text:
User talk:Puercozon

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! pamri 06:29, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Speedy deletion of Image:200611925 1788471ce7 o d.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:200611925 1788471ce7 o d.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Puercozon


text:
Civil control of the military

Civil control of the military is a doctrine in military and political science that places ultimate responsibility for a country's strategic decision-making in the hands of the state's civil authority, rather than completely with professional military leadership itself. As such, a "fundamental requirement of any nation is to ensure that the activities of its armed forces are subordinated to the political purposes of constitutional government; hence, the armed forces must be under civil control". The concept of civil control falls within the overarching concept of civil-military relations representing the "societal imperative that the military remain subordinate to civil authority and that it reflect, to an appropriate degree, societal values and norms".

Civil oversight over militaries puts the power to take military action in the hands of a civil authority, such as through government ministers or legislative bodies, or the democratic apparatus of the Crown in constitutional monarchies. Allowing the civil component of government to retain control over the military or state security illustrates the power of the citizenry, a healthy respect for democratic values, and what can be described as good governance. Giving power to the civil component of the government over what the military can do and how much money it can spend protects the democratic process from abuse. Nations that can achieve legitimate relationship between the two structures serve to be more effective and provide accountability between government and military.

Civil control can be accomplished in a number of ways, for example through complete civilian control or for a mixed civilian-military approach, for example, "typical for the British model of armed forces administration is the balanced ratio of civilian and military personnel in key ministerial positions". Under the civil control model, a state's government and military are confined to the rule of law and submit to civil oversight to make an effective security apparatus possible. Transparency has taken hold throughout the international system to improve bureaucracy and the democratisation of both democratic countries and resistant authoritarian holdovers. This has grown to involve the armed forces/security forces themselves to work towards the international norm of fully liberalising these organisations.

Civil control is often seen as a prerequisite feature of a stable liberal democracy. Use of the term in scholarly analyses tends to take place in the context of a democracy governed by elected officials, though the subordination of the military to political control is not unique to these societies. For example, there is often civilian control of the military in communist states, such as the People's Republic of China. Mao Zedong stated that "Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party," reflecting the primacy of the Chinese Communist Party over the People's Liberation Army.

As noted by University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill professor Richard H. Kohn, "civilian control is not a fact but a process". Affirmations of respect for the values of civil control notwithstanding, the actual level of control sought or achieved by the civil leadership may vary greatly in practice, from a statement of broad policy goals that military commanders are expected to translate into operational plans, to the direct selection of specific targets for attack on the part of governing politicians. National leaders with limited experience in military matters often have little choice but to rely on the advice of professional military commanders trained in the art and science of warfare to inform the limits of policy; in such cases, the military establishment may enter the bureaucratic arena to advocate for or against a particular course of action, shaping the policy-making process and blurring any clear cut lines of civil control.

The reverse situation, where professional military officers control national politics, is called a military dictatorship.

A lack of control over the military may result in a state within a state, as observed in countries like Pakistan. One author, paraphrasing Samuel P. Huntington's writings in The Soldier and the State, has summarised the civil control ideal as "the proper subordination of a competent, professional military to the ends of policy as determined by civilian authority".

Rationales
Advocates of civil control generally take a Clausewitzian view of war, emphasizing its political character. In the words of Georges Clemenceau, "War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men" (also frequently rendered as "War is too important to be left to the generals"), wryly reflects this view. Given that broad strategic decisions, such as the decision to declare a war, start an invasion, or end a conflict, have a major impact on the citizens of the country, they are seen by civil control advocates as best guided by the will of the people (as expressed by their political representatives), rather than left solely to an elite group of tactical experts. The military serves as a special government agency, which is supposed to implement, rather than formulate, policies that require the use of certain types of physical force. Richard Kohn, Professor Emeritus of History at UNC, summarises, "'The point of civilian control is to make security subordinate to the larger purposes of a nation, rather than the other way around. The purpose of the military is to defend society, not to define it.'"

A state's effective use of force is an issue of great concern for all national leaders, who must rely on the military to supply this aspect of their authority. The danger of granting military leaders full autonomy or sovereignty is that they may ignore or supplant the democratic decision-making process, and use physical force, or the threat of physical force, to achieve their preferred outcomes; in the worst cases, this may lead to a coup or military dictatorship. A related danger is the use of the military to crush domestic political opposition through intimidation or sheer physical force, interfering with the ability to have free and fair elections, a key part of the democratic process. This poses the paradox that "because we fear others we create an institution of violence to protect us, but then we fear the very institution we created for protection". Also, military personnel, because of the nature of their job, are much more willing to use force to settle disputes than civilians because they are trained military personnel that specialise strictly in warfare. The military is authoritative and hierarchical, rarely allowing discussion and prohibiting dissension. For instance, in the Empire of Japan, prime ministers and almost everyone in high positions were military personnel like Hideki Tojo, and advocated and basically pressured the leaders to start military conflicts against China and others because they believed that they would ultimately be victorious.

According to a study of South Korea, the military is responsible for enacting the policy and decisions handed down from the government. This is dependent on the civil government maintaining a strong grip on the power to enact binding decision and the military following these decisions in the agreed approach. Civil control is the authority of a nations political structure to make policy and implementation decisions that can be directed to the military to enact and then oversaw throughout.

Internationally, in the developed world democratic countries have embraced a well-established civil-military relationship that has matured over time into a good working relationship. Newer democracies, depending on their political and military situations, have had to work through overcorrecting towards one side or the other on the seesaw of government control. A government establishing the kind of relationship to avoid civil-military conflict, needs like-minded officials in both organisations to agree and work together. “Democratically accountable civilian control is also associated with more prudent internal uses of armed force.” The main focus of civil control in developing countries remains on ensuring a democratic restraint on militaries acting in their own self-interest. Militaries given too much power or too ethnically focused undermines a nations ability to prevent conflict and provide security. This can lead to the military abusing the very population it is supposed to be protecting with no real controlling mechanism. Most countries have developed similar systems of a ministry of defence to provide civilian oversight and coordination between military and government.

Liberal theory and the American Founding Fathers
Many of the Founding Fathers of the United States were suspicious of standing militaries. As Samuel Adams wrote in 1768, "Even when there is a necessity of the military power, within a land, a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful and jealous eye over it". Even more forceful are the words of Elbridge Gerry, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, who wrote that "[s]tanding armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican Governments, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism."

In Federalist No. 8, one of The Federalist Papers documenting the ideas of some of the Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton expressed concern that maintaining a large standing army would be a dangerous and expensive undertaking. In his principal argument for the ratification of the proposed constitution, he argued that only by maintaining a strong union could the new country avoid such a pitfall. Using the European experience as a negative example and the British experience as a positive one, he presented the idea of a strong nation protected by a navy with no need of a standing army. The implication was that control of a large military force is, at best, difficult and expensive, and at worst invites war and division. He foresaw the necessity of creating a civil government that kept the military at a distance.

James Madison, another writer of many of The Federalist Papers, expressed his concern about a standing military in comments before the Constitutional Convention in June 1787: In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive, will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

The United States Constitution placed considerable limitations on the legislature. Coming from a tradition of legislative superiority in government, many were concerned that the proposed Constitution would place so many limitations on the legislature that it would become impossible for such a body to prevent an executive from starting a war. Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 26 that it would be equally as bad for a legislature to be unfettered by any other agency and that restraints would actually be more likely to preserve liberty. James Madison, in Federalist No. 47, continued Hamilton's argument that distributing powers among the various branches of government would prevent any one group from gaining so much power as to become unassailable. In Federalist No. 48, however, Madison warned that while the separation of powers is important, the departments must not be so far separated as to have no ability to control the others.

Finally, in Federalist No. 51, Madison argued that to create a government that relied primarily on the good nature of the incumbent to ensure proper government was folly. Institutions must be in place to check incompetent or malevolent leaders. Most importantly, no single branch of government ought to have control over any single aspect of governing. Thus, all three branches of government must have some control over the military, and the system of checks and balances maintained among the other branches would serve to help control the military.

Hamilton and Madison thus had two major concerns: (1) the detrimental effect on liberty and democracy of a large standing army and (2) the ability of an unchecked legislature or executive to take the country to war precipitously. These concerns drove U.S. military policy for the first century and a half of the country's existence. While the armed forces were built up during wartime, the pattern after every war up to and including World War II was to demobilise quickly and return to something approaching pre-war force levels. However, with the advent of the Cold War in the 1950s, the need to create and maintain a sizable peacetime military force "engendered new concerns" of militarism and about how such a large force would affect civil–military relations in the United States.

Domestic law enforcement
The United States' Posse Comitatus Act, passed in 1878, prohibits any part of the Army or the Air Force (since the U.S. Air Force evolved from the U.S. Army) from engaging in domestic law enforcement activities unless they do so pursuant to lawful authority. Similar prohibitions apply to the Navy and Marine Corps by service regulation, since the actual Posse Comitatus Act does not apply to them. The Coast Guard is exempt from Posse Comitatus as one of its primary missions is to enforce U.S. laws, even though it is an armed service.

