 2015 – Jan 5, 2016)
 * 🇰🇿 Almas Kulshinbaev (Jan 5, 2016–2017)
 * 🇰🇿 Kayrat Nurdauletov (Dec 20, 2023–)

title: FC Zhetysu


text:
Red river hog

The red river hog (Potamochoerus porcus) or bushpig (a name also used for Potamochoerus larvatus) is a wild member of the pig family living in Africa, with most of its distribution in the Guinean and Congolian forests. It is rarely seen away from rainforests, and generally prefers areas near rivers or swamps.

Description
The red river hog has striking orange to reddish-brown fur, with black legs and a tufted white stripe along the spine. Adults have white markings around the eyes and on the cheeks and jaws; the rest of the muzzle and face are a contrasting black. The fur on the jaw and the flanks is longer than that on the body, with the males having especially prominent facial whiskers. Unlike other species of pig native to tropical Africa, the entire body is covered in hair, with no bare skin visible.

Adults weigh 45 to 115 kg and stand 55 to 80 cm tall, with a length of 100 to 145 cm. The thin tail is 30 to 45 cm long and ends in a tuft of black hair. The ears are also long and thin, ending in tufts of white or black hair that may each 12 cm in length. Boars are somewhat larger than sows, and have distinct conical protuberances on either side of the snout and rather small, sharp tusks. The facial protuberances are bony and probably protect the boar's facial tendons during head-to-head combat with other males.

Red river hogs have a dental formula of, similar to that of wild boar. Both sexes have scent glands close to the eyes and on the feet; males have additional glands near the tusks on the upper jaw and on the penis. There is also a distinctive glandular structure about 2 cm in diameter on the chin, which probably has a tactile function. Females have six teats.

Distribution and habitat
The red river hog lives in rainforests, wet dense savannas, and forested valleys, and near rivers, lakes and marshes. The species' distribution ranges from the Congo area and Gambia to the eastern Congo, southwards to the Kasai and the Congo River. The exact delineation of its range versus that of the bushpig is unclear; but in broad terms, the red river hog occupies western and central Africa, and the bushpig occupies eastern and southern Africa. Where the two meet, they are sometimes said to interbreed, although other authorities dispute this. Although numerous subspecies have been identified in the past, none are currently recognised.

Behaviour
Red river hogs are often active during the day, but are primarily nocturnal or crepuscular. They typically live in small groups of approximately six to ten animals, composed of a single adult male, and a number of adult females and their young. However, much larger groups, some with over 30 individuals, have been noted in particularly favourable habitats. The boar defends his harem aggressively against predators, with leopards being a particularly common threat.

They communicate almost continuously with grunts and squeals with a repertoire that can signal alarm, distress, or passive contact.

The species is omnivorous, eating mainly roots, bulbs, and tubers, and supplements its diet with fruit, seeds, nuts, water plants, grasses, herbs, fungi, eggs, dead animal and plant remains, insects, snails, lizards, other reptiles, and domestic animals such as piglets, goats, and sheep. It uses its large muzzle to snuffle about in the soil in search of food, as well as scraping the ground with their tusks and fore-feet. They can cause damage to agricultural crops, such as cassava and yams.

Reproduction
Red river hogs breed seasonally, so that the young are born between the end of the dry season in February and the midpoint of the rainy season in July. The oestrus cycle lasts 34 to 37 days. The male licks the female's genital region before mating, which lasts about five to ten minutes. Gestation lasts 120 days.

The mother constructs a nest from dead leaves and dry grass before giving birth to a litter of up to six piglets, with three to four being most common. The piglets weigh 650 to 900 g at birth, and are initially dark brown with yellowish stripes and spots. They are weaned after about four months, and develop the plain reddish adult coat by about six months; the dark facial markings do not appear until they reach adulthood at about two years of age. They probably live for about fifteen years in the wild.

title: Red river hog


text:
Archbishop of Suceava

List of Orthodox Archbishops of Suceava of the Romanian Patriarchate:

