text:
Battle of Gettysburg, second day

During the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg (July 2, 1863) Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee attempted to capitalize on his first day's accomplishments. His Army of Northern Virginia launched multiple attacks on the flanks of the Union Army of the Potomac, commanded by Maj. Gen. George G. Meade. The assaults were unsuccessful, and resulted in heavy casualties for both sides.

Early in the afternoon, Union Maj. Gen. Daniel Sickles repositioned his III Corps forward in a salient without authorization in the hopes of occupying slightly elevated ground to his front. After a short delay to assemble his forces and avoid detection in his approach march, Lt. Gen. James Longstreet attacked with his First Corps against the Union left flank. His division under Maj. Gen. John Bell Hood attacked Little Round Top and Devil's Den. To Hood's left, Maj. Gen. Lafayette McLaws attacked the Wheatfield and the Peach Orchard. Although neither prevailed, the Union III Corps was effectively destroyed as a combat organization as it attempted to defend its salient over too wide a front. Gen. Meade rushed as many as 20,000 reinforcements from elsewhere in his line to resist these fierce assaults. The attacks in this sector concluded with an unsuccessful assault by the Confederate Third Corps division of Maj. Gen. Richard H. Anderson against the Union center on Cemetery Ridge.

That evening, Confederate Second Corps commander Lt. Gen. Richard S. Ewell turned demonstrations against the Union right flank into full-scale assaults on Culp's Hill and East Cemetery Hill, but both were repulsed.

The Union army had occupied strong defensive positions, and Meade handled his forces well, resulting in heavy losses for both sides, but leaving the disposition of forces on both sides essentially unchanged. Lee's hope of crushing the Army of the Potomac on Northern territory was dashed, but undaunted, he began to plan for the third day of fighting.

This article includes details of many attacks on the Union left flank (Devil's Den, the Wheatfield, and the Peach Orchard) and center (Cemetery Ridge), but separate articles describe other major engagements in this massive battle of the second day:

 * Little Round Top
 * Culp's Hill
 * Cemetery Hill

Lee's plan and movement to battle
By the morning of July 2, six of the seven corps of the Army of the Potomac had arrived on the battlefield. The I Corps (Maj. Gen. John Newton, replacing Abner Doubleday) and the XI Corps (Maj. Gen. Oliver O. Howard) had fought hard on the first day, and they were joined that evening by the yet-unengaged troops of the XII Corps (Maj. Gen. Henry W. Slocum), III Corps (Maj. Gen. Daniel Sickles), and II Corps (Maj. Gen. Winfield S. Hancock), and on the morning of July 2 by the V Corps (Maj. Gen. George Sykes). The VI Corps (Maj. Gen. John Sedgwick) was still 30 miles (50 km) away in Manchester, Maryland, on that morning. They assumed positions in a fish hook shape about three miles (5 km ) long, from Culp's Hill, around to Cemetery Hill, and down the spine of Cemetery Ridge. The Army of Northern Virginia line was roughly parallel to the Union's, on Seminary Ridge and on an arc northwest, north, and northeast of the town of Gettysburg. All of the Second Corps (Lt. Gen. Richard S. Ewell) and Third Corps (Lt. Gen. A.P. Hill) were present, and the First Corps (Lt. Gen. James Longstreet) was arriving from Cashtown; only Longstreet's division under George E. Pickett did not participate in the battle on July 2.

Robert E. Lee had several choices to consider for his next move. His order of the previous evening that Ewell occupy Culp's Hill or Cemetery Hill "if practicable" was not realized, and the Union army was now in strong defensive positions with compact interior lines. His senior subordinate, Longstreet, counseled a strategic move—the Army should leave its current position, swing around the Union left flank, and interpose itself on Meade's lines of communication, inviting an attack by Meade that could be received on advantageous ground. Longstreet argued that this was the entire point of the Gettysburg campaign, to move strategically into enemy territory but fight only defensive battles there. Lee rejected this argument because he was concerned about the morale of his soldiers having to give up the ground for which they fought so hard the day before. He wanted to retain the initiative and had a high degree of confidence in the ability of his army to succeed in any endeavor, an opinion bolstered by their spectacular victories the previous day and at Chancellorsville. He was therefore determined to attack on July 2.

Lee wanted to seize the high ground south of Gettysburg, primarily Cemetery Hill, which dominated the town, the Union supply lines, and the road to Washington, D.C., and he believed an attack up the Emmitsburg Road would be the best approach. He desired an early-morning assault by Longstreet's Corps, reinforced by Ewell, who would move his Corps from its current location north of town to join Longstreet. Ewell protested this arrangement, claiming his men would be demoralized if forced to move from the ground they had captured. And Longstreet protested that his division commanded by John Bell Hood had not arrived completely (and that Pickett's division had not arrived at all). Lee compromised with his subordinates. Ewell would remain in place and conduct a demonstration (a minor diversionary attack) against Culp's Hill, pinning down the right flank of the Union defenders so that they could not reinforce their left, where Longstreet would launch the primary attack as soon as he was ready. Ewell's demonstration would be turned into a full-scale assault if the opportunity presented itself.

Lee ordered Longstreet to launch a surprise attack with two divisions straddling, and guiding on, the Emmitsburg Road. Hood's division would move up the eastern side of the road, Lafayette McLaws's the western side, each perpendicular to it. The objective was to strike the Union Army in an oblique attack, rolling up their left flank, collapsing the line of Union corps onto each other, and seizing Cemetery Hill. The Third Corps division of Richard H. Anderson would join the attack against the center of the Union line on Cemetery Ridge at the appropriate time. This plan was based on faulty intelligence because of the absence of J.E.B. Stuart and his cavalry, leaving Lee with an incomplete understanding of the position of his enemy. He believed that the left flank of the Union army was adjacent to the Emmitsburg Road hanging "in the air" (unsupported by any natural barrier), and an early morning scouting expedition seemed to confirm that. In reality, by dawn of July 2 the Union line stretched the length of Cemetery Ridge and anchored at the foot of the imposing Little Round Top. Lee's plan was doomed from its conception, as Meade's line occupied only a small portion of the Emmitsburg Road near the town itself. Any force attacking up the road would find two entire Union corps and their guns posted on the ridge to their immediate right flank. By midday, however, Union general Sickles would change all that.

Sickles repositions
When Sickles arrived with his III Corps, General Meade instructed him to take up a position on Cemetery Ridge that linked up with the II Corps on his right and anchored his left on Little Round Top. Sickles originally did so, but after noon he became concerned about a slightly higher piece of ground 0.7 miles (1,100 m) to his front, a peach orchard owned by the Sherfy family. He undoubtedly recalled the debacle at Chancellorsville, where the high ground (Hazel Grove) he was forced to give up was used against him as a deadly Confederate artillery platform. Acting without authorization from Meade, Sickles marched his corps to occupy the peach orchard. This had two significant negative consequences: his position now took the form of a salient, which could be attacked from multiple sides; and he was forced to occupy lines that were much longer than his two-division corps could defend. Meade rode to the III Corps position and impatiently explained “General Sickles, this is neutral ground, our guns command it, as well as the enemy’s. The very reason you cannot hold it applies to them.” Meade was furious about this insubordination, but it was too late to do anything about it—the Confederate attack was imminent.

Longstreet delayed
Longstreet's attack was delayed, however, because he first had to wait for his final brigade (Evander M. Law's, Hood's division) to arrive, and then he was forced to march on a long, circuitous route that could not be seen by Union Army Signal Corps observers on Little Round Top. It was 4 p.m. by the time his two divisions reached their jumping off points, and then he and his generals were astonished to find the III Corps planted directly in front of them on the Emmitsburg Road. Hood argued with Longstreet that this new situation demanded a change in tactics; he wanted to swing around, below and behind, Round Top and hit the Union Army in the rear. Longstreet, however, refused to consider such a modification to Lee's order.

Even so, and partly because of Sickles's unexpected location, Longstreet's assault did not proceed according to Lee's plan. Instead of wheeling left to join a simultaneous two-division push on either side of the Emmitsburg Road, Hood's division attacked in a more easterly direction than intended, and McLaws's and Anderson's divisions deployed brigade by brigade, in an en echelon style of attack, also heading more to the east than the intended northeast.

Hood's assault
Longstreet's attack commenced with a 30-minute artillery barrage by 36 guns that was particularly punishing to the Union infantry in the Peach Orchard and the troops and batteries on Houck's Ridge. Maj. Gen. John Bell Hood's division deployed in Biesecker's Woods on Warfield Ridge (the southern extension of Seminary Ridge) in two lines of two brigades each: at the left front, Brig. Gen. Jerome B. Robertson's Texas Brigade (Hood's old unit); right front, Brig. Gen. Evander M. Law; left rear, Brig. Gen. George T. Anderson; right rear, Brig. Gen. Henry L. Benning.

At 4:30 p.m., Hood stood in his stirrups at the front of the Texas Brigade and shouted, "Fix bayonets, my brave Texans! Forward and take those heights!" It is unclear to which heights he was referring. His orders were to cross the Emmitsburg Road and wheel left, moving north with his left flank guiding on the road. This discrepancy became a serious problem when, minutes later on Slyder's Lane, Hood was felled by an artillery shell bursting overhead, severely wounding his left arm and putting him out of action. His division moved ahead to the east, no longer under central control.