The act is often misunderstood to prohibit any use of federal military forces in law enforcement, but this is not the case. For example, the President has explicit authority under the Constitution and federal law to use federal forces or federalised militias to enforce the laws of the United States. The act's primary purpose is to prevent local law enforcement officials from utilising federal forces in this way by forming a "posse" consisting of federal soldiers or airmen.

There are, however, practical political concerns in the United States that make the use of federal military forces less desirable for use in domestic law enforcement. Under the U.S. Constitution, law and order is primarily a matter of state concern. As a practical matter, when military forces are necessary to maintain domestic order and enforce the laws, state militia forces under state control i.e., that state's Army National Guard and/or Air National Guard are usually the force of first resort, followed by federalized state militia forces i.e., the Army National Guard and/or Air National Guard "federalized" as part of the U.S. Army and/or U.S. Air Force, with active federal forces (to include "federal" reserve component forces other than the National Guard) being the least politically palatable option.

NATO and EU member states
Strong democratic control of the military is a prerequisite for membership in NATO. Strong democracy and rule of law, implying democratic control of the military, are prerequisites for membership in the European Union.

Maoist approach
Maoist military-political theories of people's war and democratic centralism also support the subordination of military forces to the directives of the communist party (although the guerrilla experience of many early leading Chinese Communist Party figures may make their status as civilians somewhat ambiguous). In a 1929 essay On Correcting Mistaken Ideas in the Party, Mao Zedong explicitly refuted "comrades [who] regard military affairs and politics as opposed to each other and [who] refuse to recognize that military affairs are only one means of accomplishing political tasks", prescribing control of the People's Liberation Army by the CCP and greater political training of officers and enlistees as a means of reducing military autonomy. In Mao's theory, the military—which serves both as a symbol of the revolution and an instrument of the dictatorship of the proletariat—is not merely expected to defer to the direction of the ruling non-uniformed Party members (who today exercise control in the People's Republic of China through the Central Military Commission), but also to actively participate in the revolutionary political campaigns of the Maoist era.

Methods of asserting civil control
Civilian leaders cannot usually hope to challenge their militaries by means of force, and thus must guard against any potential usurpation of powers through a combination of policies, laws, and the inculcation of the values of civil control in their armed services. The presence of a distinct civilian police force, militia, or other paramilitary group may mitigate to an extent the disproportionate strength that a country's military possesses; civilian gun ownership has also been justified on the grounds that it prevents potential abuses of power by authorities (military or otherwise). Opponents of gun control have cited the need for a balance of power in order to enforce the civil control of the military.

A civilian commander-in-chief
The establishment of a civilian head of state, head of government, or other government figure as the military's commander-in-chief within the chain of command is one legal construct for the propagation of civilian control. However, in many constitutional monarchies, the monarch is both commander-in-chief and a member of the country's military, thus civil control does not necessitate complete control of only civilians.

In the United States, Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war (in the War Powers Clause), while Article II of the Constitution establishes the President as the commander-in-chief. Ambiguity over when the President could take military action without declaring war resulted in the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

American presidents have used the power to dismiss high-ranking officers as a means to assert policy and strategic control. Three examples include Abraham Lincoln's dismissal of George McClellan in the American Civil War when McClellan failed to pursue the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia following the Battle of Antietam, Harry S. Truman relieving Douglas MacArthur of command in the Korean War after MacArthur repeatedly contradicted the Truman administration's stated policies on the war's conduct, and Barack Obama's acceptance of Stanley McChrystal's resignation in the War in Afghanistan after a Rolling Stone article was published where he mocked several members of the Obama administration, including Vice President Joe Biden.

A major exception occurred during World War II, when Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall displaced the civilian Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson as the most significant leader of the United States Army. Another exception occurred in the 2020-21 United States election crisis when Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley began requiring subordinates to check with him before carrying out orders from President Donald Trump; he also called People's Liberation Army Commander-in-Chief Li Zuocheng to assure him that the United States would not launch a military strike on China and that its federal government would remain stable. Some commentators, former military officials, and Republican members of Congress criticised Milley's actions as an undermining of civil control of the military, while Milley and others defended his actions and claimed he did not overstep his authority.

Composition of the military
Differing opinions exist as to the desirability of distinguishing the military as a body separate from the larger society. In The Soldier and the State, Samuel Huntington argued for what he termed "objective civilian control", "focus[ing] on a politically neutral, autonomous, and professional officer corps". This autonomous professionalism, it is argued, best inculcates an esprit de corps and sense of distinct military corporateness that prevents political interference by sworn servicepersons. Conversely, the tradition of the citizen-soldier holds that "civilianizing" the military is the best means of preserving the loyalty of the armed forces towards civil authorities, by preventing the development of an independent "caste" of warriors that might see itself as existing fundamentally apart from the rest of society. In the early history of the United States, according to Michael Cairo, "[the] principle of civilian control... embodied the idea that every qualified citizen was responsible for the defense of the nation and the defense of liberty, and would go to war, if necessary. Combined with the idea that the military was to embody democratic principles and encourage citizen participation, the only military force suitable to the Founders was a citizen militia, which minimized divisions between officers and the enlisted." In a less egalitarian practice, societies may also blur the line between "civilian" and "military" leadership by making direct appointments of non-professionals (frequently social elites benefitting from patronage or nepotism) to an officer rank. A more invasive method, most famously practiced in the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, involves active monitoring of the officer corps through the appointment of political commissars, posted parallel to the uniformed chain of command and tasked with ensuring that national policies are carried out by the armed forces. The regular rotation of soldiers through a variety of different postings is another effective tool for reducing military autonomy, by limiting the potential for soldiers' attachment to any one particular military unit. Some governments place responsibility for approving promotions or officer candidacies with the civil government, requiring some degree of deference on the part of officers seeking advancement through the ranks.

Technological developments
Historically, direct control over military forces deployed for war was hampered by the technological limits of command, control, and communications; national leaders, whether democratically elected or not, had to rely on local commanders to execute the details of a military campaign, or risk centrally-directed orders' obsolescence by the time they reached the front lines. The remoteness of government from the action allowed professional soldiers to claim military affairs as their own particular sphere of expertise and influence; upon entering a state of war, it was often expected that the generals and field marshals would dictate strategy and tactics, and the civilian leadership would defer to their informed judgments.

Improvements in information technology and its application to wartime command and control (a process sometimes labeled the "Revolution in Military Affairs") has allowed civilian leaders removed from the theatre of conflict to assert greater control over the actions of distant military forces. Precision-guided munitions and real-time videoconferencing with field commanders now allow the civilian leadership to intervene even at the tactical decision-making level, designating particular targets for destruction or preservation based on political calculations or the counsel of non-uniformed advisors.

Restrictions on political activities
In the United States the Hatch Act of 1939 does not directly apply to the military, however, Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 (DoDD 1344.10) essentially applies the same rules to the military. This helps to ensure a non-partisan military and ensure smooth and peaceful transitions of power.

Political officers
Political officers screened for appropriate ideology have been integrated into supervisory roles within militaries as a way to maintain the control by political rulers. Historically they are associated most strongly with the Soviet Union and China rather than liberal democracies.

Military dislike of political directives
While civil control forms the normative standard in almost every society outside of military dictatorships, its practice has often been the subject of pointed criticism from both uniformed and non-uniformed observers, who object to what they view as the undue "politicisation" of military affairs, especially when elected officials or political appointees micromanage the military, rather than giving the military general goals and objectives (like "Defeat Country X"), and letting the military decide how best to carry those orders out. By placing responsibility for military decision-making in the hands of non-professional civilians, critics argue, the dictates of military strategy are subsumed to the political, with the effect of unduly restricting the fighting capabilities of the nation's armed forces for what should be immaterial or otherwise lower priority concerns.

Gothic Wars
In the wars between the Roman Empire and the Goths in Italy during the 500s CE, the incentives of the military and military necessity clashed with the incentives of the civilian leadership in Constantinople led by Emperor Justinian I. Supreme command in principle was held by the magister militum Flavius Belisarius, but his command in Italy was dissented from on a number of instances. Other representatives of the imperial court and generals allied with those representatives disagreed with Belisarius on decisions made, resulting in only a pyrrhic victory in Italy. Justinian sent a message to Belisarius while besieging Ravenna and when the Gothic garrison in the city was close to being defeated, ordering him to return East to assist with the defense of the empire against Khosrow's invasion of the Roman Empire and instructed him to agree to a peace deal with the Goths under conditions considerably favourable to the Goths, but Belisarius objected to the order and delayed his return.

It was a common issue in the Roman Empire that rebellious generals would be able to overthrow the emperor, and emperors commonly clipped the wings of generals who were too successful and too popular, one such assassination of a popular general named Vitelian occurred under the recent reign of Emperor Justin I, the uncle of Justinian. It was a particular issue in the case of Justinian as he had no biological children nor had ever legally adopted a son. During the Plague of Justinian, Belisarius was restricted to Constantinople under the influence of Empress Theodora who was concerned about the risk of a coup while Justinian was struck with a coma as a result of the epidemic.