 * Toader Arăpaşu (metropolitan of Suceava) (1977-1982)
 * Pimen Zainea (first archbishop of Suceava) (24 June 1982 – 20 May 2020 )

title: Archbishop of Suceava


text:
Battle of Busan

The Battle of Busan of 1592 (or more accurately, the Battle of Busanpo or Battle of Busan Bay) (釜山浦 海戰) was a naval bombardment of anchored Japanese ships at Busan. Yi Sun-sin managed to destroy over 100 Japanese ships and retreated with minimal casualties. It was a naval engagement that took place on 1 September(Lunar calendar) 1592 during the first phase of the Japanese invasions of Korea. It was a Korean surprise attack on the fleet of Toyotomi Hideyoshi stationed at Busan, and its main objective was to recapture Busan, which would thoroughly cutoff the supply line of the Japanese army. In this battle, officer Jung Un and six soldiers died, the Japanese lost over 100 ships, and the Japanese military lost control of the seas around the Joseon.

Background
After commander Yi Sun Shin's fleet decisively defeated the Japanese in the Battle of Hansando on July 8, the Japanese had to change their war strategy. Their strategy was to deliver more land forces and supplies by sea to the northern part of the Korean peninsula and then they would march into Ming China. With the failure of this strategy, Japanese troops in the northern provinces of Joseon Korea had to suffer from starvation and shortages of supplies. To invade China, they needed to secure war supply routes. The alternate plan was to advance troops and supplies by roads, but this route was blocked by the Uibyeong ("Righteous Army"). Many Korean civilians and Buddhist monks formed a voluntary army and attacked Japanese troops.

Formation of the united Joseon fleet
After the Battle of Hansan Island, in which commander Yi Sun-sin's navy won against the Japanese navy around mid-July, they remained silent for nearly a month. In mid-August Japanese Kato Yoshiaki's army, Kimura's army, and Okamoto's army retreated from Hanyang, the later capital of the Joseon dynasty, to Gyeongsang Province. Around this time, most of the Japanese troops retreated to Gimhae to secure their munitions. In addition, following the Battle of Hansan Island, the Japanese navy retreated to Busan and focused on protecting and rebuilding their positions. Commander Yi sent spy ships to Busan port and found out there were about 470 warships there. Commander Yi believed that the Japanese were retreating to their country, so Gyeongsang Province Governor (慶尙右水營) Kim Soo requested that Commander Yi block their sea route. Therefore, Commander Yi with Commanders Won Gyun and Yi Eok Ki united their fleets, for a total of 166 vessels. On their way to Busan, Commander Yi defeated 24 Japanese ships at Seopyeongpo (西平浦), at the Battle of Dadaejin (多大浦), and at Jeolyoungdo (絶影島). The combined Joseon fleet defeated the Japanese navy repeatedly, largely as a result of their well-trained sailors and the Joseon ships' medium- and long-range cannons.

Battle of Busanpo
Off the coast of Busan, the united Joseon fleet realized that the Japanese navy had readied their ships for battle, and the Japanese army had stationed themselves around the shoreline. The united Joseon fleet assembled in the Jangsajin (長蛇陣), or "Long Snake" formation, with many ships advancing in a line, and attacked straight into the Japanese fleet. Overwhelmed by the Joseon fleet, the Japanese navy abandoned their ships and fled to the coast where their army was stationed. The Japanese army and navy joined their forces and attacked the Joseon fleet from the nearby hills in desperation. The Joseon fleet shot arrows from their ships to defend and restrict their attacks and, in the meantime, concentrated on their cannon fire on destroying Japanese vessels. The Korean ships fired on the Japanese fleet and burned them using fire arrows while the Japanese fired on them from above in their forts. Even with cannons captured at Busan, the Japanese did little damage to the Korean warships. By the time the day had ended, 128 Japanese ships had been destroyed. Yi Sun-sin gave orders to withdraw, ending the battle.

Comparisons
In terms of size, the Joseon ships were one-third that of Japanese ships. Although commander Yi destroyed over 100 ships, he did not order his soldiers to pursue the Japanese on shore, probably because he recognized that close hand-to-hand combat skills of the Joseon were significantly weaker than those of the samurai. In addition, the Joseon soldiers were exhausted from long sea travel and battle, and would have been heavily outnumbered on land. Up to that point, Commander Yi had not fought with numbers of soldiers, but rather with ships and cannons. Yi reinforced disadvantages in number of soldiers with heavy use of firearms. The Japanese also had a well-trained cavalry, which was another aspect the Joseon army lacked. In the Joseon fleet, Yi lost one of his cherished officers, by the name of Woon.