There were four probable reasons for the deviation in the division's direction: first, regiments from the III Corps were unexpectedly in the Devil's Den area and they would threaten Hood's right flank if they were not dealt with; second, fire from the 2nd U.S. Sharpshooters at Slyder's farm drew the attention of lead elements of Law's Brigade, moving in pursuit and drawing his brigade to the right; third, the terrain was rough and units naturally lost their parade-ground alignments; finally, Hood's senior subordinate, Gen. Law, was unaware that he was now in command of the division, so he could not exercise control.

The two lead brigades split their advances into two directions, although not on brigade boundaries. The 1st Texas and 3rd Arkansas of Robertson's brigade and the 44th and 48th Alabama of Law's brigade headed in the direction of Devil's Den, while Law directed the remaining five regiments toward the Round Tops.

Devil's Den
Devil's Den was located at the extreme left of the III Corps line, manned by the large brigade (six regiments and two companies of sharpshooters, 2,200 men in all) of Brigadier General J. H. Hobart Ward, in Maj. Gen. David B. Birney's division. It was the southern end of Houck's Ridge, a modest elevation on the northwest side of Plum Run Valley, made distinctive by piles of huge boulders. These boulders were not the direct avenue of approach used by the Confederates. The 3rd Arkansas and the 1st Texas drove through Rose Woods and hit Ward's line head-on. His troops had lacked the time or inclination to erect breastworks, and for over an hour both sides participated in a standup fight of unusual ferocity. In the first 30 minutes, the 20th Indiana lost more than half of its men. Its colonel, John Wheeler, was killed and its lieutenant colonel wounded. The 86th New York also lost its commander. The commander of the 3rd Arkansas fell wounded, one of 182 casualties in his regiment.

Meanwhile, the two regiments from Law's brigade that had split from the column advancing to the Round Tops pushed up Plum Run Valley and threatened to turn Ward's flank. Their target was the 4th Maine and the 124th New York, defending the 4th New York Independent artillery battery commanded by Captain James Smith, whose fire was causing considerable disruption in Law's brigade's advance. The pressure grew great enough that Ward needed to call the 99th Pennsylvania from his far right to reinforce his left. The commander of the 124th New York, Colonel Augustus Van Horne Ellis, and his major, James Cromwell, decided to counterattack. They mounted their horses despite the protests of soldiers who urged them to lead more safely on foot. Maj. Cromwell said, "The men must see us today." They led the charge of their "Orange Blossoms" regiment to the west, down the slope of Houck's Ridge through a triangular field surrounded by a low stone fence, sending the 1st Texas reeling back 200 yd. But both Colonel Ellis and Major Cromwell were shot dead as the Texans rallied with a massed volley; and the New Yorkers retreated to their starting point, with only 148 survivors from the 238 they started with. As reinforcements from the 99th Pennsylvania arrived, Ward's brigade retook the crest.

The second wave of Hood's assault was the brigades of Henry Benning and George "Tige" Anderson. They detected a gap in Birney's division line: to Ward's right, there was a considerable gap before the brigade of Régis de Trobriand began. Anderson's line smashed into Trobriand and the gap at the southern edge of the Wheatfield. Trobriand wrote that the Confederates "converged on me like an avalanche, but we piled all the dead and wounded men in our front." The Union defense was fierce, and Anderson's brigade pulled back; its commander was wounded in the leg and was carried from the battle.

Two of Benning's Confederate regiments, the 2nd and 17th Georgia, moved down Plum Run Valley around Ward's flank. They received murderous fire from the 99th Pennsylvania and Hazlett's battery on Little Round Top, but they kept pushing forward. Capt. Smith's New York battery was under severe pressure from three sides, but its supporting infantry regiments were suffering severe casualties and could not protect it. Three 10-pound Parrott rifles were lost to the 1st Texas, and they were used against Union troops the next day.

Birney scrambled to find reinforcements. He sent the 40th New York and 6th New Jersey from the Wheatfield into Plum Run Valley to block the approach into Ward's flank. They collided with Benning's and Law's men in rocky, broken ground that the survivors would remember as the "Slaughter Pen". (Plum Run itself was known as "Bloody Run"; Plum Run Valley as the "Valley of Death".) Col. Thomas W. Egan, commanding the 40th New York, was called on by Smith to recover his guns. The men of the "Mozart" regiment slammed into the 2nd and 17th Georgia regiments, with initial success. As Ward's line along Houck's Ridge continued to collapse, the position manned by the 40th became increasingly untenable. However, Egan pressed his regiment onward, according to Col. Wesley Hodges of the 17th Georgia, launching seven attacks against the Confederate positions within the boulders of Slaughter Pen and Devil's Den. As the men of the 40th fell back under relentless pressure, the 6th New Jersey covered their withdrawal and lost a third of its men in the process.

The pressure on Ward's brigade was eventually too great, and he was forced to call for a retreat. Hood's division secured Devil's Den and the southern part of Houck's Ridge. The center of the fighting shifted to the northwest, to Rose Woods and the Wheatfield, while five regiments under Evander Law assaulted Little Round Top to the east. Benning's men spent the next 22 hours on Devil's Den, firing across the Valley of Death on Union troops massed on Little Round Top.

Of 2,423 Union troops engaged, there were 821 casualties (138 killed, 548 wounded, 135 missing); the 5,525 Confederates lost 1,814 (329, 1,107, 378).

Little Round Top
The Confederate assaults on Little Round Top were some of the most famous of the three-day battle and the Civil War. Arriving just as the Confederates approached, Col. Strong Vincent's brigade of the V Corps mounted a spirited defense of this position, the extreme left of the Union line, against furious assaults up the rocky slope. The stand of the 20th Maine under Col. Joshua L. Chamberlain against the 15th Alabama (Col. William C. Oates) is particularly storied, but heroes such as Strong Vincent, Patrick "Paddy" O'Rorke, and Charles E. Hazlett also made names for themselves.

McLaws's assault
Lafayette McLaws arranged his division on Warfield Ridge similar to Hood's on his right—two lines of two brigades each: left front, facing the Peach Orchard, the brigade of Brig. Gen. William Barksdale; right front, Brig. Gen. Joseph B. Kershaw; left rear, Brig. Gen. William T. Wofford; right rear, Brig. Gen. Paul Jones Semmes.

Lee's original plan called for Hood and McLaws to attack in concert, but Longstreet held back McLaws while Hood's attack progressed. Around 5 p.m., Longstreet saw that Hood's division was reaching its limits and that the enemy to its front was fully engaged. He ordered McLaws to send in Kershaw's brigade, with Barksdale's to follow on the left, beginning the en echelon attack—one brigade after another in sequence—that would be used for the rest of the afternoon's attack. McLaws resented Longstreet's hands-on management of his brigades. Those brigades engaged in some of the bloodiest fighting of the battle: the Wheatfield and the Peach Orchard. Colonel Byron Root Pierce's 3rd Michigan Regiment, which was part of de Trobriand's brigade, engaged Kershaw's South Carolinian forces during the defense of Peach Orchard. Pierce was wounded and was replaced by his brother, Lieutenant Colonel Edwin Pierce.

Wheatfield
The area known as the Wheatfield had three geographic features, all owned by the John Rose family: the 20 acre (8 ha) field itself, Rose Woods bordering it on the west, and a modest elevation known as Stony Hill, also to the west. Immediately to the southeast was Houck's Ridge and to the south Devil's Den. The fighting here, consisting of numerous confusing attacks and counterattacks over two hours by eleven brigades, earned the field the nickname "Bloody Wheatfield."

The first engagement in the Wheatfield was actually that of Anderson's brigade (Hood's division) attacking the 17th Maine of Trobriand's brigade, a spillover from Hood's attack on Houck's Ridge. Although under pressure and with its neighboring regiments on Stony Hill withdrawing, the 17th Maine held its position behind a low stone wall with the assistance of Winslow's battery, and Anderson fell back. Trobriand wrote, "I had never seen any men fight with equal obstinacy."

By 5:30 p.m., when the first of Kershaw's regiments neared the Rose farmhouse, Stony Hill had been reinforced by two brigades of the 1st Division, V Corps, under Brig. Gen. James Barnes, those of Cols. William S. Tilton and Jacob B. Sweitzer. Kershaw's men placed great pressure on the 17th Maine, but it continued to hold. For some reason, however, Barnes withdrew his understrength division about 300 yd to the north—without consultation with Birney's men—to a new position near the Wheatfield Road. Trobriand and the 17th Maine had to follow suit, and the Confederates seized Stony Hill and streamed into the Wheatfield. (Barnes's controversial decision was widely criticized after the battle, and it effectively ended his military career.) Earlier that afternoon, as Meade realized the folly of Sickles's movement, he ordered Hancock to send a division from the II Corps to reinforce the III Corps. Hancock sent the 1st Division under Brig. Gen. John C. Caldwell from its reserve position behind Cemetery Ridge. It arrived at about 6 p.m. and three brigades, under Cols. Samuel K. Zook, Patrick Kelly (the Irish Brigade), and Edward E. Cross moved forward; the fourth brigade, under Col. John R. Brooke, was in reserve. Zook and Kelly drove the Confederates from Stony Hill, and Cross cleared the Wheatfield, pushing Kershaw's men back to the edge of Rose Woods. Both Zook and Cross were mortally wounded in leading their brigades through these assaults, as was Confederate Semmes. When Cross's men had exhausted their ammunition, Caldwell ordered Brooke to relieve them. By this time, however, the Union position in the Peach Orchard had collapsed (see next section), and Wofford's assault continued down the Wheatfield Road, taking Stony Hill and flanking the Union forces in the Wheatfield. Brooke's brigade in Rose Woods had to retreat in some disorder. Sweitzer's brigade was sent in to delay the Confederate assault, and they did this effectively in vicious hand-to-hand combat. The Wheatfield changed hands once again.