Case study: United States
The "Revolt of the Admirals" that occurred in 1949 was an attempt by senior U.S. Navy & Marine Corps personnel, to force a change in budgets directly opposed to the directives given by the civilian leadership.

U.S. President Bill Clinton faced frequent allegations throughout his time in office (particularly after the Battle of Mogadishu) that he was ignoring military goals out of political and media pressure—a phenomenon termed the "CNN effect". Politicians who personally lack military training and experience but who seek to engage the nation in military action may risk resistance and being labeled "chickenhawks" by those who disagree with their political goals.

In contesting these priorities, members of the professional military leadership and their non-uniformed supporters may participate in the bureaucratic bargaining process of the state's policy-making apparatus, engaging in what might be termed a form of regulatory capture as they attempt to restrict the policy options of elected officials when it comes to military matters. An example of one such set of conditions is the "Weinberger Doctrine", which sought to forestall another U.S. intervention like that which occurred in the Vietnam War (which had proved disastrous for the morale and fighting integrity of the U.S. military) by proposing that the nation should only go to war in matters of "vital national interest", "as a last resort", and, as updated by Weinberger's disciple Colin Powell, with "overwhelming force". The process of setting military budgets forms another contentious intersection of military and non-military policy, and regularly draws active lobbying by rival military services for a share of the national budget.

Nuclear weapons of the United States are controlled by the civilian Department of Energy, not by the Department of Defense.

During the 1990s and 2000s, public controversy over LGBT policy in the U.S. military led to many military leaders and personnel being asked for their opinions on the matter and being given deference although the decision was ultimately not theirs to make.

During his tenure, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld raised the ire of the military by attempting to reform its structure away from traditional infantry and toward a lighter, faster, more technologically driven force. In April 2006, Rumsfeld was severely criticised by some retired military officers for his handling of the Iraq War, while other retired military officers came out in support of Rumsfeld. Although no active military officers have spoken out against Rumsfeld, the actions of these officers is still highly unusual. Some news accounts have attributed the actions of these generals to the Vietnam War experience, in which officers did not speak out against the administration's handling of military action. Later in the year, immediately after the November elections in which the Democrats gained control of Congress, Rumsfeld resigned.

title: Civil control of the military


text:
Aberedw

Aberedw is a village and community in Radnorshire, Powys, Wales. The community covers an area of 3055 ha. Its population was 229, according to the 2011 census; a 4.57% increase since the 219 people noted in 2001. The 2011 census showed 4.8% of the population could speak Welsh, a fall from 11.2% in 2001.

The ruins of the medieval Aberedw Castle are nearby. The village of Llanbadarn y Garreg is in the community.

It is also the site of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd's death, commonly thought to have occurred in Cilmeri.

The church of St Cewydd is a grade II* listed building.

title: Aberedw


text:
Battlesystem

Battlesystem is a tabletop miniature wargame designed as a supplement for use with the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game. The original Battlesystem was printed as a boxed set in 1985 for use with the first edition AD&D rules. For the second edition of AD&D, a new version of Battesystem was printed as a softcover book in 1989.

Contents
Battlesystem was first released in 1985, compatible with either Advanced Dungeons & Dragons or the Basic / Expert Dungeons & Dragons (see editions of Dungeons & Dragons). The game was promoted as a successor to Chainmail.

In a Battlesystem game, each miniature represents a hero, a commander, or multiple troops, depending on the troops' level or hit dice. There are no statistics in the game for any troops or characters, but, instead, all are derived from the relevant Dungeons & Dragons publications. For instance, to add any creature from the Monster Manual or similar publications as troops, its in-game point cost can be derived from the XP reward listed in the Monster Manual for killing the creature.

The first edition of Battlesystem was a set of rules and components for use in playing mass fantasy battles, involving miniatures rules for metal or cardstock figures, or counters. The first edition set contained rules with beginner and intermediate levels of complexity, four battle scenarios, a guide to miniatures, a number of cardboard figures, and over 800 counters. It was meant to be used with either the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons game or the simpler Dungeons & Dragons rule book sets available at the time.

The first edition of Battlesystem was sold as a box set which contained:

 * 32-page rule book
 * 24-page scenario book
 * 16-page guide to miniatures
 * 2 Player Aid Cards
 * 2 Metal Miniature Generals
 * 3-D Adventure foldup Figures
 * Army Roster Sheets
 * 801 die-cut counters

The Rulebook is divided into four parts, allowing three levels of play. The first part is an introduction. The second part, called "The Basic Game", covers the basic rules of movement and melee combat. The third part, "The Intermediate Game", adds missiles, artillery, cavalry, individual Heroes, special formations and terrain effects. The fourth part, called "The Advanced Game", allows for magic, flying, weather, night battles and special monsters. It also introduces campaign rules that allow for integration of Battlesystem games into a role-playing campaign. The game does not require a Dungeon Master, although the Rulebook recommends use of a referee, especially if using certain magics such as invisibility or illusions.

The Scenario Book contains four scenarios. Three of the scenarios form a linked campaign in a generic fantasy setting, one for each level of the game. The fourth is an advanced game scenario for Dragonlance, Battle of Qualinost. It takes place during the same time period as DL2 Dragons of Flame, while the heroes are in Pax Tharkas.

According to the game's rules, it was designed to be played with either 25 mm or 15 mm miniatures. The game, however, does not require a certain size of miniatures. The official Battlesystem miniatures released at the time, except for two in the box set, were all 15 mm. At the time, many companies producing 25 mm figures were starting to make larger figures, sometimes even officially called as 'Heroic 25 mm' or 28 mm, that were difficult to fit or didn't fit on the official Battlesystem base sizes.

Publication history
The first edition Battlesystem set was designed by Douglas Niles and Steve Winter with a cover by Jeff Easley, and was published in 1985.

Reception
Roger Musson reviewed the original boxed set in Imagine magazine, giving it a positive review. He noted that the rules are fairly easy to use, although there are "some omissions and rules buried in odd places". Musson thought that "no self-respecting DM will want to be without the Battlesystem rules", although he found the other contents of the box of somewhat mixed value. Overall, Musson felt that the package is "to be welcomed" and that it "may provide a good introduction for many to the world of fantasy-wargaming".

Graeme Davis reviewed the original Battlesystem for White Dwarf, giving it a rating of 8/10 overall. He called the rules "concise and well-written". He felt that as a supplement to the D&D game, "the Battle System does what it sets out to do and does it very well; it may not be as detailed as some fantasy wargame rules, but it is adequate for the requirements of most role-players and can be used quite easily by anyone familiar with D&D or AD&D". Davis concluded by stating that "Battle System deserves to be given a chance, but I'm afraid that it may have priced itself out the market from the start."

The original Battlesystem set won the H.G. Wells award.

Contents
The second edition of Battlesystem removed the counters, and focused only on miniatures. In the second edition, a figure represents either: 1) 10 infantrymen or cavalry, or 2) a single hero or other special individual, rated for Attack Dice, Armor Rating, Hits, Morale, and Movement, all derived from their corresponding statistics in the AD&D game. A character's THAC0 and maximum damage, for instance, determine his Attack Dice, while his armor class determines his Armor Rating. A figure's Attack Dice rating indicates the type of die it uses when attacking, from a low of 1d4 to a high of 1d12. In general, each figure in an attacking group is allowed one attack die; a group of eight figures with an Attack Dice rating of 6 rolls 8d6. The higher the roll, the more hits inflicted. The defending player rolls a number of dice equal to the number of successful hits; every roll exceeding the defender's Armor Rating cancels one hit. All hits not canceled by the Armor Rating rolls are taken as casualties. The magic chapter is about seven pages long, most of it devoted to descriptions of spell effects.

The book features glossy, full-color photos of painted miniatures, many of them staged in elaborate battlefield dioramas.

One of the more significant changes was making the use of 25 mm miniatures as standard. According to the rules, 15 mm could still be used, but the base size was increased to allow for larger miniatures. Additionally, all photographs in the rule book were of 25 mm miniatures.

Publication history
The second edition of Battlesystem was published in 1989, revised for use with 2nd edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. It was designed by Douglas Niles and featured a cover by Glen Taranowski. This version was a 128-page softcover book. Editing and development was by Kim Mohan, Jon Pickens, and Dave Sutherland. Photography was by Michael Weaver and Ral Partha Enterprises, Inc. for the battle scenes, and Dick Kahn Studio, Inc. for the rules diagrams. Figure painting was by Dave Sutherland, with interior art by Jeff Easley and Keith Parkinson, and graphic design by Stephanie Tabat and Dave Sutherland.

The second edition of Battlesystem became available in the form of two books called Battlesystem (1989) and Battlesystem Skirmishes (1991).

Despite positive reviews, sales for the set were disappointing. This led to it not being actively supported and used in role playing systems such as Dark Sun for very long even though the Dark Sun setting had been developed with the intent of holding large-scale battles. The 1992 Dragon Kings hardcover book, for example, included Battlesystem options, even though game designer Rick Swan considered them "useful but nonessential".