Impact
Yi Sun Shin originally intended to destroy all the remaining Japanese ships, however, he realized that doing so would effectively trap the Japanese soldiers on the Korean Peninsula, where they would travel inland and slaughter the natives. Therefore, Yi left a small number of Japanese ships unharmed and withdrew his navy to resupply. And just as Yi suspected, under the cover of darkness, the remaining Japanese soldiers boarded their remaining ships and retreated.

After this battle, the Japanese forces lost the control of the sea. The devastating blow dealt to the Japanese fleet isolated their armies in Korea and cut them off from their home bases. Since the Japanese forces realized the importance of the defensive lines of Busan Bay to secure the supply line, they tried to bring the west area of Busan under their control, when the Joseon navy came. This attempt led to the Battle of Jinju in October 1592, in which General Kim Si-min triumphed over 20,000 Japanese troops, and the Siege of Jinju in June 1593, in which Japanese forces finally captured the castle in Jinju.

Arguments about the result of the battle
Korean, Japanese, British, and American historians say that the Joseon navy won this battle and the Japanese military lost control of the seas around the Joseon. Chester W. Nimitz also referred to the battle as a Joseon decisive victory and resulted in the Japanese military losing control of the seas.

For example, Annals of the Joseon Dynasty, which is one the official history record summarized this battle as strategic failure as follows, "李舜臣等攻釜山賊屯, 不克. 倭兵屢敗於水戰, 聚據釜山、東萊, 列艦守港.  舜臣與元均悉舟師進攻, 賊斂兵不戰, 登高放丸, 水兵不能下陸, 乃燒空船四百餘艘而退.  鹿島萬戶鄭運居前力戰, 中丸死, 舜臣痛惜之. ". This can be translated as follows, "Yi Sun Shin and his fleet attacked Busan where the enemy forces stationed, but failed to defeat them. Since Japanese soldiers were often defeated in sea fights, they gathered in the fortress in Busan and Dongnae, which guarded the naval ships. Yi Sun Shin and Won Gyun attacked the Busan bay on vast numbers of ships, but the Japanese soldiers did not fight, and climbed to higher position and shot an arquebus. Thus Josen marines were unable to land then after burning 400 empty ships, Yi's fleet retreated. 鹿島萬戶 Chong Woon(ko) was shot and died during the hard fighting, and Yi Sun deeply regret the lost."

Some Japanese argued that the result was a strategic victory of Japan, with references to the official history of the Joseon and referencing the military mails between Japanese Daimyo. They argue that the Korean navy, which had repeatedly made sorties until now, ceased conspicuous activities after this battle until the February of the following year. They argue that the Japanese supply routes were never cut off, mentioning that this was the first and last time that Yi Sun-sin appeared in Busan.

However, in dozens of the sources like Joseon's official compendium(李忠武公全書) which is also the primary historical source written by the bureaucrats of the Korean government, Nanjung ilgi, military reports (which were written by on-scene commander in Busan on the spot), British history books, and American history books, it was recorded as the Korean navy decisively defeating the Japanese navy.

Chester W. Nimitz who played a major role in the naval history of World War II as Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, and Commander in Chief, Pacific Ocean Areas, commanding Allied air, land, and sea forces during World War II described the battle like this:

"In a later engagement more than seventy Japanese vessels, including warships and transports were encountered by the Allied fleet and were sunk. The devastating blow which has been dealt to the Japanese fleet has isolated the enemy armies in Korea and has cut them off from their home bases. The naval action, which stretched over a period of several days, was broken off in the mid-summer of the year 1592. The naval forces were under the command of the Korean Admiral Yi Sun-sin."

James B. Lewis who is the University Lecturer at the University of Oxford described the battle like this: "It is important in the history of Joseon's naval warfare, since it was the only sea battle, out of the ten fought during the year, in which Joseon attacked the Japanese naval base with relatively inferior fire power. In spite of the loss of Chong Woon, one of Yi's staff who was shot during the battle, Yi achieved an enormous victory in sinking over 100 ships in this one battle alone. As winter crept in, the two parties found naval operations impossible and rode at anchor for the duration of the season." Samuel Hawley, an American historian trained at Queen's University, earning BA and MA degrees, described the battle like this: "The Korean navy's attack on Busan had been astonishingly successful. It had destroyed fully a quarter of the Japanese fleet at a cost of just five men killed, twenty-five wounded, and no ships lost."