Additional Union troops had arrived by this time. The 2nd Division of the V corps, under Brig. Gen. Romeyn B. Ayres, was known as the "Regular Division" because two of its three brigades were composed entirely of U.S. Army (regular army) troops, not state volunteers. (The brigade of volunteers, under Brig. Gen. Stephen H. Weed, was already engaged on Little Round Top, so only the regular army brigades arrived at the Wheatfield.) In their advance across the Valley of Death they had come under heavy fire from Confederate sharpshooters in Devil's Den. As the regulars advanced, the Confederates swarmed over Stony Hill and through Rose Woods, flanking the newly arrived brigades. The regulars retreated back to the relative safety of Little Round Top in good order, despite taking heavy casualties and pursuing Confederates. The two regular brigades suffered 829 casualties out of 2,613 engaged.

This final Confederate assault through the Wheatfield continued past Houck's Ridge into the Valley of Death at about 7:30 p.m. The brigades of Anderson, Semmes, and Kershaw were exhausted from hours of combat in the summer heat and advanced east with units jumbled up together. Wofford's brigade followed to the left along the Wheatfield Road. As they reached the northern shoulder of Little Round Top, they were met with a counterattack from the 3rd Division (the Pennsylvania Reserves) of the V Corps, under Brig. Gen. Samuel W. Crawford. The brigade of Col. William McCandless, including a company from the Gettysburg area, spearheaded the attack and drove the exhausted Confederates back beyond the Wheatfield to Stony Hill. Realizing that his troops were too far advanced and exposed, Crawford pulled the brigade back to the east edge of the Wheatfield.

The bloody Wheatfield remained quiet for the rest of the battle. But it took a heavy toll on the men who traded possession back-and-forth. The Confederates had fought six brigades against 13 (somewhat smaller) Federal brigades, and of the 20,444 men engaged, about 30% were casualties. Some of the wounded managed to crawl to Plum Run but could not cross it. The river ran red with their blood. As with the Cornfield at Antietam, this small expanse of agricultural ground would be remembered by veterans as a name of unique significance in the history of warfare.

Peach Orchard
While the right wing of Kershaw's brigade attacked into the Wheatfield, its left wing wheeled left to attack the Pennsylvania troops in the brigade of Brig. Gen. Charles K. Graham, the right flank of Birney's line, where 30 guns from the III Corps and the Artillery Reserve attempted to hold the sector. The South Carolinians were subjected to infantry volleys from the Peach Orchard and canister from all along the line. Suddenly someone unknown shouted a false command, and the attacking regiments turned to their right, toward the Wheatfield, which presented their left flank to the batteries. Kershaw later wrote, "Hundreds of the bravest and best men of Carolina fell, victims of this fatal blunder."

Meanwhile, the two brigades on McLaws's left—Barksdale's in front and Wofford's behind—charged directly into the Peach Orchard, the point of the salient in Sickles's line. Gen. Barksdale led the charge on horseback, long hair flowing in the wind, sword waving in the air. Brig. Gen. Andrew A. Humphreys's division had only about 1,000 men to cover the 500 yd from the Peach Orchard northward along the Emmitsburg Road to the lane leading to the Abraham Trostle farm. Some were still facing south, from where they had been firing on Kershaw's brigade, so they were hit in their vulnerable flank. Barksdale's 1,600 Mississippians wheeled left against the flank of Humphreys's division, collapsing their line, regiment by regiment. Graham's brigade retreated back toward Cemetery Ridge; Graham had two horses shot out from under him. He was hit by a shell fragment, and by a bullet in his upper body. He was eventually captured by the 21st Mississippi. Wofford's men dealt with the defenders of the orchard.

As Barksdale's men pushed toward Sickles's headquarters near the Trostle barn, the general and his staff began to move to the rear, when a cannonball caught Sickles in the right leg. He was carried off in a stretcher, sitting up and puffing on his cigar, attempting to encourage his men. That evening his leg was amputated, and he returned to Washington, D.C. Gen. Birney assumed command of the III Corps, which was soon rendered ineffective as a fighting force.

The relentless infantry charges posed extreme danger to the Union artillery batteries in the orchard and on the Wheatfield Road, and they were forced to withdraw under pressure. The six Napoleons of Capt. John Bigelow's 9th Massachusetts Light Artillery, on the left of the line, "retired by prolonge," a technique rarely used in which the cannon was dragged backwards as it fired rapidly, the movement aided by the gun's recoil. By the time they reached the Trostle house, they were told to hold the position to cover the infantry retreat, but they were eventually overrun by troops of the 21st Mississippi, who captured three of their guns.

Humphreys's fate was sealed when the Confederate en echelon attack continued and his front and right flank began to be assaulted by the Third Corps division of Richard H. Anderson on Cemetery Ridge.

Anderson's assault
The remaining portion of the en echelon attack was the responsibility of Maj. Gen. Richard H. Anderson's division of A.P. Hill's Third Corps, and he attacked starting at about 6 p.m. with five brigades in line, commencing on the right with Brig. Gen. Cadmus M. Wilcox, followed by Perry's Brigade (commanded by Col. David Lang), Brig. Gen. Ambrose R. Wright, Brig. Gen. Carnot Posey, and Brig. Gen. William Mahone.

The brigades of Wilcox and Lang hit the front and right flank of Humphreys's line, dooming any chance for his division to maintain its position on the Emmitsburg Road and completing the collapse of the III Corps. Humphrey displayed considerable bravery during the attack, leading his men from horseback and forcing them to maintain good order during their withdrawal. He wrote to his wife, "Twenty times did I [bring] my men to a halt and face about ... forcing the men to it."

On Cemetery Ridge, Generals Meade and Hancock were scrambling to find reinforcements. Meade had sent virtually all of his available troops (including most of the XII Corps, who would be needed momentarily on Culp's Hill) to his left flank to counter Longstreet's assault, leaving the center of his line relatively weak. There was insufficient infantry on Cemetery Ridge and only a few artillery pieces, rallied from the debacle of the Peach Orchard by Lt. Col. Freeman McGilvery.

The long march from Seminary Ridge had left some of the Southern units disorganized, and their commanders paused momentarily at Plum Run to reorganize. Hancock led the II Corps brigade of Col. George L. Willard to meet Barksdale's brigade as it moved toward the ridge. Willard's New Yorkers drove the Mississippians back to Emmitsburg Road. Barksdale was wounded in his left knee, followed by a cannonball to his left foot, and finally was hit by another bullet to his chest, knocking him off his horse. His troops were forced to leave him for dead on the field, and he died the next morning in a Union field hospital. Willard was also killed, and Confederate guns drove back Willard's men in turn.

As Hancock rode north to find additional reinforcements, he saw Wilcox's brigade nearing the base of the ridge, aiming at a gap in the Union line. The timing was critical, and Hancock chose the only troops at hand, the men of the 1st Minnesota, Harrow's Brigade, of the 2nd Division of the II Corps. They were originally placed there to guard Thomas's U.S. Battery. He pointed to a Confederate flag over the advancing line and shouted to Col. William Colvill, "Advance, Colonel, and take those colors!" The 262 Minnesotans charged the Alabama brigade with bayonets fixed, and they blunted their advance at Plum Run but at horrible cost—215 casualties (82%), including 40 deaths or mortal wounds, one of the largest regimental single-action losses of the war. Despite overwhelming Confederate numbers, the small 1st Minnesota, with the support of Willard's brigade on their left, checked Wilcox's advance and the Alabamians were forced to withdraw.

The third Confederate brigade in line, under Ambrose Wright, crushed two regiments posted on the Emmitsburg Road north of the Codori farm, captured the guns of two batteries, and advanced toward a gap in the Union line just south of the Copse of Trees. (For a time, the only Union soldiers in this part of the line were Gen. Meade and some of his staff officers.) Wright's Georgia brigade may have reached the crest of Cemetery Ridge and beyond. Many historians have been skeptical of Wright's claims in his after-action report, which, if correct, would mean he passed the crest of the ridge and got as far as the Widow Leister's house before being struck in the flank and repulsed by Union reinforcements (Brig. Gen. George J. Stannard's Vermont brigade). Others believe his account was plausible because he accurately described the masses of Union troops on the Baltimore Pike that would have been invisible to him if he had been stopped earlier. Furthermore, his conversations with General Lee that evening lend support to his claim. It is possible that Lee derived some false confidence from Wright about the ability of his men to reach Cemetery Ridge the following day in Pickett's Charge.

Wright told Lee that it was relatively easy to get to the crest, but it was difficult to stay there. A significant reason Wright could not stay was his lack of support. Two brigades were on Wright's left and could have reinforced his success. Carnot Posey's brigade made slow progress and never crossed the Emmitsburg Road, despite protestations from Wright. William Mahone's brigade inexplicably never moved at all. Gen. Anderson sent a messenger with orders to Mahone to advance, but Mahone refused. Part of the blame for the failure of Wright's assault must lie with Anderson, who took little active part in directing his division in battle.

Battle of East Cemetery Hill
Lee ordered Lt. Gen. Ewell to launch a demonstration, or minor diversionary attack, on the Union right flank. He started the attack at 4 p.m. with an artillery bombardment from Benner's Hill, which caused little damage to the Union lines, but the counterbattery fire returned upon the lower hill was deadly. Ewell's best artillery officer, 19-year-old Joseph W. Latimer, the "Boy Major", was mortally wounded, eventually dying a month later. Ewell did not launch a conventional infantry attack until after 7 p.m., after Anderson's assault on Cemetery Ridge had crested. At around 8 p.m., two brigades of Jubal Early's division reached the Union artillery of East Cemetery Hill near the Baltimore Pike, but Union reinforcements drove them from the hill.