Reception
The game won the 1989 Origins Award for "Best Miniatures Rules of 1989".

Rick Swan reviewed Battlesystem for Dragon magazine #178 (February 1992). Swan declared both the second edition Battlesystem and Battlesystem Skirmishes books "flat-out gorgeous, two of the best-looking products TSR, Inc. has ever published", and that they both "make terrific guides for figure painting and are a pleasure to thumb through, even for those with only a passing interest in miniatures games". Swan suggests that players "frustrated by the tentative systems in the first-edition Battlesystem game" would be "in for a pleasant surprise with the second edition, a complete overhaul that's as impressive as the 1st-to-2nd Edition transformation of the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide. Gone from the original game are the math-heavy combat tables, the awkward base sizes, and the quarter-page unit rosters; they're replaced by streamlined bookkeeping systems, cleaner attack procedures, and a plethora of clever options. Particularly welcome is the reduction of relevant statistics from a dozen-plus to a mere five." Swan felt that "the conversions are sound, if a bit convoluted, and produce acceptable results on the battlefield". He also felt that any players "willing to swallow the compromises inherent in the system will find the basic rules elegant and satisfying". He felt that while it was not unusual to roll a lot of dice to resolve a single combat engagement, "the system is preferable to the dreary bookkeeping required by too many miniatures games". He considered the magic system "Less successful", in that it "doesn't translate from the AD&D game as well as the combat rules, and that the descriptions of spell effects are "sketchy" and the spell list is "woefully incomplete" with fewer than 20 wizard spells discussed. Swan concluded the review by saying: "Even though it emphasizes the military aspect more than the magical, the Battlesystem game scores as a first-class miniatures game; engaging, challenging, and - considering its scope - surprisingly easy to manage. The Battlesystem Skirmishes game succeeds in smoothing over the rough spots in the AD&D combat rules, but it reaches the point of diminishing returns in battles approaching several dozen figures per side; at that point, you might as well use the Battlesystem rules. For its versatility and sheer volume of material, the Battlesystem book has the edge over the Battlesystem Skirmishes rules, but both books are recommended to AD&D combat aficionados and especially to students of figure painting - these photos are real knock-outs."

title: Battlesystem


text: User talk:72.128.1.131

title: User talk:72.128.1.131


text:
Talk:Battle of Lundy's Lane

Catherine Lundy?
I have always been told by my teacher that Catherine Lundy is a very importanat figure at Lundy's lane, However, there seems to be no article about her, and I don't know enough to actually start it, so could someone please do that? Only a suggestion, but...--Johanna451940 00:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Catherine Lundy opened her home to wounded British soldiers at the Battle of Niagara Falls. This was unique as most women simply hid from war, and most certainly saved lives and demonstrated the loyalty of the people of Canada. 2607:FEA8:E5D:8100:2553:510C:35B8:4E2B (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Catherine Lundy was born in the late 1700s to Elizabeth Garvey and Lieutenant Daniel Shannon of the British army. As a teen, she married Thomas Lundy, with whom she would eventually have eight children. They settled at Lundy Lane, just one mile west of Niagara Falls. On July 25, 1814, British soldiers passed her house on their way to meet the Americans. Rather than fleeing with everyone else, she provided them with water after their 14-mile march. Furthermore, as a battle broke out just one mile east of her property, she opened her home to tend to the wounded. The British army was so appreciative of her help that one officer gave her his sword as a thanks. Catherine Lundy died in the middle of the 19th century, going down in history as a "saint". 2607:FEA8:E5D:8100:2553:510C:35B8:4E2B (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

American Decision to Retreat
Langmann's edit summary of September 8 claims:

 * There is no evidence the Americans were worried about additional British forces, rather they were worried about resupply due to lack of support from Cmdore Chauncey. Read Graves before publishing op.

I need hardly mention that it is not acceptable practice to demand that contributors base their edits on any single source among the hundreds that may cover a given topic, especially when more recent publications exist. Both Zuehlke (Zuehlke, Mark. The Canadian military atlas: the Nation's battlefields from the French and Indian Wars to Kosovo. Toronto, Stoddart Publishing, 2001. ISBN 0-7737-3289-6) and Chartrand (also employed by the Department of National Defence) affirm that the American retreat was based at least in part on the knowledge that British reinforcements were forthcoming.

I've rather meekly stated, "The Americans may also have realized that they would soon be perilously outnumbered by additional British forces in the vicinity." There's no justifying the removal of this information given the manner in which I presented it. Albrecht 04:45, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Langmann replies:

- Those sources are also discussed in Grave's book. Much of the British/Canadian perspective is based upon Drummond's report, which is incredibly biased and much an attempt to cover his shortcomings which would be further demonstrated in his supreme failure at Fort Erie.

You are confusing the American withdrawal due to additional British forces in the vicinity with what was happening later in the east where British forces were coming in from the finished European theatre. In this actul battle, there is no evidence based upon American records that they were that worried about futher British forces but rather that they had lost so many officers, had suffered a large amount of attrition, and had no hope of being reinforced by Commodore Chauncey that they had retreat to Fort Erie and await further orders and supplies. In fact Ripley (now in command due to Brown's injuries) discovered that some 1000 Americans reinforcements were waiting at Chippawa.

Brown later ordered Ripley to return to the field of battle and attempt to defeat the British. Ripley did not do so since he felt that his army was in serious danger of being overstretched without supply and effective officers. Therefore they withdrew.

 * Zuehlke seemed to indicate that on top of Drummond's 1,600 men and Riall's 1,000, there was a third British force nearby at Ten Mile Creek (1,000 regulars), but he isn't clear on whether any of these were committed during the engagement. The reinforcements he speaks of may indeed have been those along the general front, i.e. based in Quebec City. But the broad concept of the Americans being in danger of losing numerical parity if they remained in Canada, minus the phrase "in the vicinity", remains essentially unchanged.

They were not particularly worried about British reinforcements, there is no evidence for that from American reports. Since Graves bases his book upon the actual data, I think we should believe him. His book is the definitive source in this particular case.

 * Probably. Of course, it's rather presumptuous of you to categorically denounce every other historian's methodology as inferior by default. Simply stating that Ripley may have feared British reinforcements seems more reasonable than trying to affirm that Ripley wasn't at all worried about British reinforcements.

What is often not mentioned is that the British also withdrew to Queenston and did not follow the American army until several days later. They were also suffering from the same problems that the Americans were.

 * The article describes both armies as equally exhausted, and of course, the casualties indicate as much (quite compellingly). Don't hesitate to add emphasis to this matter if you think it presently lacking.

What really caused the Americans to quit this front was not Lundy's Lane, in fact Drummond seriously botched Fort Erie so that wasn't really a factor either, but rather that the eastern front was being rapidly enforced by the British. The later invasions and burning of Washington left this front, which was generally a feint at best, out of mind.

 * I agree that Canada was generally no longer imperiled by 1814. However, that doesn't mean that the Americans couldn't have enjoyed immense local success in the Niagara theatre if successful at Lundy's Lane. Lake Erie was already mare nostrum. They held both flanks of the Niagara River at Fort Erie and Fort George. Had the Americans defeated Drummond's army on the night of July 22, I doubt the British could have offered effective resistance before Burlington.

Anyhow add what you want, but I see no reason to remove large parts of the article I contributed to, which is what you did.

 * Looking back, I may have been too hasty in my deletions. Drummond's failure to screen his guns, for instance, should definitely be mentioned. However, I feel I should remind you that much of your contribution was either unencyclopaedic (overuse of Harvard referencing) or POV ("Graves is the best/most accurate, etc." – your opinion, unless you care to present a historical journal in which the leaders of academia have voiced their consensus).

 * Let me also point-out that your own reversions have removed some of my stylistic and grammatical improvements, i.e. "Lundy's Lane was characterized by messy fighting in close quarters" vs. "It was messy fighting in close quarters."

Moreover declaring it a "Canadian victory" is really erroneous because Canada was not a real entity, rather this was a British American war more than anything.

 * Let's not go building objections on chimeras and technicalities. It's pretty clear in context that "Canada" alludes to the collective socio-cultural identity of Britain's central North American colonies (known as the Canadas since 1792), not to "a Dominion established by the Confederation of four British provinces in 1867." However, since most of the soldiers involved were in fact British rather than Canadian, the distinction – not affecting substance – could be useful.

Saying that this battle halted the American advance into upper canada and was likely a British strategic victory even though the battle itself was a British tactical loss is acceptable, and Graves seems to agree as he says as much.

 * I doubt the results of the battle favoured the Americans enough to justify crediting them with a "tactical victory".

 * The Battle of Jutland, for instance, is a well-known case of the British losing tactically but winning strategically: a much larger British fleet was savagely handled by the Kriegsmarine, which suffered only about a third and a half of British casualties in men killed and in tonnage, respectively (tactical). But the Germans then fled back to Baltic waters, leaving the British fleet intact and in control of the Atlantic (strategic).