Even the books which were published by the Japanese Governor-General of Korea and Japanese historian the during Empire of Japan era also summarized this battle as a Korean decisive victory. Furthermore, the modern Japanese historians also said the battle was a Korean victory.

title: Battle of Busan


text:
Talk:Genseiryū Karate-do International Federation

Regarding the Neutral Point of View of the article
Please, write only facts, in a NEUTRAL way, not opions. Write in an encyclopedic way. To prevent a new edit war: People of WGKF are kindly requested to write any contradicting information in the article about WGKF. People from GKIF are requested not to touch that article and people from WGKF are requested not to touch this article about GKIF to prevent another EDIT WAR and keep the whole story as neutral and honest as possible. Also a link to the main article Genseiryu should be kept in both articles at all times, since they are a continuation of that article... Thank you for your co-operation! -- Mario R 21:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

About the article
Comment by the president of G.K.I.F. in Denmark/Europe: (Please note, that this article is NOT a continuation of the so-called main article Genseiryu). All other articles at Wikipedia (a.o. sites) that are supposed to be about Genseiryu, actually contains so much diliberate misinformation and lies, that we at the Genseiryu Karate-do International Federation (Denmark/Europe), have decided to make an effort in keeping THIS article clean with proper and correct information in contrast to the misinformation of the other articles. If, after reading this article, you might still doubt what you have read (everyone can edit this article if they so pleases), then please discard the information from Wikipedia completely, and find the researched history of Genseiryu at the below mentioned sites. All information at these particular sites, is written solely by people with the proper authority to do so. Thanks. Peter Lee 22:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * To this comment by "a president" of some club I have to write the following: it's probably needless to say, but claiming to be a president of anything, doesn't mean automatically you are right about everything you say! Besides, your comment "we at the GKIF have decided to make an effort in keeping..." is extremely exaggerated, since it is only YOUR decision and does not follow any central meeting inside the organization.
 * All the information written in the article Genseiryu is written according to a Neutral Point of View, highlighting the fact that there are two organizations that are telling contradictory information. Then from that article I created a link to WGKF and one to GKIF so that the story of both parties can be told from their point of view. I let you write your story even though it contradicts totally with the one of WGKF. I never touched that story! You on the other hand had to vandalize the article WGKF over and over again, writing the story of GKIF in that article, even though it doesn't belong there.
 * It is wrong to say that any of this information is deliberate misinformation or lies. This only shows that you do not want to contribute to the neutrality of Wikipedia. I urge anybody to read the information on Genseiryu and compare it to information that can be found elsewhere on Internet (e.g., ) and also read the information on the article about the World Genseiryu Karatedo Federation. Thank you! -- Mario R 16:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Orphan?
Jmcw37 claims that this article is an orphan. Orphan says the following:

Criteria
An article is orphaned if fewer than three other articles link to it. However, this is a strict definition of the term and there is still discussion regarding whether to have a more relaxed definition in order to clear the backlog of orphans. Currently our priority is to focus on orphans with NO incoming links at all, and it is recommended to only place the tag if the article has ZERO incoming links from other articles. One or two incoming links may be sufficient as long as they're relevant. So, since there is a link from Genseiryū, this article is not really an orphan. I suggest that the tag be removed. --Mario R 22:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- Neil N   talk to me  22:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that Orphan evolves . jmcw (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed some sentences
I took it upon me to remove some sentences in the article. Here an explanation. First I removed "A short history of each kata can also be read at the before mentioned site. These are translations from the book and are of course copyrighted material and should be treated as such at all times." The link was already removed in a previous edit, because it was an external site with no info about the claim made. So the reference was not valid. The fact that a book is "copyrighted material" is of course logical and unnecessary to mention in an article. Sounds kind of threatening ("do not copy this, or else...")...