Culp's Hill
Maj. Gen. Edward "Allegheny" Johnson's Confederate division attacked Brig. Gen. George S. Greene's XII Corps brigade behind strong breastworks on Culp's Hill. Johnson attacked without one of his brigades, as the Stonewall Brigade under Brig. Gen. James A. Walker, was occupied east of Rock Creek fighting Union cavalry under Brig. Gen. David M. Gregg for control of Brinkerhoff's Ridge. The Confederates suffered severe casualties and gained only the portions of the Union line that had been vacated under orders that afternoon by General Meade to reinforce the left flank of his line against Longstreet.

Council of war
The battlefield fell silent around 10:30 p.m., except for the cries of the wounded and dying. Gen. Meade telegraphed to General-in-Chief Henry Halleck in Washington:

"The enemy attacked me about 4 p.m. this day and, after one of the severest contests of the war, was repulsed at all points. ... I shall remain in my present position to-morrow, but am not prepared to say, until better advised of the condition of the army, whether my operations will be of an offensive or defensive character."

Meade made his decision late that night in a council of war that included his senior staff officers and corps commanders. The assembled officers agreed that, despite the beating the army took, it was advisable for the army to remain in its present position and to await attack by the enemy, although there was some disagreement about how long to wait if Lee chose not to attack. There is some evidence that Meade had already decided this issue and was using the meeting not as a formal council of war, but as a way to achieve consensus among officers he had commanded for less than a week. As the meeting broke up, Meade took aside Brig. Gen. John Gibbon, in command of the II Corps, and predicted, "If Lee attacks tomorrow, it will be in your front. ... he has made attacks on both our flanks and failed and if he concludes to try it again, it will be on our centre."

There was considerably less confidence in Confederate headquarters that night. The army had suffered a significant defeat by not dislodging their enemy. A staff officer remarked that Lee was "not in good humor over the miscarriage of his plans and his orders." But in Lee's report, he showed more optimism:

"The result of this day's operations induce the belief that, with proper concert of action, and with the increased support that the positions gained on the right would enable the artillery to render the assaulting columns, we should ultimately succeed, and it was accordingly determined to continue the attack. ... The general plan was unchanged."

Years later, Longstreet would write that his troops on the second day had done the "best three hours' fighting done by any troops on any battle-field." That night he continued to advocate for a strategic movement around the Union left flank, but Lee would hear none of it. He sent orders to Richard Ewell to "assail the enemy's right" at daylight, and he ordered Jeb Stuart (who had finally arrived at Lee's headquarters early that afternoon) to operate on Ewell's left and rear.

Casualty figures for the second day of Gettysburg are difficult to assess because both armies reported by unit after the full battle, not by day. One estimate is that the Confederates lost approximately 6,000 killed, missing, or wounded from Hood's, McLaws's, and Anderson's divisions, amounting to 30–40% casualties. Union casualties in these actions probably exceeded 9,000. An estimate for the day's total (including the Culp's and Cemetery Hill actions) by historian Noah Trudeau is 10,000 Union, 6,800 Confederate. This is in comparison to approximately 9,000 Union and 6,000 Confederate casualties on the first day, although there were much larger percentages of the armies engaged the second. Some estimates of total casualties for the day run as high as 20,000 and declare it the bloodiest day of the Battle of Gettysburg. It is a testament to the ferocity of the day's battle that such high casualty figures resulted even with much of the fighting not occurring until late in the afternoon and thereafter lasting about six hours. By comparison, the Battle of Antietam—known famously as the bloodiest single day in American military history with nearly 23,000 casualties—was an engagement that lasted twelve hours, or about twice as long.

On the night of July 2, all of the remaining elements of both armies had arrived: Stuart's cavalry and Pickett's division for the Confederates and John Sedgwick's Union VI Corps. The stage was set for the bloody climax of the three-day battle.

title: Battle of Gettysburg, second day


text:
Talk:Fu Manchu

Fixes
fixed a couple spelling errors. --xiaou

It should be noted that Ra's Al Ghul has similarities with Fu Manchu.

Lazarus Pit=Elixir Vitae Si-Fan=League of Assassins Talia=Fah Lo Suee

Anything else come to mind?

 * The Shadow's Shiwan Khan, several Oriental villians in Doc Savage, Marvel Comic's The Mandarin... It was a common stereotype in the pulps. CFLeon 01:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * There were many Oriental villians in early pulps, many with 'Fu Manchu'-like names- 'Wu Fang', etc. Fu has also appeared unnamed in some Sherlock Holmes pastiches, is the basis of Doc Brass's associate, Hark, etc.  129.188.33.221 19:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)emb021

 * Why was the Marvel Comics reference removed? It is as valid, if not more, as the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen reference; its use was authorizhed by the copyright owners and he was a major character in the Master of Kung Fu series. At the least, a link to Shang-Chi should be allowed. Wilfredo Martinez 14:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I was expecting to see a reference to Ming the Merciless from the Flash Gordon franchise mentioned as having been inspired by the Fu Manchu character. McGehee 01:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wording
In the last sentence of the "Characters" section, should it be said that China was "liberated by Communism"?--68.46.187.78 (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Fu Manchu's Chinese name?
I'm very much sure that Fu refers to this: 福, but does anyone know what Manchu is supposed to be in Chinese characters? Is it mentioned in the movies or anywhere? --Andylkl [ talk! 12:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The article strongly implies that the second name is Manchu, a Manchurian, a countryman or member of the Qing dynasty, and I believe this correct. What characters that may be I do not know, but a English-Chinese dictionary should tell you. JCScaliger 04:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would Fu Manchu would have a Chinese name? He was created as a Yellow Peril villain at a time when Europeans/European-Americans didn't really care about Chinese.  Sax Rohmer most likely mashed together some Chinese-looking words to produce the name. --ColourBurst 04:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it's 傅满洲. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.27.35.60 (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If "Fu Manchu" was a title of honor, which meant "the Warlike Manchu." is in fact true or the original intention, the name should be "Wu Manchu", and 武满洲. This is pure OR but it would be in keeping with a meglomaniac character as 武 is most commonly used as a honorific for founding emperorsKTo288 (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese Wikipedia lists six versions: The author didn't speak Chinese and probably just put together a few sounds. Fu is a common surname. There was a writer named Su Manshu (蘇曼殊) as well. Sheila1988 (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 傅满洲 Fù Mǎnzhōu
 * 福滿洲 Fú Mǎnzhōu
 * 傅滿族 Fù Mǎnzú
 * 福滿族 Fú Mǎnzú
 * 傅滿人 Fù Mǎnrén
 * 福滿人 Fú Mǎnrén

"Fu Manchu" is the only name of the fictional character (who is also referred to as The Devil Doctor). He is not given a Chinese name in the novels, and there does not appear to be any indication that the author was capable of giving him a Chinese name. Indeed, the article claims (without citing any reference) that, according to the author's biographer and former assistant, "Fu Manchu" was a title of honor, which referred to "the warlike Manchu". But that may be purely speculation.

Here is what the first novel has to say about his name:

...assuming that the name were not an assumed one, he clearly can have been no anti-Manchu...

This tells us:

1. The narrator, Petrie, confesses that he can only make assumptions about the name.

2. He assumes it is the birth name ("not an assumed one"), that 'Manchu' refers to the ethnic group, and that The Devil Doctor is a member of this ethnic group ("he clearly can have been no anti-Manchu").

Looking at encyclopedia entries on Manchu names, 'Manchu' appears to be a highly unlikely given name for a member of the Manchu ethnic group. So Petrie's assumptions about The Devil Doctor's name should be viewed as being as credible as his assumptions about race.

Chinese-language media on Fu Manchu undoubtedly gave him a Chinese name - maybe 傅满洲. But whatever name he was given is a transliteration, a translated name, just as the author's (assumed) name - Sax Rohmer is translated as 薩克斯·羅默. Why should the English Wikipedia article give only the Chinese translation - and not the Korean, Russian, or Arabic?

Why does this matter? Because Fu Manchu is a fictional character, not a Chinaman, only a product of an early 20th-century Englishman's imagination. To assign a Chinese name to him not only violates Wikipedia's prohibition of original research, but also risks blurring the line between fact and white supremacist fiction. Zahzuhzaz (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Since no support for the Chinese name has been given it has been removed, to comply with No original research. Zahzuhzaz (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Racism
We should mention how this character is considered to be a racist stereotype by many people today. He's, as the description said, supposed to be "yellow peril" incarnate. Full Shunyata 06:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC) I don't think any Manchurian people take offense or know who he even is.

 * Cut from article:

 * has become controversial as an example of racism found frequently in Western representations of the Chinese at that time. The character

 * I'm not saying he's an "accurate" stereotype or a "good" one, but where is the controversy?

 * The word Controversy is not a synonym for condemnation but means (especially at Wikipedia) that there are two opposing views. Who says the Fu Manchu is an accurate or otherwise useful, valuable or worthwhile model? And who says it's not, or has other objections? --Uncle Ed 20:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Fu more a representation of Qing dynasty Tartary rather than Han Chinese?

And again with all the racism that only white people can be criminals. Newsflash - there are Chinese criminals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.216.125.204 (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Reputation in China
So what have the Chinese themselves thought about Fu Manchu over the years. Anything? I could see them dismissing him as a foreign stereotype, or adopting him as a hero.