 * The reasoning involved needs little explanation, and the strategic results hardly differ from those of Lundy's Lane. In 1814, however, the British weren't markedly more numerous than their enemies, and didn't suffer many more casualties. Instead, two roughly equal forces mauled each other almost to the point of dissolution before staggering away through shadows and smoke. The next day, neither battered army held the field, and neither was in any condition to fight. Surely, the previous version's "indecisive" was most in harmony with the facts.

To deal with sources: part of what makes Wikipedia so unreliable and unacceptable as a source is the lack of references. I have out of courtesy viewed your references and they are seriously lacking as are many publications about Lundy's Lane (it seems an aura of myth more than reality permeates this particular historical event), in fact one reference you quote covers Lundy's Lane in a single paragraph. (Cdn Military Atlas).

 * Wrong. Four paragraphs describe the battle in the Military Atlas. Furthermore, Zuehlke's bibliography contains War of 1812 books published in 1999 and 2000.

I am not trying to "revise history" as you claim (in fact I am a Canadian myself) but rather I am saying that here we finally have an exceptional book of 332 pages solely dealing with Lundy's Lane that uses both Canadian and American military records, as well as personal letters and other sources. I encourage you to read this book (Where Right and Glory Lead, By Graves (A renowned Canadian military historian) and I am sure you will be amazed at its perception. I invite you to examine the excerpt and the reviews from his website: http://www.ensigngroup.ca/Right-Glory.htm
 * Will do. In the meantime, I'm reverting the article to my last version. If you care to do me another service out of courtesy, please incorporate your material into the existing body text of that article. If you can refrain from altering the battlebox's "indecisive" – which I view as the linchpin of objectivity in a topic like this (there can be no departing from the overall principle that the battle ended in a stalemate) – while keeping all the above comments in mind, I think we can cooperate in reconciling Graves' observations with the traditionalist view without further difficulties. If time permits, I'll investigate Graves in detail shortly.

 * Thank you for your contributions and for your civility and common comradeship. Albrecht 23:40, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

-->Four paragraphs describe the battle in the Military Atlas. Furthermore, Zuehlke's bibliography contains War of 1812 books published in 1999 and 2000.

- I don't want to be rude, but Zuehkles's book (with only 1 paragraph really talking about the actual battle) pales in comparison to a thesis of 332 pages that Graves writes. I would not consider Zuehkle's book the ultimate authority nor would anyone. Rather it is a very concise summary and summaries are often confusing ie: regarding the reinforcement issue. Secondly while Grave's book is not published in a Military Journal (because journals rarely publish 332 pages) his book has been reviewed by several editors of Military Journals in both Canada and the United States. Some are listed on his web page I gave and others listed elsewhere if you look you'll find them. As journal articles are often viewed by three references that is sufficient. Moreover his book uses articles from journals as reference as well. In his aknowledgements are many astute historians who have given him support. Graves book, of which I have the current version was actually reprinted in 2003 with corrections. It is finally the most current work. All his statements and claims are clearly referenced, as any journal article or thesis would be. Graves is widely considered the ultimate authority and the most competent Canadian historian in regards to the War of 1812 in North America as one reviewer from the Journal of American History stated. This is not my POV, this is the POV of historians of this field - and that means something.

 * I thought this was clearer: The point was not to compare a survey with an in-depth treatise. The idea was to cite something that outlined the traditional interpretation of the battle. I picked Zuehlke because it sits on my shelf, but it need not be Zuehlke in particular. Consult just about any other thesis on the subject; Zuehlke's is the standard position.

 * I should also remind you that the contention does not rest on the issue of Grave's scholarship or reputation as an historian; rather, your insistence that "Grave and only Grave" should inform edits to this article was what I found irritating. But at any rate I think it stretches believability to rely on reviews taken from Grave's own for-profit website, created to promote and advertise his work, as providing a balanced view. This should be obvious. Albrecht 01:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the article for several reasons:

1. The Americans voluntarily left the heights after the British had retreated. They won a tactical victory. The British had tried to retake the heights three times and failed. There would be no repeated attempt. Fighting stopped. The Americans held the field - how many days they would have had to hold to field for you to consider it a victory isn't important.

 * This is where we differ, and sharply. As far as I can tell, every point above is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. A temporary disengagement (if indeed the British left first)—owing to the deterioration of battlefield conditions—hardly constitutes a "retreat": it was a common enough measure of the period, and, considering the prospects of forthcoming reinforcements, a damn sensible one. There would be no repeated attacks on the heights because the Americans disappeared, mere hours after the British broke off, leaving the precious "captured" guns behind. If that's a "victory," it's a pretty thin one, and fraudulent as well.

This particular battle during the time of when shooting started to when it ended was a tactical victory for the American army, somewhat similar to the Jutland scenario you proposed.

 * No. The Kaiserliche Marine savaged the British at Jutland, while both sides suffered virtually the same casualties at Lundy's Lane. There's no comparison.

Strategically the British may have won, though as Graves wrote to me: "Once Yeo emerged on Lake Ontario in September 1814 with a ship of the line, the US lost control of that lake and knew full well that they would not be in a position to take it back until the spring of 1815. Therefore, advancing north again from Fort Erie to L Ontario and thence to Burlington Bay and York [Toronto] would have been very difficult. In fact, the American commander, Izard, decided to go into winter quarters. Both sides planned major offensives in 1815 but the war ended. " <--- here lies the real reason the Americans did not continue the campaign especially since they had dealt Drummond such a beating at Fort Erie. This isn't Grave's opinion, but rather from American military records and personal correspondence.

2. Canada was not the main combatant or protagonist. This was largely a British war largely held by historians to be due to British provocation of the US. In fact Canadians appear to have fought on both sides. Stating anything such as "this was a Canadian strategic victory" is very erroneous.

 * Fair enough. The idea I meant to convey was one of a "strategic victory for Canada." I think you'd agree with this, but in any case it's not important.

3. You made large deletions of my text without justifiable reasons. Feel free to add what you want if you like to the article, just don't in effect trash what I have written as it is the only material in the article actually based upon a reviewed reference.

 * I'm sorry if my edits annoyed you, but let me state that these "large deletions" were actually the removal of a few POV sentences praising Grave's book. You're welcome to start an article on his work, but it really had no place here. Albrecht 01:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to state in so many words : this battle halted the American advance into upper canada and was likely a British strategic victory even though the battle itself was a British tactical loss is acceptable, and Graves seems to agree as he says as much. I think you really ought to examine the sources for the American regress to Fort Erie from the American perspective, after all their reasons for their reposition at Fort Erie are all that matters after all. Fleshing out the whole reinforcement issue would do a service instead of trusting a summary. As I stated before, Ripley had 1000 fresh reinforcements only a few miles away at Chippawa and why he didn't use them doesn't appear to be based upon potential British reinforcements but rather his lack of supplies, decent officers, and marine support.

Feel free to edit grammar, much is not mine but was contributed before me. I did not make any major deletions to what was there before.

Please read Graves' book and then get back to this, and feel free to write to the author himself as he replies to questions. I really think you'll like this book, but also I did read your references so please read mine. I think you'll be very impressed.

 * I have every intention of doing so. You'll notice, at least, that I've refrained from editing the article. Anyway, I suppose I could agree to "Tactical American victory, strategic British victory." Albrecht 01:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I have been at this article, with images and orbats. I have also added information from a good recent American summary of the war (John R. Elting's Amateurs to Arms). They don't upset the concensus that the Americans withdrew exhausted rather than defeated, and that Drummond used poor tactics. I note from the orbat that there were indeed several hundred Canadians (perhaps 900 regulars or full-time troops and 600 militia) at Lundy's Lane (and 100 fighting for the Americans). HLGallon 15:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

American Offensive or British Counter Offensive?
I bring up the matter of whether the American invasion was halted at Lundy's Lane or was halted earlier due to the lack of support from Commodore Isaac Chauncey, and the question that the British counter-stroke was blunted at Lundy's lane. It is known to all those who study the War of 1812 that control of the Great Lakes was of supreme importance for a successful land campaign. After the US victory at Chippewa Major Gen. Jacob Browne advanced his force to Queenston. After receiving word that Chauncey had no intention of sailing to aid Browne, the General wisely decided to withdraw south to the old Chippewa battlefield.