Furthermore I removed "Any other versions or interpretations of these kata are not to be considered as Genseiryū.". This is a claim made by Peter Lee. The organization of the original Genseiryū claims otherwise and in various documents and books other kata that Seiken Shukumine (founder of Genseiryū) taught are mentioned... Mario R 22:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not true, Mario Roering, and you know that VERY well. I have presented you with the evidence, the links etc. the documents from the Japan Karate-do Federation are official and is a third party reference. The way you keep putting this issue on my shoulders is manipulative and incorrect. The claim is a valid one, as has been explained, shown etc. according to the evidence. If you dispute the reference, fine, but then please present another reference. Your aim in this or any other article in regard to Genseiryu is not a noble one. Your aim here is to manipulate your way in and to delete and confuse everybody. You should be stopped from editing, period. Stop vandalizing and sabotaging the articles here. Peter Lee (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote Mario took out needs a source before it can be put back in and perhaps should be followed by "according to the Japan Karate-do Federation" (or re-worked into the previous sentence). -- Neil N   talk to me  01:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, but that evidence has been provided numerously on so many occasions that I can no longer remember how many times I have put it here. So here it is again, just for Mario Roering, once again. Official Documents from the Japan Karate-do Federation in Japanese with English translations. Peter Lee (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Even IF it would be true, that the JKF acknowledged the mentioned kata (for now, I will leave in the middle what is true or not about that), just even IF it is true, then the sentence Peter Lee wants in the article is "Any other versions or interpretations of these kata are not to be considered as Genseiryū". That holds no ground with the reference, for even if the kata trained by WGKF Genseiryū (e.i. Ten-i, Chi-i and Jin-i no kata) are not excepted by the JKF, it can not be said that it is NOT Genseiryū! Especially since they ARE excepted in for example in Holland, by the Dutch Karate Federation (KBN). Saying that these kata are not considered Genseiryū is, to say it softly, humbug! To Peter: STOP removing my edits and call it "vandalism" in the summaries! Check Vandalism to see what is really considered vandalism! Then you will see that what YOU are doing comes much closer to that definition! You have called me a vandal one time too often now! I do not accept it any longer!!! Mario R  11:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I have reverted Peter Lee's "edits" to my last input in the article, because of this. My edits were thoroughly explained above and even agreed by NeilN. Peter reverted my edits anyway... Mario R 11:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Another edit I made recently, but didn't explain yet, was to rewrite the sentence about Tosa's book "Genseiryu Karatedo Kyohan 2" as being the "first book ever on Genseiryu". This is not true. Several other books on Genseiryu have been written before this one. The first book ever written on Genseiryu was in 1964 by the founder himself. He called the book "Shin karatedo kyohan" (translates into something like "the new method of teaching karate"). The book shows that Genseiryu is based on a combination of the 'old school' (koryū) or classique karate (with the kata Naifanchi, Bassai and Kusanku (or Koshokun (Dai)) with new techniques and the typical Genseiryu kata Ten-i no Kata, Chi-i no Kata, Jin-i no Kata and Sansai. The fact that Shukumine didn't mention the name "Genseiryū" does not mean that it's not Genseiryū. Karate books were/are often written in a "general" way, talking about "karatedo". Gichin Funakoshi (founder of Shotokan) did the exact same thing. NOBODY today disputes that his book is about Shotokan, although it's not mentioned... I have explained all this already several times! Like here for example.