Cranston Lamont 17:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

His dream of a strong China is appealing. Vengeance against the western powers that humiliated China is also appealing. That he's tall with an imposing presence, and even better at western medicine than any westerner, Fu Manchu is quite the role model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.70.224 (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, Fu Manchu is barely known in China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.159.145 (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, most Chinese are slightly amused by him as a racist stereotype. He's not particularly known beyond that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.74.89 (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

According to an article by Richard Bernstein in The New York Review of Books, the Fu Manchu books were banned in China during Chiang Kai-shek's rule. Link here (Subscription required:) http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/oct/28/very-superior-chinaman/ 176.61.97.121 (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

movie for the 21st century
does anyone know if any movie studio has plans to make another fu manchu movie for the 21st century? anyone?

---Spanish director Alex de la Iglesia said in an interview during the late nineties that he was preparing for a new Fu Manchu film which was to be shot on location in Asia. Does anybody know anything more?--80.133.199.101 15:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ---The de la Iglesia project is dead. Another project by Distant Horizons is in development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.212.21.104 (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Racist?
Some people say the stereotype is racist. I'm Chinese but I haven't read those books yet. Is that true the author wrote them because of his racism? WooyiTalk, Editor review 04:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The author was a man of his times, so Fu Manchu is intended to be racist. The author made Fu Manchu a respectable and capable antagonist though. From his writings the author doesn't see Fu Manchu as an inferior human like a racist viewpoint, but he is a great enemy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.70.224 (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC) In as much as racism is the result of fear of the unlike, it is a racist work. However, it should be noted that part of that fear is of a Chinese character that shatters the prevailing racist stereotype of the early twentieth century. Dr. Fu Manchu is a genius, tall, commanding, and honorable at all times. The inherent tragedy, from the narrator's viewpoint, is that he is politically opposed to European imperialism as he is the moral and intellectual superior of the protagonists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.212.21.104 (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I recall reading "The Drums of Fu Manchu" in my youth when I was struck by the phrase from Nayland Smith " I belive that 25% of the coloured races are in league with Fu Manchu." at which point I began to doubt the author's sanity (although the Chinese probably are 25 % of the world's population.)--Streona (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)It should be recalled that the terrorist organization that Dr. Fu Manchu belonged to - the Si-Fan, was not a Chinese organization. Based in Tibet, the Si-Fan's ruling council and body included Asians, Arabs, Jews, Africans, Egyptians, Europeans, British, Americans, etc. Their primary purpose was to stem Western influence in the East and they were strongly anti-imperialist. In that context, Rohmer's offending quote seems quite reasonable when viewed through the eyes of a British colonialist in the late 1930s.

The "racism" is probably hugely blown out of proportion by skim-reading PC maniacs (and these days probably people that haven't even read the books, they just formulate thier opinions from biased articles they have read about them). For instance you hear Bulldog Drummond mentioned as almost a byword for racist adventure stories, and yet in the thumping great 800 page Bulldog Drummond book recently released (containing the first four stories, which encompass the fight against one villain) there's maybe five racist sentences... in 800 pages! Yet the way some people talk about these books you'd think they were some sort of Nazi propaganda. An oft-quoted line from the Fu Manchu books is the hero claiming to be "acting in the interests of the white race", well if the devil doctor wants to exterminate the white race i suppose somebody who opposes him would be. In the same way the people that fought Hitler were "acting in the interests of the jewish race". Incendentally the racial angle seems to have even been dropped from the later stories, and one of the last ones had a half Chinese hero. It is incedentally never explicitly mentioned that Fu Manchu IS Chinese, and his apperance is supposed to have been based on a mummified Egyptian king as much as a Chinese criminal the author saw in Limehouse whilst doing some reporting for a news magazine. If you want my opinion, buy some books and get immersed in an era when adventure stories were honest, straightforward and had no apologies to make!81.129.121.122 (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Music
There is also a great 70s band named Fu Manchu. They're still making records today.

Bruno Lang
I've split off a stub article for The Shadow of Fu Manchu radio program and find to my surprise that my research cannot demonstrate the accuracy of a statement in this article, that "Bruno Lang" played Fu Manchu on radio in 1939-40. My source gives Hanley Stafford. IMDB has no entry for a Bruno Lang and, although this suggestion returns numerous times in a Google search, it seems as though all the citations are based on Wikipedia. Can anyone offer any citations for information about Bruno Lang? My source also gives Bruno WICK for the actor in Flash Gordon. Accounting4Taste: talk 04:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed material that my reference cannot back up -- the 1944 radio programme is not mentioned anywhere either, including the OTRR Library, and I very much doubt it exists -- and provided a citation. If someone can demonstrate that these assertions are true, with a reliable source or two to back them up, by all means return them.  Accounting4Taste: talk 16:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

'Edinburgh University is criminally ignoring its link to Dr Fu Manchu'
--Mais oui! (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Times, 4 April 2010

 * Wayback Machine --Jesdisciple (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Egypt
This is all I know about this subject, but (back in the 1960s?) (in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction?) I read an essay that said that Dr. Fu Manchu had hinted about an origin in ancient Egypt, a hint that Robert E. Howard took and went one better in Skull-Face, in which the Devil Doctor is shown to be a surviving Atlantean. J S Ayer (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Collier's Magazine "Mask of Fu Manchu"
" a Harvard University student group petitioned MGM producer William Randolph Hearst (who had also serialised the novel in his Cosmopolitan magazine) to cease making further films based on the property."

This statement is inaccurate- The Mask of Fu Manchu was serialised in Collier's magazine, not Cosmopolitan. See here:. 176.61.97.121 (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"Authorized"
Authorized by whom? Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

rohmers page says the estate. no citation still though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.86.53 (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

 * The Society of Authors and The Authors Guild jointly administer The Sax Rohmer Literary Estate. This is noted in the continuation novels starting with Van Ash. 70.191.119.68 (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

list of actors ages
list seems out of place and feels like OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.86.53 (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Appearance In "The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen"
Fu Manchu appears as "The Devil Doctor", never mentioned as "Fu Manchu" to avoid copywriter issues , in the first series of "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" by Allan Moore & Dave Gibbons. 75.104.174.49 (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite
This article is poorly developed and sourced, and needs to be rewritten entirely. The article itself gives more information on the characters of the series rather than Fu Manchu himself. Since this is an article on Fu Manchu's character this is unnecessary and needs to be removed from the article. All information should be about the appearances, development of the character which should be given proper citations for its information. Appearances section should be relatively brief on each of the character's appearances and should be given proper citations for the information that is shown. The development section should be split into the following sub-sections: Concept and creation; and one on actors portraying the character. This article has a lot of work that is needed for it to meet Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards. If enough attention is given to it this article, it can meet GA and possibly FA status.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

=something you might wish to consider, is that the name Fu Manchu refers not just to a character, but almost a franchise, so the lengthy inclusion of other characters makes sense, just like you will read about Jaws on the James Bond page.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fu Manchu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619171123/http://www.violetbooks.com/yellowperil.html to http://www.violetbooks.com/yellowperil.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Dates needed
The lede & early paragraphs give no dates for the first three appearances of Fu Manchu. This is important both to give context and because there is a large gap before the next book (whose date is given), 1917-1931 iirc. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of dates, the sidebar says "last appearance: 1959" but the movies and actors listed extend well past that date. There's probably a reason, but on its face it doesn't make sense without additional context. 2603:8001:D300:A631:0:0:0:10D0 (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Christopher Lee Dr. Fu Manchu films' availability on home video
It should be mentioned that all five of the Christopher Lee Dr. Fu Manchu films are available on home video, Face and Vengeance on DVD-R by Warner Archive, Brides on both DVD by Warner Home Video (this release was exclusively from Best Buy) and DVD-R from Warner Archive (both times as a double feature with the 1966 horror film Chamber of Horrors) and Blood and Castle on both DVD (two separate releases) and Blu-ray (a two films-in-one disc release) by Blue Underground. Blood and Castle were also both released in their original unedited versions from Europe for the first time in the U.S.

These facts should be mentioned in each film's respective Wikipedia article as well; they've been missing for way too long.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Changing the article's title
I think that the article's title should be changed from Fu Manchu to Dr. Fu Manchu. After all, credit where credit is due.Malcolmlucascollins (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Tony Leung?
The character he plays (in Shang-chi) is only partly inspired by Fu Manchu and is really a separate entity ultimately… shouldn’t his name be removed from this article? BlackAdvisor (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right, he should not be on there. It looks like another editor has already removed the information. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wenwu is more reminiscent of the Marvel version, now known as Zheng Zu, not the character created by Rohmer.Hyju (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * OK good BlackAdvisor (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Fu Manchu


text:
SystemVerilog

SystemVerilog, standardized as IEEE 1800, is a hardware description and hardware verification language used to model, design, simulate, test and implement electronic systems. SystemVerilog is based on Verilog and some extensions, and since 2008, Verilog is now part of the same IEEE standard. It is commonly used in the semiconductor and electronic design industry as an evolution of Verilog.

History
SystemVerilog started with the donation of the Superlog language to Accellera in 2002 by the startup company Co-Design Automation. The bulk of the verification functionality is based on the OpenVera language donated by Synopsys. In 2005, SystemVerilog was adopted as IEEE Standard 1800-2005. In 2009, the standard was merged with the base Verilog (IEEE 1364-2005) standard, creating IEEE Standard 1800-2009.

The SystemVerilog standard was subsequently updated in 2012, 2017, and most recently in December 2023.