It was at this point that Lt. Gen. Drummond decided to launch a counter attack and drive the Americans from the Niagra. My point is that the British were not in effect making a defensive stand at Lundy's Lane but in reality moving to attack the Americans south of the Chippewa. Danwild6 02:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Result Indecisive
Whether you're Canadian, British or American its fairly easy to see that the Battle of Lundy's Lane was indecisive as it did not drive the Americans from Canada-in fact the Americans held the field at the close of the fighting-in the end American forces left Canada of their own valition after the American victory at Fort Erie. Danwild6 02:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

 * It isn't so easy to see. Consider this quote from Theodore Roosevelt: "Each side claimed it as a victory over superior numbers. The truth is beyond question that the British had the advantage in numbers, and a still greater advantage in position; while it is equally beyond question that it was a defeat and not a victory for the Americans." Silverchemist (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Since when do later results matter who won a battle? The British repelled the invaders. The Americans were still in their territory but moved well away. That is a victory for the defenders and is in no way indecisive. Indecisive would be if the fighting stopped but both parties held their ground. Yes there was another battle after that near the border that the Americans won but they didn't simply retreat after that because they felt like it. After winning that later battle and moving further into enemy territory the Americans knew they were severely outnumbered in hostile country and that their efforts were futile. Instead of fighting a few more battles and eventually getting wiped out, they decided to retreat back to the USA and the American government was cool with that as they were honorably discharged. 24.36.241.34 (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The original person to say indecisive referenced misleading facts and a non battle specific view on top of that. As of now everyone to opine afterwards has been against it being indecisive and in favour of it being a British Victory. This should be changed to simply say British Victory. Current count it 2-1 in favour of a change.24.36.241.34 (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Please bear it in mind that it took over a year to reach the current concensus. See Talk:Battle of Lundy's Lane. No new evidence (as opposed to opinion) has been presented since. Do not replace this verdict lightly. HLGallon (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Result
Does anyone have a source for the result? I'm looking for one, but there is apparently a dissagrement right now. Red4tribe (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Found one, in "1812:The War that Forged a Nation". page 196.Red4tribe (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

100th Regiment of Foot
According to "For King and Canada; the story of the 100th Regiment of Foot" the regiment was at both Chippawa and Lundy's lane but I don't see them in the order battle. Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Furst (talk • contribs) 00:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Winfield Scott wan't killed at this battle.
can someone make this correction for me? I tried and the format came out wrongly. (General Scott survived until 1866) 184.151.190.65 (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 * It doesn't say he was killed...apparently we are using a + as "wounded". Adam Bishop (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

+ does mean killed. this plus sign should be removed. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.190.11 (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Well it doesn't, really, we use the cross sign (†) here for Killed in Action and the plus sign for wounded. It doesn't seem very wise, because obviously the two are very similar. I'm not sure why we use any signs at all actually. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting but confusing I agree: I can see using the cross but the plus sign just winds up being confusing. 184.151.190.158 (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Battle of Lundy's Lane. 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/20100814144152/http://www.archives.gov.on.ca:80/english/on-line-exhibits/1812/niagara-1814.aspx to http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/english/on-line-exhibits/1812/niagara-1814.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101210061406/http://www.niagarafalls.ca/city_hall/departments/parks_recreation_and_culture/art_scene/community_groups/heritage/battlefield_wall.asp to http://www.niagarafalls.ca/city_hall/departments/parks_recreation_and_culture/art_scene/community_groups/heritage/battlefield_wall.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120617172225/http://www.pm.gc.ca:80/eng/media.asp?category=1&featureId=6&pageId=26&id=4823 to http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&featureId=6&pageId=26&id=4823
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705184901/http://www.nflibrary.ca:80/nfplindex/results.asp?action=browse&q=295&key=2265 to http://www.nflibrary.ca/nfplindex/results.asp?action=browse&q=295&key=2265
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705184716/http://www.nflibrary.ca:80/nfplindex/results.asp?action=browse&q=79&key=2265 to http://www.nflibrary.ca/nfplindex/results.asp?action=browse&q=79&key=2265

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Strategic, Operational, or Tactical?
The article asserts that the battle was a strategic victory for the British. I think the article lacks sufficient evidence to support that assertion. To be a strategic victory it would need to accomplish a strategic end of one of the combatants. In this case, neither side achieved any strategic objective. One might make the argument that it had an operational level impact but that will require additional source material. Even asserting that it was a British Empire tactical victory is arguable as was discussed below in detail.--Bemcfarland (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It is a strategic victory for Britain as it ended the U.S invasions of Canada Uk5056547 (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

"Donald Graves regards Lundy's Lane as a tactical victory for the Americans, but concludes their failure to secure its fruits in terms of position and captured British guns rendered it an operational success for the British...But despite the pride they [the United States Army] could take in their performance in the field, once again the overall American effort was too little, too late: they had been unable to overwhelm the British defences even though these were yet to be reinforced from Europe"- Jon Latimer, 1812: War with America p.299.

Latimer then charts the American army's withdrawal as a direct consequence of Lundy's Lane. The last line is a clear indicator of strategic success; at Lundy's Lane the British defeated the final American invasion of the Canadas, stopping it in its tracks and compelling its withdrawal.

If we regard North Point as an American strategic victory for merely slowing down the British Army's march on Baltimore, then by what rational is a battle that definitively ended American attempts to invade Canada (Britain's primary concern on land throughout the war) as anything other than a qualified strategic victory in the name of British interests in North America? F.M. Sir D.H (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Result: •Tactically indecisive* •Strategic British victory

 * unless we want to draw a clear distinction between tactical and operational objectives along the lines of Donald Graves, which nlmay be too much info for the outcome box, then indecisive is preferable IMO, reflecting mutual heavy casualties. F.M. Sir D.H (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit war
I don’t want to get into an edit war with anyone but I want to make my point that the result should be a strategic British victory as it even says that the British had a strategic win in the aftermath section so I believe it should say strategic British victory on the result of the battle Uk5056547 (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Why "should" the result be the non-standard "strategic British victory?". The Aftermath section gives one source only which states "strategic British victory". I would be happy to provide five or six equally reputable sources which state other outcomes. Your persistent advocacy of one result without discussion of the various sources (together with your user name) gives rise to suggestions of POV editing. Please review Template:Infobox_military_conflict which gives the official Wikipedia guidelines as to info. box contents. Note that non-standard terms such as "strategic" are deprecated.

 * Please do not revert to your preferred version without discussion on this talk page. Your repeated edits are already verging on 3RR, and I will readily report any continuing edit warring to the relevant notice board (to damp down the flames, rather than seeking sanctions at this point). HLGallon (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

How is the battle not a strategic British victory? The Americans were forced to retreat to Fort Erie after suffering lots of casualties. This battle ended the U.S invasion of Canada. Uk5056547 (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Mohawk at Lundy's Lane
On canadian indigenous remembrance day its ironic that there is no mention of the mohawk warriors and the significance they played in the battle. Without them parts of what is now Canadian would be American soil. About time true history is shared, not just white history. 2605:B100:72E:D103:4CBF:B6D4:C68:EFF1 (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Battle of Lundy's Lane


text:
Abereiddy

Abereiddy (Abereddi) is a hamlet in the county of Pembrokeshire, in west Wales.

It has a small beach which was awarded the Blue flag rural beach award in 2005. A large car park adjoins the beach, where in the summer an ice cream van can usually be found. The beach also has public toilets which are open from Easter to October half-term. The Pembrokeshire Coast Path gives fine walking in both directions. The Common which runs inland behind the beach lies within the Manor of Llanrhian.

It is home to the now famous Blue Lagoon, where the "Red Bull Diving" championships have been held. The Blue Lagoon was created when the wall of an old slate mine was blasted to let the sea in. It is also popular for "coasteering" where people dive into the sea, swim and clamber along the cliffs.

Following the coast path north leads to Porthgain. Abereiddy to Porthgain is roughly a forty-minute walk.

The coastal path taken in the other direction to the south east goes around St Davids Head and on to Whitesands Bay.

The Blue Lagoon
Nearby are the ruins of the 'Blue Lagoon', a small slate quarry, now flooded by the sea having broken in. Initially slate was exported across Abereiddy beach, but later through a tramway to the harbour at Porthgain a couple of miles to the North. Although never as large a quarry as even those nearer Porthgain itself, it did operate a steam-hauled lift. Ruins of a small group of slate houses known as The Street remain near the beach. These were houses built for the quarry workers of the Blue Lagoon and were only abandoned after a flood in the early 20th century.

The Blue Lagoon is 25m deep, according to a nearby Pembrokeshire National Park information board. Despite the name, the water is always a distinct greenish hue, owing to the mineral content within the quarry. The lagoon is a favourite for adventure groups practising coasteering, and also diving when the weather is bad.

World diving championships
In September 2012 the Blue Lagoon at Abereiddy was the location for one of the stages of the Red Bull Cliff Diving World Series, making its UK debut. Fourteen of the world's best divers dived from a man-made platform, 27 metres above the Blue Lagoon.

The championships returned in September 2013, and September 2016.

Appearances on film
Abereiddy (the Blue Lagoon) appeared in the music video for the hit song "Silence" by Delerium (featuring Sarah McLachlan) from 2000.

Abereiddy was the main location for the 1961 film Fury at Smugglers' Bay, starring Peter Cushing. Abereiddy and the ice cream van that regularly visits were also the subject of a short promotional film called "Ice Cream" for Visit Wales, the Welsh Tourist Board, in 2009.

Geology and fossils

The south side of Abereiddy Bay consists of steeply dipping beds from the Upper Llanvirn, where Didymograptus murchisoni is quite common. To the north, the succession passes up into beds of Llandeilo age, and ultimately the foreshore which consists of alternating beds of Caradocian limestone and shale. North over the northern headland, there is a small cove eroded in up-faulted Didymograptus bifidus beds. This is a fault and the disused Porth Gain Slate Quarry provides excellent exposures.