The sentence "The Genseiryū Karate-do International Federation is the only officially recognized organization of Genseiryū[6] in Japan" holds no ground and the mentioned reference does not say anything about that claim made by Peter Lee (it only mentions something about kata). As a matter of fact, there is clear proof that Genseiryū (the WGKF style) is indeed also recognized by the JKF: Genseiryū is a member of the organization Nippon Karatedo Rengoukai (日本空手道連合会) (it's in Japanese, but 加盟団体 means members and in the list you can find 玄制流空手道 or Genseiryū Karatedō, meaning this is the original Genseiryū, not the Butokukai style!). Since Nippon Karatedo Rengoukai is a member of JKF, it means that automatically all the members of this organization, including Genseiryū, are member of JKF. It can not be disputed that Genseiryū is not a part of JKF... I will remove the sentence! -- Mario R 13:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki links
Peter, I clicked on the first three interwiki links you added and none of the articles exist. Why are you adding links to non-existent articles? -- Neil N   talk to me  02:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was a mistake. A simple copy and paste error from my original file. I have corrected the matter. Peter Lee (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- Neil N   talk to me  04:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. From Help:Interlanguage_links: "If you find blank interlanguage links on the English Wikipedia, they may be deleted as having no content or you can comment them out. It is strongly recommended that you create at least a stub page before adding interlanguage links to it. Later, interested people can translate the rest of the page content from the original language to the new one for which the link was made." -- Neil N   talk to me  02:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. Peter Lee (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit War December 2009
User:Mario_Roering and User_talk:Peter_Lee are reverting each other at Genseiryū_Karate-do_International_Federation. This could be interpeted as Edit warring. Could I invite you both to a friendly discussion on the talk page to attempt to resolve the two views? jmcw (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a good place to start would be to make an inventory of the reliable, third-party sources this article has. Could you each make a small comment on each source ( one line )? jmcw (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

 * jmcw: does not look like a third-party source
 * Mario: first party source, belongs to GKIF (Genseiryu-Butokukai)! However, it was never disputed that Tosa was a senior student of Seiken Shukumine. But, in the claim it's said that Shukumine excepted Tosa as his (first?) student in 1952. As a fact (I have proof of that) Genseiryū was established already in 1950, only the name Genseiryū was first used in 1953, because Shukumine didn't really want to name "his" karate style... The claim could therefore be slightly rewritten, but in general I have nothing against it.
 * Neil:
 * Peter:
 * Peter:

 * jmcw: does not look like a third-party source
 * Mario: I have no idea if this is a good 3rd party source. I would say 2nd and not so trustworthy maybe. It's a magazine, it's in Japanese. I know how Japanese media work, they are worse than the European. Lot of the facts are twisted or simply wrong. They wanna put down a nice story or simply attract attention... Hey, isn't media the same everywhere? I am working on getting a copy and to get it translated. Might take a while. The reference is used for 3 cases: the story (ref. 2a) sounds like an anecdote to me and could be disputed. Not that it wasn't in that magazine, magazines just love these kind of anecdotes! Ref 2b is about accepting Tosa as the (first?) student of Shukumine in 1952. Difficult to check for I am still working on that reference, but I will let it go (for now)... The third claim (ref 3c) is: "Seiken Shukumine and Kunihiko Tosa among others worked together on establishing the Genseiryū organization". Don't see any reason to believe they did NOT work together, at the time...
 * Neil:
 * Peter:
 * Peter:

 * jmcw: first is in Japanese; second does not exist
 * Mario: the home page is www.genseiryu.jp and belongs to Genseiryu-Butokukai and GKIF. Definitely a first party source. The claim made with this ref is "The Genseiryū Karate-do International Federation has at least 150 dojos worldwide". Hey, I didn't count them, but the claim looks plausible. However, to this I want to add that MOST of these dojo are in Japan... Sri Lanka and Brazil are also well presented, but still, Japan has the far most dojo of Genseiryu-Butokukai. I am fine with the claim though...
 * Neil:
 * Peter:
 * Peter:

 * jmcw: does not look like a third-party source
 * Mario: same source as above: belongs to GKIF, therefore a first party source. But, I will not dispute that Kunihiko Tosa received the 9th dan, especially since it is mentioned also that he was awarded this rank by the GKIF themselves, not by the JKF...
 * Neil:
 * Peter:
 * Peter:

 * jmcw: looks like a blog in japanese
 * Mario: No no no. This is not a blog. Have a Japanese speaking (and reading) person look at it. This site　belongs to the original Genseiryu branch and all the copyrights can be found (in Japanese) on the home page. The site is approved and monitored by the Shukumine family. The whole Genseiryu structure can found there, as well as many pictures of the Shukumine family, teachers of Genseiryū (not of GKIF though). I do not dispute the fact that Shukumine was awarded the 8th dan by the Dai Nippon Butokukai in 1956.　However, the claim brought here sounds a bit negative towards Shukumine. I would like to see it rephrased, for since he was involved mainly with Taidō since 1965, he could not really get further in karate... So, writing that "not even the founder was awarded such a high dan" is somewhat misplaced...
 * Neil:
 * Peter:
 * Peter:

 * jmcw: in japanese
 * Mario: Again a reference to the Genseiryu-Butokukai site, so 1st party. The documents are difficult to read, the English "translations" could be an "interpretation" (with mistakes, sentences that don't "run smoothly"), the Japanese I can't read. so the value of them is not high at all. I am not impressed by these at all. Furthermore, it says something about kata, not about the recognition of (GKIF) Genseiryu-Butokukai. The ref name "OnlyOrgRecognized" is misplaced and should be changed, if this reference will be used further in the future.
 * Neil:
 * Peter:
 * Peter:

 * jmcw: does not look like a third-party source
 * Mario: I would say it's a second party source, at least. Taidō is a different martial art, although it was derived from Genseiryu karate. They have no interest in telling the story about Genseiryu karate any different from the truth. Why should they? I am not saying that whatever they write is true, I have seen Taidō forums with contradicting stories, but I am saying that they have nothing to gain or loose by changing the facts...
 * Neil:
 * Peter:
 * Peter:

Remark: thanks jmcw, for doing this. This might actually work... Mario R 08:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality of Sources
I am a bit uncomfortable with the quality of these references. Primary sources and foreign-languages web sites are not a good basis for a wiki article- particularly when things are in dispute. Could you find some magazine articles or other third-party sources? jmcw (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I hear you. I am also very uncomfortable with Japanese sources. At my age it takes a life time to learn all the Japanese characters. Problem is that it's a Japanese sport (budō), so it's logical that most of the info found about it is in Japanese or is translated from Japanese (if you are even that lucky to find a translation!). Even if I could get some magazine articles, also that would probably be in Japanese. I will keep searching and will of course share any new information I can find here on Wikipedia, so that anybody interested in Genseiryu can benefit from it. For now, thumbs up and... patience... Btw, you can translate Japanese texts with this online translator (copy-and-paste Japanese text to the left box, select 日->英　and then push the button below it. Far from a perfect translation, but good enough to get a grasp of what is going on.) --Mario R 18:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Google also has decent translation tool jmcw (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just tried it. Works better than the one I used so far! Thanks! Mario R 16:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that some of the first party sources used here, are used to "confirm" a claim that is not really disputed. For example: nobody is disputing that Tosa received the 9th dan from GKIF. That the GKIF has about 150 dojos around the world, well, I didn't count them, but I guess it will be something close to that, so also that is not disputed. In those cases I don't object at all against the use of the 1st party source mentioned (the site of Genseiryu-Butokukai or GKIF). There are still some (minor) mistakes on the website, but I don't see it as obvious mis-information or lies, just typos or maybe the webmaster is holding wrong information himself... The only thing I put a big question mark at, are the documents that Peter keeps referring to. I want to get a proper translation of the Japanese versions though, before saying anything about it. For now, I will leave it alone as it is... It doesn't seem that important anyway, since it's just about some Genseiryu-Butokukai kata and it plays only a role in Japan itself... Mario R 18:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Please keep in mind that a strict interpretation of wp:v would demand deletion of an article built on primary sources (because someone could build a hoax quite easily, for example.) I use a common sense rule of thumb for primary source citations: "If I walked into any dojo, would I be able to verify this fact?"

 * So the statement about belt colors, I would not challenge. The statement about 150 dojo in the world, I would want a third-party source.

 * Due to Systemic_bias, foreign language articles suffer. Translations of foreign language sources are acceptable. As a strong editor of this article, could you look for Japanese third-party sources? I realize this is hard work but it would add great strength to the article. jmcw (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