Design features
The feature-set of SystemVerilog can be divided into two distinct roles:

 * 1) SystemVerilog for register-transfer level (RTL) design is an extension of Verilog-2005; all features of that language are available in SystemVerilog. Therefore, Verilog is a subset of SystemVerilog.
 * 2) SystemVerilog for verification uses extensive object-oriented programming techniques and is more closely related to Java than Verilog. These constructs are generally not synthesizable.

The remainder of this article discusses the features of SystemVerilog not present in Verilog-2005.

Data lifetime
There are two types of data lifetime specified in SystemVerilog: static and automatic. Automatic variables are created the moment program execution comes to the scope of the variable. Static variables are created at the start of the program's execution and keep the same value during the entire program's lifespan, unless assigned a new value during execution.

Any variable that is declared inside a task or function without specifying type will be considered automatic. To specify that a variable is static place the " " keyword in the declaration before the type, e.g., " ". The " " keyword is used in the same way.

New data types
Enhanced variable types add new capability to Verilog's "reg" type:

Verilog-1995 and -2001 limit reg variables to behavioral statements such as RTL code. SystemVerilog extends the reg type so it can be driven by a single driver such as gate or module. SystemVerilog names this type "logic" to remind users that it has this extra capability and is not a hardware register. The names "logic" and "reg" are interchangeable. A signal with more than one driver (such as a tri-state buffer for general-purpose input/output) needs to be declared a net type such as "wire" so SystemVerilog can resolve the final value.

Multidimensional packed arrays unify and extend Verilog's notion of "registers" and "memories":

Classical Verilog permitted only one dimension to be declared to the left of the variable name. SystemVerilog permits any number of such "packed" dimensions. A variable of packed array type maps 1:1 onto an integer arithmetic quantity. In the example above, each element of  may be used in expressions as a six-bit integer. The dimensions to the right of the name (32 in this case) are referred to as "unpacked" dimensions. As in Verilog-2001, any number of unpacked dimensions is permitted.

Enumerated data types allow numeric quantities to be assigned meaningful names. Variables declared to be of enumerated type cannot be assigned to variables of a different enumerated type without casting. This is not true of parameters, which were the preferred implementation technique for enumerated quantities in Verilog-2005:

As shown above, the designer can specify an underlying arithmetic type ( in this case) which is used to represent the enumeration value. The meta-values X and Z can be used here, possibly to represent illegal states. The built-in function  returns an ASCII string for the current enumerated value, which is useful in validation and testing.

New integer types: SystemVerilog defines,  ,   and   as two-state signed integral types having 8, 16, 32, and 64 bits respectively. A  type is a variable-width two-state type that works much like. Two-state types lack the X and Z metavalues of classical Verilog; working with these types may result in faster simulation.

Structures and unions work much like they do in the C programming language. SystemVerilog enhancements include the packed attribute and the tagged attribute. The  attribute allows runtime tracking of which member(s) of a union are currently in use. The  attribute causes the structure or union to be mapped 1:1 onto a packed array of bits. The contents of  data types occupy a continuous block of memory with no gaps, similar to bitfields in C and C++:

As shown in this example, SystemVerilog also supports typedefs, as in C and C++.

Procedural blocks
SystemVerilog introduces three new procedural blocks intended to model hardware:  (to model combinational logic),   (for flip-flops), and   (for latches). Whereas Verilog used a single, general-purpose  block to model different types of hardware structures, each of SystemVerilog's new blocks is intended to model a specific type of hardware, by imposing semantic restrictions to ensure that hardware described by the blocks matches the intended usage of the model. An HDL compiler or verification program can take extra steps to ensure that only the intended type of behavior occurs.

An  block models combinational logic. The simulator infers the sensitivity list to be all variables from the contained statements:

An  block models level-sensitive latches. Again, the sensitivity list is inferred from the code:

An  block models synchronous logic (especially edge-sensitive sequential logic):

Electronic design automation (EDA) tools can verify the design's intent by checking that the hardware model does not violate any block usage semantics. For example, the new blocks restrict assignment to a variable by allowing only one source, whereas Verilog's  block permitted assignment from multiple procedural sources.

Interfaces
For small designs, the Verilog port compactly describes a module's connectivity with the surrounding environment. But major blocks within a large design hierarchy typically possess port counts in the thousands. SystemVerilog introduces concept of interfaces to both reduce the redundancy of port-name declarations between connected modules, as well as group and abstract related signals into a user-declared bundle. An additional concept is modport, which shows the direction of logic connections.

Example:

Verification features
The following verification features are typically not synthesizable, meaning they cannot be implemented in hardware based on HDL code. Instead, they assist in the creation of extensible, flexible test benches.

New data types
The  data type represents a variable-length text string. For example:

In addition to the static array used in design, SystemVerilog offers dynamic arrays, associative arrays and queues:

A dynamic array works much like an unpacked array, but offers the advantage of being dynamically allocated at runtime (as shown above.) Whereas a packed array's size must be known at compile time (from a constant or expression of constants), the dynamic array size can be initialized from another runtime variable, allowing the array to be sized and resize arbitrarily as needed.

An associative array can be thought of as a binary search tree with a user-specified key type and data type. The key implies an ordering; the elements of an associative array can be read out in lexicographic order. Finally, a queue provides much of the functionality of the C++ STL deque type: elements can be added and removed from either end efficiently. These primitives allow the creation of complex data structures required for scoreboarding a large design.

Classes
SystemVerilog provides an object-oriented programming model.

In SystemVerilog, classes support a single-inheritance model, but may implement functionality similar to multiple-inheritance through the use of so-called "interface classes" (identical in concept to the  feature of Java). Classes can be parameterized by type, providing the basic function of C++ templates. However, template specialization and function templates are not supported.

SystemVerilog's polymorphism features are similar to those of C++: the programmer may specifically write a  function to have a derived class gain control of the function. See virtual function for further information.

Encapsulation and data hiding is accomplished using the  and   keywords, which must be applied to any item that is to be hidden. By default, all class properties are public.

Class instances are dynamically created with the  keyword. A constructor denoted by  can be defined. SystemVerilog has automatic garbage collection, so there is no language facility to explicitly destroy instances created by the new operator.

Example:

Constrained random generation
Integer quantities, defined either in a class definition or as stand-alone variables in some lexical scope, can be assigned random values based on a set of constraints. This feature is useful for creating randomized scenarios for verification.

Within class definitions, the  and   modifiers signal variables that are to undergo randomization. specifies permutation-based randomization, where a variable will take on all possible values once before any value is repeated. Variables without modifiers are not randomized.

In this example, the  field is not randomized; in practice it will be computed with a CRC generator, and the   field used to corrupt it to inject FCS errors. The two constraints shown are applicable to conforming Ethernet frames. Constraints may be selectively enabled; this feature would be required in the example above to generate corrupt frames. Constraints may be arbitrarily complex, involving interrelationships among variables, implications, and iteration. The SystemVerilog constraint solver is required to find a solution if one exists, but makes no guarantees as to the time it will require to do so as this is in general an NP-hard problem (boolean satisfiability).

Randomization methods
In each SystemVerilog class there are 3 predefined methods for randomization: pre_randomize, randomize and post_randomize. The randomize method is called by the user for randomization of the class variables. The pre_randomize method is called by the randomize method before the randomization and the post_randomize method is called by the randomize method after randomization.

Controlling constraints
The constraint_mode and the random_mode methods are used to control the randomization. constraint_mode is used to turn a specific constraint on and off and the random_mode is used to turn a randomization of a specific variable on or off. The below code describes and procedurally tests an Ethernet frame:

Assertions
Assertions are useful for verifying properties of a design that manifest themselves after a specific condition or state is reached. SystemVerilog has its own assertion specification language, similar to Property Specification Language. The subset of SystemVerilog language constructs that serves assertion is commonly called SystemVerilog Assertion or SVA.

SystemVerilog assertions are built from sequences and properties. Properties are a superset of sequences; any sequence may be used as if it were a property, although this is not typically useful.

Sequences consist of boolean expressions augmented with temporal operators. The simplest temporal operator is the  operator which performs a concatenation:

This sequence matches if the  signal goes high one clock cycle after   goes high. Note that all sequence operations are synchronous to a clock.

Other sequential operators include repetition operators, as well as various conjunctions. These operators allow the designer to express complex relationships among design components.

An assertion works by continually attempting to evaluate a sequence or property. An assertion fails if the property fails. The sequence above will fail whenever  is low. To accurately express the requirement that  follow   a property is required:

This example shows an implication operator. The clause to the left of the implication is called the antecedent and the clause to the right is called the consequent. Evaluation of an implication starts through repeated attempts to evaluate the antecedent. When the antecedent succeeds, the consequent is attempted, and the success of the assertion depends on the success of the consequent. In this example, the consequent won't be attempted until  goes high, after which the property will fail if   is not high on the following clock.

In addition to assertions, SystemVerilog supports assumptions and coverage of properties. An assumption establishes a condition that a formal logic proving tool must assume to be true. An assertion specifies a property that must be proven true. In simulation, both assertions and assumptions are verified against test stimuli. Property coverage allows the verification engineer to verify that assertions are accurately monitoring the design.

Coverage
Coverage as applied to hardware verification languages refers to the collection of statistics based on sampling events within the simulation. Coverage is used to determine when the device under test (DUT) has been exposed to a sufficient variety of stimuli that there is a high confidence that the DUT is functioning correctly. Note that this differs from code coverage which instruments the design code to ensure that all lines of code in the design have been executed. Functional coverage ensures that all desired corner and edge cases in the design space have been explored.