Fossil collectors tend to look out for the Ordovician shales wedged in between the cliffs. Fortunately, chunks of shale regularly fall out of the cliffs onto the beach. Consequently, fossil collecting is easier done by walking down onto the beach and looking for the soft, flaky shales. Hammering is only required to split open larger pieces.

title: Abereiddy


text:
Abererch

Aber-erch (, Welsh for "Mouth of the Erch") is a small village and former civil parish on the Llŷn Peninsula in the Welsh county of Gwynedd. The village lies approximately 1 mi east of Pwllheli. A river, the Afon Erch runs through the village.

The parish was abolished in 1934 and incorporated into that of Llannor, now the community of Llannor. It is a mostly Welsh-speaking village and its name is often truncated to "Berch" in the local Welsh dialect.

There is a primary school, playschool, and a railway station. The church of St Cawrdaf is a grade I listed building.

Aber-erch has a beach called 'Traeth Glan y Don' (which roughly translates to 'Shore of the wave beach') which extends from Morfa'r Garreg, Pwllheli to Pen-ychain. Parking for the beach is near the railway station. From the beach you have a view of Harlech Castle in the east all the way down to Tywyn (on a clearer day even further south) and to the west Pwllheli and the St Tudwal's Islands. Access to the beach is through a footpath next the caravan and camp-site. This beach is ideal for days when the wind is from the north or north west due to the sheltered bay.

The ward includes the village of Y Ffor and the small settlement of Penrhos.

Notable people

 * John Elias (1774-1841), a powerful Christian preacher: "as if talking fire down from heaven"
 * Ellis Owen Ellis (1813-1861), a Welsh portrait painter, cartoonist and illustrator.

title: Abererch


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grogan

 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 delete. Woohookitty 10:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Grogan
Not notable. brenneman (t) (c) 06:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Sjakkalle. --Apyule 07:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's also a surname and should therefore have an entry as such (unless surnames/family names are not notable or encyclopaedic either) 212.101.64.4 07:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:ISNOT a dictionary, slang or otherwise.— Encephalon |  ζ   09:40:53, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
 * Delete Slang def. DV8 2XL 13:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Dottore So 01:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Grogan is a surname, the slang version I've never heard of, and as my surname is Grogan I'm sure I would of. I assume this is an attempt by someone with a grudge to slur someone with Grogan as a surname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.230.231 (talk • contribs), at 2005-09-05 10:00:42
 * 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.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grogan


text:
Udham Singh

Udham Singh (born Sher Singh; 26 December 1899 – 31 July 1940) was an Indian revolutionary belonging to Ghadar Party and HSRA, best known for assassinating Michael O'Dwyer, the former lieutenant governor of the Punjab in India, on 13 March 1940. The assassination was done in revenge for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Amritsar in 1919, for which O'Dwyer was responsible and of which Singh himself was a survivor. Singh was subsequently tried and convicted of murder and hanged in July 1940. While in custody, he used the name 'Ram Mohammad Singh Azad', which represents the three major religions in India and his anti-colonial sentiment.

Singh was a well-known figure of the Indian independence movement. He is also referred to as Shaheed-i-Azam Sardar Udham Singh (the expression "Shaheed-i-Azam" means "the great martyr"). A district (Udham Singh Nagar) was named after him as a homage by the Mayawati government in October 1995.

Early life
Udham Singh was born ‘Sher Singh’ into a Sikh family on 26 December 1899 in the neighbourhood of Pilbad in Sunam, around 130 miles south of Lahore, British India, to Tehal Singh, a Kamboj, low-skilled low-paid manual labourer and his wife Narain Kaur. He was their youngest, with a two-year difference between him and his elder brother, Sadhu. When they were around age three and five respectively, their mother died. The two boys subsequently stayed close to their father while he worked in the village of Nilowal carrying mud from a newly constructed canal, part of Punjab Canal Colonies. After being laid off he found work as a railway crossing watchman in the village of Upali.

In October 1907, whilst taking his sons by foot to Amritsar, their father collapsed and died at Ram Bagh Hospital. The two brothers were subsequently handed to an uncle who being unable to keep them, gave them to the Central Khalsa Orphanage, where according to the orphanage register, they were initiated on 28 October. Rebaptised, Sadhu became “Mukta”, meaning “one who has escaped re-incarnation”, and Sher Singh was renamed “Udham Singh”, Udham meaning “the upheaval”. At the orphanage he was affectionately referred to as "Ude". In 1917, Mukta died of an unknown sudden illness.

Shortly thereafter, despite being below the official age of enrolment, Udham Singh persuaded authorities to allow him to serve in the British Indian Army during the First World War. He was subsequently attached to the lowest ranking labour unit with the 32nd Sikh Pioneers to work on restoration on the field railway from the coast up to Basra. His young age and conflicts with authority led him to return to Punjab in less than six months. In 1918, he rejoined the army and was despatched to Basra and then Baghdad, where he carried out carpentry and general maintenance of machinery and vehicles, returning after a year to the orphanage in Amritsar in early 1919.

Massacre at Jallianwala Bagh
On 10 April 1919, a number of local leaders allied to the Indian National Congress, including Satyapal and Saifuddin Kitchlew, were arrested under the terms of the Rowlatt Act. A military picket fired on a protesting crowd, precipitating a riot which saw numerous European-owned banks attacked and several Europeans attacked in the streets. On 13 April, over twenty thousand unarmed people were assembled in Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar to celebrate the important Sikh festival of Baisakhi, and to peacefully protest the arrests. Singh and his friends from the orphanage were serving water to the crowd. Troops under the command of Colonel Reginald Dyer opened fire on the crowd, killing several hundred; this became known variously as the Amritsar Massacre or the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.

Singh became involved in revolutionary politics and was deeply influenced by Bhagat Singh and his revolutionary group. In 1924, Singh became involved with the Ghadar Party, organising Indians overseas towards overthrowing colonial rule. In 1927, he returned to India on orders from Bhagat Singh, bringing 25 associates as well as revolvers and ammunition. Soon after, he was arrested for possession of unlicensed arms. Revolvers, ammunition, and copies of a prohibited Ghadar Party paper called "Ghadr-di-Gunj" ("Voice of Revolt") were confiscated. He was prosecuted and sentenced to five years in prison.

Upon his release from prison in 1931, Singh's movements were under constant surveillance by the Punjab Police. He made his way to Kashmir, where he was able to evade the police and escape to Germany. In 1934, he reached London, where he found employment. Privately, he formed plans to assassinate Michael O'Dwyer. In Singh's diaries for 1939 and 1940, he occasionally misspells O'Dwyer's surname as "O'Dyer", leaving a possibility he may have confused O'Dwyer with General Dyer. However, General Dyer had died in 1927, even before Udham Singh had planned the revenge. In England, Singh was affiliated to the Indian Workers' Association in Coventry and attended their meetings.

Shooting at Caxton Hall
On 13 March 1940, Michael O'Dwyer was scheduled to speak at a joint meeting of the East India Association and the Central Asian Society (now Royal Society for Asian Affairs) at Caxton Hall, London. Singh had entered the event with a ticket in his wife's name. Singh concealed a revolver inside a book, which had pages cut in the shape of a revolver. This revolver was purchased by him from a soldier in a pub. Then he entered the hall and found an empty seat. As the meeting concluded, Singh shot O'Dwyer twice as he moved towards the speaking platform. One of these bullets passed through O'Dwyer's heart and right lung, killing him almost instantly. Others wounded in the shooting were Sir Louis Dane; Lawrence Dundas, 2nd Marquess of Zetland; and Charles Cochrane-Baillie, 2nd Baron Lamington. Singh was arrested immediately after the shooting and the pistol (now in the Crime Museum) seized as evidence.

Personal life
Udham Singh married a Mexican woman in the 1920s, by whom he fathered two sons. Udham Singh's wife was named Lupe Hernandez. In 1927 he left the United States, leaving Lupe and their two sons behind. Many other Indian men in the States took Hispanic wives due to the Johnson-Reed (Immigration) Act of 1924, as they would otherwise have been expelled. According to some of his relatives, Udham Singh later took an English wife as well. It is not known if he had children with her too.

Murder, trial, and execution

On 1 April 1940, Singh was formally charged with the murder of Michael O'Dwyer, and remanded in custody at Brixton Prison. Initially asked to explain his motivations, Singh stated:"'I did it because I had a grudge against him. He deserved it. I don't belong to society or anything else. I don't care. I don't mind dying. What is the use of waiting until you get old? ... Is Zetland dead? He ought to be. I put two into him. I bought the revolver from a soldier in a public house. My parents died when I was three or four. Only one dead? I thought I could get more.'"While in custody, he called himself Ram Mohammad Singh Azad: the first three words of the name reflect the three major religious communities of Punjab (Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh); the last word azad (literally "free") reflects his anti-colonial sentiment.