 * To your common sense rule of thumb ("If I walked into any dojo, would I be able to verify this fact?"): You are welcome any time in Holland in one of our dojos in Amstelveen, Anna Paulowna, Den Helder or Schagen... Also, you are welcome in several dojos in Denmark, Finland, Spain, Japan and I don't know where else. I am sure Peter Lee will also welcome you in his dojo and you will be welcome in any other dojo belonging to either GKIF or WGKF... Bottom line is: yes, it's verifiable by walking into a dojo...
 * I can see you want a 3rd party source for the statement about the 150 dojo (GKIF) in the world. This is mentioned on the website of Genseiryu-Butokukai (GKIF). Because it belongs to GKIF, it's a 1st party reference. However, since most dojos are mentioned with address and phone number, theoretically you could contact every one of them to verify their existence, right? So, why would this not be trustworthy information? I found on Wikipedia:NOR the following: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." In theory, the accuracy is verifiable (contacting the dojos), so I think this primary source may be used to make the "descriptive claim" that GKIF runs about 150 dojos worldwide. Mind also that I am now defending one of the claims that Peter Lee made, not one that I made! Not that I want to do him a favour or that I care much about that sentence, but I just want to point out that in a case like this, it sometimes should be acceptable to use primary sources, if no secondary/tertiary sources are available... Also, that this article is NOT a hoax is already clear from the fact that at least FOUR wikipedians from inside the Genseiryu world have been contributing to it (not counting anonymous ip edits): Peter Lee, Thoar Varenkamp, TenChiJin and myself... --Mario R 13:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Grading
I think that the part about the grading system should be removed. Not that I care much about it, but the system of ranking in karate is different from country to country. If it is left in the article, then it should at least be clearly mentioned where this system is used (Japan, USA, Denmark?). For example in Holland there is a different system, also for GKIF (Peter, correct me if I am wrong (and I will accept!), 'coz I don't walk into Mr. Varenkamp's school that often): white (8th kyu, sometimes also 9th kyu), yellow (7th kyu), orange (6th kyu), green (5th kyu), blue (4th kyu), brown 1 (3rd kyu), brown 2 (2nd kyu), brown 3 (1st kyu), black (1st to 10th dan). -- Mario R 19:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (as a reaction to jmcw comment above here in the thread "Quality of Sources", where he says (quote)"the statement about belt colors, I would not challenge"(unquote):) Why wouldn't you challenge the statement about belt colors? That shows me you are/have never been involved in a budō sport. Am I right? (No offence!!) I clarified down here that the belt system differs from country to country. I am not saying that the belt system in the article is incorrect, it's just not complete. It only goes for Japan, maybe for Denmark and USA also, but not for Holland, Germany, France, etc.... Need references as proof? Okay, here you go: Kyū, Kyū, Kyu, Kyū,, , --Mario R  13:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 *  If I walked into a dojo, I would see people with different colored belts. But that different colors are used in other countries, I could not see in a dojo. (Note that this is not an official wiki standard). It would be much better with a reliable source for each country. Reliable sources eliminate grounds for arguing. jmcw (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But yes, on a more serious note, removing un-clear, un-referenced material improves an article. jmcw (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you walk in a dojo, you see different colored belts, yes. But a BLUE belt in Holland is a different level as the same coloured belt in the USA or Denmark. In Holland you will also find orange and yellow belts, where you won't see those colors in the USA, Japan or Denmark, or they are of a different level. Over there on the other hand, you might see purple belts or red belts, belt colours that are not found in Holland... That is why martial artists don't ask each other about their "belt color", they ask about which kyū (or dan) they have. Saying you have the "3rd kyū" says much more than saying you have the "blue belt"... Anyway, I don't see why the grading system should be mentioned in the article in the first place. It's about GKIF, not about ranking. Thereby, there is already enough said about ranking systems on kyū and dan. So... Shall I remove it, or will you? Mario R 15:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to invite you to make the changes - I will be away (training aikido) for a few days. Seasons Greetings to everyone working on this article! jmcw (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ow, you do train in a budō? But as far as I know, the belt system in Aikido is totally different from e.g. karate and judo (which was what I meant). Wasn't it just white and black, nothing in between? I love Aikido, it is beautiful, a very nice martial art to watch! Are you at a high level? I still don't really know what to do with that grading system in the article. It seems that lots of schools of GKIF do use that system (Japan, India, Denmark), but I now know that the (only) GKIF school in Holland doesn't use that system. In that dojo I see also people with yellow and orange belts for example... So, I think, unless there will be a good reference shown very soon, that will show that GKIF prescribes the use of that particular system throughout the world (which would then mean that the Dutch school is going into GKIF regulations or they are not attached to GKIF any longer), I will remove that part... Have a good training and happy holidays! --Mario R 22:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)