A SystemVerilog coverage group creates a database of "bins" that store a histogram of values of an associated variable. Cross-coverage can also be defined, which creates a histogram representing the Cartesian product of multiple variables.

A sampling event controls when a sample is taken. The sampling event can be a Verilog event, the entry or exit of a block of code, or a call to the  method of the coverage group. Care is required to ensure that data are sampled only when meaningful.

For example:

In this example, the verification engineer is interested in the distribution of broadcast and unicast frames, the size/f_type field and the payload size. The ranges in the payload size coverpoint reflect the interesting corner cases, including minimum and maximum size frames.

Synchronization
A complex test environment consists of reusable verification components that must communicate with one another. Verilog's 'event' primitive allowed different blocks of procedural statements to trigger each other, but enforcing thread synchronization was up to the programmer's (clever) usage. SystemVerilog offers two primitives specifically for interthread synchronization: mailbox and semaphore. The mailbox is modeled as a FIFO message queue. Optionally, the FIFO can be type-parameterized so that only objects of the specified type may be passed through it. Typically, objects are class instances representing transactions: elementary operations (for example, sending a frame) that are executed by the verification components. The semaphore is modeled as a counting semaphore.

General improvements to classical Verilog
In addition to the new features above, SystemVerilog enhances the usability of Verilog's existing language features. The following are some of these enhancements:

 * The procedural assignment operators (<=, =) can now operate directly on arrays.
 * Port (inout, input, output) definitions are now expanded to support a wider variety of data types: struct, enum, real, and multi-dimensional types are supported.
 * The for loop construct now allows automatic variable declaration inside the for statement. Loop flow control is improved by the continue and break statements.
 * SystemVerilog adds a do/while loop to the  while  loop construct.
 * Constant variables, i.e. those designated as non-changing during runtime, can be designated by use of const.
 * Variable initialization can now operate on arrays.
 * Increment and decrement operators are supported in SystemVerilog, as are other compound assignment operators  as in C and descendants.
 * The preprocessor has improved `define macro-substitution capabilities, specifically substitution within literal-strings (""), as well as concatenation of multiple macro-tokens into a single word.
 * The fork/join construct has been expanded with join_none and join_any.
 * Additions to the `timescale directive allow simulation timescale to be controlled more predictably in a large simulation environment, with each source file using a local timescale.
 * Task ports can now be declared ref. A reference gives the task body direct access to the source arguments in the caller's scope, known as "pass by reference" in computer programming.  Since it is operating on the original variable itself, rather than a copy of the argument's value, the task/function can modify variables (but not nets) in the caller's scope in real time.  The inout/output port declarations pass variables by value, and defer updating the caller-scope variable until the moment the task exits.
 * Functions can now be declared void, which means it returns no value.
 * Parameters can be declared any type, including user-defined typedefs.

Besides this, SystemVerilog allows convenient interface to foreign languages (like C/C++), by SystemVerilog DPI (Direct Programming Interface).

Verification and synthesis software
In the design verification role, SystemVerilog is widely used in the chip-design industry. The three largest EDA vendors (Cadence Design Systems, Mentor Graphics, Synopsys) have incorporated SystemVerilog into their mixed-language HDL simulators. Although no simulator can yet claim support for the entire SystemVerilog Language Reference Manual, making testbench interoperability a challenge, efforts to promote cross-vendor compatibility are underway. In 2008, Cadence and Mentor released the Open Verification Methodology, an open-source class-library and usage-framework to facilitate the development of re-usable testbenches and canned verification-IP. Synopsys, which had been the first to publish a SystemVerilog class-library (VMM), subsequently responded by opening its proprietary VMM to the general public. Many third-party providers have announced or already released SystemVerilog verification IP.

In the design synthesis role (transformation of a hardware-design description into a gate-netlist), SystemVerilog adoption has been slow. Many design teams use design flows which involve multiple tools from different vendors. Most design teams cannot migrate to SystemVerilog RTL-design until their entire front-end tool suite (linters, formal verification and automated test structure generators) support a common language subset.

title: SystemVerilog


text:
Heartbreaking World

"Heartbreaking World", released Oct. 1985, is the third UK single released from Squeeze's sixth album, Cosi Fan Tutti Frutti. While every other Squeeze single was written by the team of Chris Difford and Glenn Tilbrook, this one was penned by Difford and keyboardist Jools Holland. This is also the only Squeeze single to feature a lead vocal by Holland. Holland's younger brother Chris Holland also plays emulator on this track.

7"

 * 1) "Heartbreaking World" (5:07)
 * 2) "Big Beng" (4:02)

10"

 * 1) "Heartbreaking World" (5:07)
 * 2) "Big Beng" (4:02)
 * 3) "By Your Side (live)" (4:32)
 * 4) "Tempted (live)" (4:16)

title: Heartbreaking World


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suavecito

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

The result of the debate was BJAODN. --Tony Sidaway Talk 16:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Suavecito
Thought this was about the song of the same name. Not sure exactly what this is. - Lucky 6.9 01:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete - the article has significantly changed from when the Vfd started, but I still can't make much sense out of it; it seems to be nonsense. --Mysidia (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN so bizarre! -ShadowStaller 03:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN. It's like the follow up to the Voynich Manuscript. Cnwb 04:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN; I see weird articles |04:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL! I like BJAODN less the contact info.  It's "heven on earth," after all. - Lucky 6.9 05:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN So mote it be. Galactic Federation Earth Wizard Alf. 13:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * >Jonsense; well, this one got me laughing in the 'slightly disturbed that someone would spend some hours typing this up and posting it on an encyclopaedia' way. Wikipedia really is not the place for this, but I give all my wishes to whichever space voyager wrote it: I hope that you do find your heaven on earth, someday: I think that one takes a left on the Nebraska state line, and keeps driving in a straight line. IINAG 14:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- DS1953 15:03, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not even funny Groeck 18:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN, and change the author's medication level. Grutness...  wha?  08:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN. Vanity. *drew 22:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Government of South Africa

False information
The passage on the Legislature contains false information. South Africa's parliament is NOT elected in single member constituencies at all. The country uses a PR system with regional multi member constituencies (MMCs) and one national MMC. Parties put up closed lists for either both parts of the system or for the regional MMCs only. The voter has one vote only for the National Assembly. Elections take place every five years.

I changed it correspondingly.

Provincial Legislatures
Does anyone have any information on the powers of the provincial legislatures? What are their areas of competence? Do they have a right to make legislation that the central government cannot override? Joziboy 19 May 2006, 19:25 (UTC)

Rephrase Recruitment Policy
South African Correctional Services need to rephrase their recruitment policy, by so doing; the department will gain more qualified staff. Their requirements should at least say “grade 12 but Correctional Services degree will be an advantage, because they are people who have specialised in this field rather than grade 12.

Type of government
I'm not sure the current language is a good description of the system of goverment in South Africa. The passage I'm questioning, from the lied, says, "operating under a Westminster-styled parliamentary system." I think this is problematic, at best.

South Africa and Botswana present a special case, since their system of government is unusual. I don't believe, then, that claiming South Africa uses the Westminster system is accurate. The WS does not, for example, envision vesting the powers of head of state and head of government in a single individual. In a Westminster-style government, the head of government does not have a fixed term of office.

More broadly, I'm not sure that calling South Africa a parliamentary system is accurate, either, for similar reasons. I am not clear as to whether the South African president continues to act as an MP, but if he does not, and is not chief legislator, then his position is very much that of a president in a presidential system, albeit one with an extremely limited electorate (the members of parliament). It's worth noting that the Wikipedia page on the Parliamentary system features a map, the caption of which reads, in part: "Presidential republics with an executive presidency linked to a parliament are denoted in green." Surely this is closer to the mark: unlike presidents in parliamentary republics, the President of South Africa is truly the chief executive, with some legislative power delegated to him. Although he must be an MP to attain the office, he acts as a president, not subject to a binding no-confidence vote.

I could be incorrect here. I just think that some authoritative source should be found if the label parliamentary system is to be used, and the "Westminister-style" language should be dropped. I'd propose the following instead:

"'The Republic of South Africa is a constitutional democracy with a three-tier system of government and an independent judiciary, operating in a nearly unique system that combines aspects of parliamentary and presidential systems. Legislative authority is held by the Parliament of South Africa. Executive authority is vested in the President of South Africa, who is head of state and head of government, and his Cabinet. The president is elected from the Parliament to serve a fixed term.'"

This language is a bit wordier, I know, but it is similar to the language found in other articles, such as Government of Italy, and provides a quick explanation. It doesn't imprint a specific label on the South African/Botswanan model, but does describe its traits more accurately than implying that it is pure parliamentarianism. Sacxpert (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I've just overturned most of this. SA absolutely does NOT have anything even slightly resembling a presidential system. In a presidential system, such as the United States, the President is directly and personally elected by the people - i.e. the presidential candidate is a specific named individual on the ballot. The President of the US is only answerable to Congress for only a few limited aspects of his job - in practice the only "control" Congress has over the president is to not give him money. In SA the parliament directly elects and "owns" the president, they can get rid of him at any time. In a parliamentary system the HOG is a Member of Parliament and is elected by the Parliament. In SA the people do not vote for named individuals at all in national elections - the ballots only specify parties. The fact that SA does not have a ceremonial HOS separate from the executive HOG is a fairly trivial detail, it does not by itself overthrow the notion that SA has a parliamentary system. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Important notice
The government section of the "Outline of South Africa" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.

When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.

Please check that this country's outline is not in error.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist.

Thank you.