While awaiting his trial, Singh went on a 42-day hunger strike, before finally being force fed. On 4 June 1940, his trial commenced at the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, before Justice Cyril Atkinson, with V.K. Krishna Menon and St John Hutchinson representing him. G. B. McClure was the prosecuting barrister. When asked about his motivation, Singh explained: "I did it because I had a grudge against him. He deserved it. He was the real culprit. He wanted to crush the spirit of my people, so I have crushed him. For full 21 years, I have been trying to seek vengeance. I am happy that I have done the job. I am not scared of death. I am dying for my country. I have seen my people starving in India under the British rule. I have protested against this, it was my duty."

Singh was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. On 31 July 1940, Singh was hanged at Pentonville Prison by Albert Pierrepoint. His remains are preserved at the Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar, Punjab. On every 31 July, marches are held in Sunam (Singh's hometown) by various organisations and every statue of Singh in the city is paid tribute with flower garlands.

Singh's speech
Following his conviction, he made a speech which the judge directed should not be released to the press. However, political activists who had set up the Shaheed Udham Singh Trust and working with the Indian Workers Association (GB), ran a campaign to have the court record of his statement published along with other material. This proved successful in 1996, when his speech was published along with three further files covering the trial, and the Ghadar Directory, a document compiled by British intelligence in 1934 detailing 792 people regarded as a threat including Udham Singh.

He started the speech with a denunciation of British Imperialism:

 * "I say down with British Imperialism. You say India do not have peace. We have only slavery. Generations of so called civilisation has brought us everything filthy and degenerating. known to the human race. All you have to do is read your own history. If you have any human decency about you, you should die with shame. The brutality and blood thirsty way in which the so called intellectuals who call themselves rulers of civilisation in the world are bastard blood . . ."

At this point he was interrupted by the judge, but after some discussion he continued:

 * "I do not care about sentence of death. It means nothing at all. I do not care about dying or anything. I do not worry about it at all. I am dying for a purpose. Thumping the rail of the dock, he exclaimed, We are suffering from the British Empire. (He continued more quietly) I am not afraid to die. I am proud to die, to have to free my native land and I hope that when I am gone, I hope that in my place will come thousands of my countrymen to drive you dirty dogs out; to free my country."

 * "I am standing before an English jury. I am in an English court. You people go to India and when you come back you are given a prize and put in the House of Commons. We come to England and we are sentenced to death."

 * "I never meant anything; but I will take it. I do not care anything about it, but when you dirty dogs come to India there comes a time when you will be cleaned out of India. All your British Imperialism will be smashed."

 * "Machine guns on the streets of India mow down thousands of poor women and children wherever your so-called flag of democracy and Christianity flies."

 * "Your conduct, your conduct – I am talking about the British government. I have nothing against the English people at all. I have more English friends living in England than I have in India. I have great sympathy with the workers of England. I am against the Imperialist Government."

 * "You people are suffering the same as I am suffering through those dirty dogs and mad beasts. Everyone are suffering through these dirty dogs; these mad beasts. India is only slavery. Killing, mutilating and destroying – British Imperialism. People do not read about it in the papers. We know what is going on in India."

At this point, the judge refused to hear any more, but Singh continued:

 * "You ask me what I have to say. I am saying it. Because you people are dirty. You do not want to hear from us what you are doing in India."

He then thrust his glasses back into his pocket, and exclaimed three words in Hindustani and then shouted:

 * "Down with British Imperialism! Down with British dirty dogs!"

He turned to leave the dock, spitting across the solicitor's table.

When this material was published, it was reported in both British and Asian press, the statement was translated into Gurmukhi script and distributed at the Sikh Vaisaki Festival in Birmingham, April 1997. John Major, the British prime minister at that time, remarked: "The Amritsar Massacre was an unhappy episode in Indo-British relations which was controversial in both countries. Today [8 October 1996] I am glad to say, our relationship is excellent. India is an important partner and a close friend of this country."

Reactions
In its 18 March 1940 issue, Amrita Bazar Patrika wrote, "O'Dwyer's name is connected with Punjab incidents which India will never forget". The Punjab section of Congress in the Punjab Assembly led by Dewan Chaman Lal refused to vote for the Premier's motion to condemn the assassination. In April 1940, at the Annual Session of the All India Congress Committee held in commemoration of 21st anniversary of the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, the youth wing of the Indian National Congress Party displayed revolutionary slogans in support of Singh, applauding his action as patriotic and heroic.

Singh had some support from the international press. The Times of London called him a "fighter for freedom", his actions "an expression of the pent-up fury of the downtrodden Indian people." Bergeret from Rome praised Singh's action as courageous. In March 1940, Indian National Congress leader Jawahar Lal Nehru, condemned the action of Singh as senseless, however, in 1962, Nehru reversed his stance and applauded Singh with the following published statement: "I salute Shaheed-i-Azam Udham Singh with reverence who had kissed the noose so that we may be free."

Repatriation of remains
In 1974, Singh's remains were exhumed and repatriated to India at the request of MLA Sadhu Singh Thind and cremated in his home village of Sunam. The casket was received by Indira Gandhi, Shankar Dayal Sharma and Zail Singh. On 2 August 1974 his ashes were divided into seven urns and distributed; one each to Haridwar, Kiratpur Sahib, Rauza Sharif, Sunam and the museum at Jallianwala Bagh, and two urns to the library of the Shaheed Udham Singh Arts College in Sunam.

Legacy
In 1999, during the tercentenary of the creation of the Khalsa and the centenary of Singh's birth, he was posthumously awarded the "Nishan-e-Khalsa" by the Anandpur Sahib Foundation.

 * A museum dedicated to Singh is located in Amritsar, near Jallianwala Bagh.
 * Singh's ancestral house, in Sunam, has been converted into a museum. 30 letters and other objects are on display in the museum.
 * The official name of his ancestral town Sunam was changed to 'Sunam Udham Singh Wala'.
 * Singh has been the subject of a number of films: Jallian Wala Bagh (1977), Shaheed Uddham Singh (1977), Shaheed Uddham Singh (2000) and the 2021 film Sardar Udham.
 * Udham Singh Nagar district in Uttarakhand is named after Singh.
 * Singh is the subject of the 1998 track "Assassin" by Asian Dub Foundation.
 * Frank Brazil, is named after an Alias of Singh, is a track by The Ska Vengers.
 * Shaheed Udham Singh Chowk in Anupgarh was named for him.
 * The day of his death is a public holiday in Punjab and Haryana.
 * A statue of him was installed by International Sarav Kamboj Samaj at the main entrance of Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar on 13 March 2018. The statue was unveiled by Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh.

title: Udham Singh


text:
Upper Sturt, South Australia

Upper Sturt is a suburb in the inner south of Adelaide, South Australia. The suburb is nestled in the lower reaches of the Mount Lofty Ranges with the Western Half located in the City of Mitcham local government area, and the eastern portion located in the Adelaide Hills Council Local Government Area.

Before being gazetted with a place name, the area was often referred to on civil birth, death and marriage registrations as "near Government Farm", which later became Belair National Park.

The Upper Sturt area had two stations on the Adelaide-Bridgewater railway line, which was constructed through the area in the late 1870s: Nalawort and Upper Sturt, both of which have closed and structures mostly removed.

Upper Sturt Primary School was founded in 1879, and has approximately 41 students.

Upper Sturt Post Office opened on 1 March 1881.

There is a small cafe on the main road that also incorporates a general store adjacent to the Upper Sturt General Store. The Upper Sturt Country Fire Service station which is a volunteer fire organisation to protect the area from bushfires.

title: Upper Sturt, South Australia


text:
Aberffrwd, Ceredigion

Aberffrwd is a village in the Welsh principal area of Ceredigion. It has a railway station on the narrow-gauge Vale of Rheidol Railway, which was operated by British Rail as part of the island wide rail network until 1980.

title: Aberffrwd, Ceredigion


text:
Molinos

Molinos may refer to:

Places

 * Molinos (TransMilenio), a railway station in Bogotá, Colombia
 * Molinos, Chile, a village in the Arica and Parinacota Region
 * Molinos, Jauja, seat of Molinos District, Peru
 * Molinos, Salta, a village and rural municipality in Salta Province, northwestern Argentina
 * Molinos, Teruel, a municipality in Maestrazgo comarca, province of Teruel, Aragon, Spain
 * Molinos de Duero, a municipality in the province of Soria, Castile and León, Spain
 * Molinos District, one of thirty-four districts of the province Jauja in Peru

People with the surname

 * Edgar Molinos (born 1971), German weightlifter
 * Jacques Molinos (1743–1831), French architect
 * Miguel de Molinos (1628–1696), Spanish theologian and mystic

Other uses

 * Molinos (album), an award-winning musical album by The Paperboys, or its title track and lead single
 * Molinos Río de la Plata, an Argentine branded food products company

title: Molinos


text:
Abergarwed

Abergarwed is a village in the Welsh county borough of Neath Port Talbot, south Wales.

It is located in the Vale of Neath, in the electoral ward of Resolven, near the town of Neath.

title: Abergarwed