Why does South Africa have 3 Capital cities?
Lots of information is given about how the South African government is set up but no reason is given for why South Africa has 3 separate capital cities, rather than just one with the different branches of government functioning within that one city. Why does South Africa have 3 separate capital cities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.203.9 (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

 * It was a political decision at the time of the formation of the Union of South Africa. The Transvaal, Free State and Cape Colony each wanted their capital to the the capital of the new Union. In the end it was decided to give them each a specific capital function. See: . I don't think this situation is unique to South Africa, but can't offhand think of another country were this is the case. --NJR_ZA (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

4 cabinet departments and what each is responsible. basic education
 * higher education and training
 * science and tecnology
 * sports and recreation
 * arts and culture

finance
 * economic development
 * national planning commision
 * performance monitoring,evaluation

health
 * social development
 * women, youth, children and people with disabilities

justice and constitutional
 * correctional services
 * state security
 * police
 * defence and military veterans--196.208.207.76 (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Government of South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717112144/http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/index.htm to http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/index.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Budget Image Typo
There is a typo in the image of the South African budget, reading "South Afircan" BigDaddyDouglas (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

 * Appreciate logies, the typo is "Arfican " BigDaddyDouglas (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * iyhoo@njij 41.114.193.47 (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The national government
A summary 41.113.10.63 (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Government of South Africa


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Bozulich

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Tony Sidaway Talk 16:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Richard Bozulich
The subject of this article appears to be notable, but according to the author, has requested that this article be deleted. My vote is to keep based on his work with go, but there may be some validity to granting his request. I dunno. Denni ☯ 01:24, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
 * Comment. What is the basis for the subject's request for removal? I couldn't find any info on the talk page. Pburka 01:38, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have placed a request on the author's talk page for input into this discussion. Denni ☯ 02:09, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have no problem with this article. Alf 13:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. What would we do if George Bush requested his article be removed? Trollderella 16:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Must be a Keep. Maybe not-notable details could be removed - I don't see what his degree has to do with anything. 195.92.168.165 17:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops, that's me. Grayum 17:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per User:Trollderella. Hall Monitor 18:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. Dottore So 19:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 21:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. *drew 22:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bozulich is a well known figure in his field of publishing. The article should be careful about POV when it comes to past history; but I see no reason to have it deleted. Charles Matthews 15:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
User talk:Martyman/Archive1

Hi Martyman - welcome to Wikipedia. You might like to start by reading the tutorial and introducing yourself at the new users page. If you have any questions, you can ask at the help desk or on my talk page. Two useful tips are that you can sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ) and you can preview your changes before you save using the show preview button. You can regularly find new tips on the Community Portal. I look forward to reading your great articles and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. :) Ambi 05:53, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Are you from Canberra, or the university? We've got a fair few holes in content in that area, and it'd be good to have another person around to fill some of them.

Hi Ambi, thanks for the info, I will add some information to my user page soon. Yes I am from Canberra and work at the Research School of Physical Sciences and Engineering at the ANU. I intend to try and flesh out the ANU's entry a fair bit when I get a chance. Are there other Canberra entries that need work? Martyman 22:38, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh, this is wonderful! Yes, there's a lot of Canberra-related stuff that needs work. To my knowledge, there's only two of you at the moment, and one prospective-Canberran (me!). Regardless, I'm going to start a project (like WikiProject Melbourne) in order to coordinate filling in some of these holes. I just created List of Canberra suburbs the other day, and I've been meaning to try and expand the University article some more (although all I have is what is on the website and in the material I picked up at Open Day). Ambi 12:43, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Ack, you're right. They should be at Suburb, Australian Capital Territory. Also, if Hall, Tharwa, etc, are not technically in Canberra, then it may be an idea to remove those suburbs. Ambi 23:55, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does ANU have a motto and/or coat of arms? It'd be good to add them to the article if this is the case. Ambi 06:34, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not all that good I'm afraid: Image:Canberra-lake-panorama01_JAC.jpg

I'm adding your Lake Burley Griffin article to WP:FAC. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * One last thing: "The lake is stocked annually with a variety of introduced and native species, over 1.26 fish have been released since 1964." Ummm... that doesn't seem like very many fish! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:54, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, if its ok to ask, could you use your photographic skills to get some pics at the Botanic Gardens? I'm going to put a page up next week after my thesis is safely handed in--nixie 09:21, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Beautiful photography
I reuploaded your 'Srivener Dam' Photo to 'S c rivener Dam', fixed the relevant links. The original might be safely deleted now. I'll leave that for you to do if you wish. Thanks for adding your splendid work to the encyclopedia! I added your Scrivener dam image to the Dam article, and am going to vote for your Lake Burley article for featured article status. Pedant 17:43, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

Trangia image
Martyman, I used your very nice picture on portable stove, hope you don't mind.

Duk 04:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tuggeranong
Ack - I didn't know. Thanks. I've reverted myself on those three articles. Ambi 10:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think a map of the ACT is useless as an indicator of the whereabouts of APH. A smaller-scale map of inner Canberra might be more useful. Adam 08:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ABS
How do you get suburb details out of the 2001 census, its driving me crazy. Thanks --nixie 02:16, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yarralumula
Good work on the Yarralumla article Marty. It's certainly one of Canberra's more interesting suburbs and one I'm personally fond of having spent part of my childhood there (Bailey Place). I read through most of the article and did some proof-reading edits as I went. I noticed we had some sort of simultaneous editing conflict as I was going along - hope that didn't mess anything up. Oska 01:11, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Looks like we co-incided then. I lived there from 1980-1984. My father still regrets selling that house. Moved on from there to Tasmania Circle Forrest.

I noticed your excellent photo of the brickworks. I remember accompanying my mother who was doing a photography course, on walks to the brickworks where she would photograph the chimney. My wanderings usually focussed more on the lake shore. It really wasn't a bad place to grow up. I still feel nostalgic for the physical environment of Canberra but culturally I find the place very narrow whenever I return there. Sorry if this sounds like the usual Canberra bashing but I do now see the place with an outsider's eyes.

Great surrounding countryside though. Used to do vegetation survey work in Namadgi Park which I loved and the bushwalking in the Budawangs which I see you've also written on is superb. Oska 01:31, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Responses
Firstly, please don't take offense at my criticisms - I tend be very critical of a lot of FA nominations, so that by the time they get to FA status, they're as good as Wikipedia can get.

As for the lead section - the first paragraph is alright, and the second is a half-hearted attempt at covering the history. IMO, Summer Hill does the lead section really well for this sort of thing.

With the landmarks section, it's just that Wikipedia isn't a tourist guide. The brief paragraphs don't really work, as Jeronimo as pointed out, and are things like Hotel Canberra that important that they deserve two or three decent-sized paragraphs? Compare Sarajevo and Marshall, Texas - they don't have mountains of information about individual local landmarks. But, IMO, there's the potential for a decent section there - that's why I suggested summarising them all into one or two paragraphs of prose. The example page in the sandbox is a good start, but could perhaps be summarised more.

With the amenities, why not merge the public transport paragraph in with "major roads" to create a transportation section? The amenities section just seems to be a mishmash of various points - perhaps the schools could go in an education section, whereas the information about where the shops are could probably go in a section of its own and then be expanded (ala the "Characteristics" section in Summer Hill).

What I was suggesting with the politics section was more if booth information could be obtained - i.e. how Yarralumla votes/has voted in the past. If that's not possible, then it's fine as is.

Finally, thanks for getting the references and further reading in line - that's now excellent. Ambi 01:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

I just read your comments about rudeness on here. It's a shame to hear that you're getting frustrated it (though you're certainly not the only one). You've done some fantastic work - it'd be a great shame if the project lost your efforts. Ambi 13:48, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I second Ambi's comments. I too have had a photo unceremoniously dumped by Adam in favour of his own. As a fellow mapmaker, I hope you stick with it because your maps are excellent. Geoff/Gsl 23:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Map drawing
My maps are almost entirely drawn using vector techniques -- I have zero talent for freehand painting. I have only ever used the GIMP so I don't know how its vector tools compare with Illustrator. As far as uploading source, I haven't been able to do it for some months now as non-standard image formats (such as .xcf) are now rejected. Geoff/Gsl 00:28, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Soda can stove
Hi Martyman, thanks for the Trangia information, I added it to the Comparison to other stoves subsection. Does it look alright to you? Is there any other information applicable to the Operation sub section? Duk 18:40, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On The 10 Random Pages Test
Hi Martin, I've just come across your subpage. Wouldn't you agree that a sample of 10 is ridiculously small if you are using an inductive method -- especially if we keep in mind that Wikipedia is work is progress? I mean, stubs are part of the whole: They are continually being turned into long (and hopefully good) articles, while at the same time new stubs are created.

In particular, I'd like to know why you rate the Laura Blundy article under "bad to terrible" and why exactly you think it "needs work". I'll be glad to expand or rewrite it or whatever if you tell me what you don't like. Again, another way of constantly improving Wikipedia!

Best wishes,  16:33, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi, I agree stubs are needed but if any of the stubs I pointed out are still one or two lines then they are taking too long to evolve into a useful resource.

 * OK, I didn't mean to rate the articles that I said "need work" in the bad to terrible bunch. By "needs work" I mean that the article is not up to the standards I would think acceptable for a 1.0 release. I would expect all articles to be approaching a featured article standard.

 * So in the case of the Laura Blundy article it would probably require illustrations, external links, and more factual information. At the moment the article is 90% synopsis. The authors page disagrees witht he novel page as to when it was published. Examples of much more fleshed out novel articles are quite common on wikipedia, try almost any famous novel. Martyman 22:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Martyman/Archive1