text:
Talk:Mountaintop removal mining

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 20 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Morgan.emma, RenLK. Peer reviewers: Tlaloc0011.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SandersJR, Camisasn28.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

POV
This is a quite POV article -- at the very least, the mining industry's position should be cited. -- Jaysbro 14:45:35, 2005-09-06 (UTC)
 * I added sections on legislation and economics of MTR, which should accomplish this. --doubleplusjeff 2006-27-08

 * I added citation needed flags to the criticism section. This needs attention from an experienced Wikipedian who can correct the weasel words and poor formatting. Durova 14:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"The Economist recently labeled the coal industry 'Environmental Enemy No. 1.'" ... The source really seems to cite the burning of coal as Environmental Enemy #1; not the industry, and certainly not MTR. I moved this fact to the article Coal. Doubleplusjeff 00:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the worse POV I have ever discovered on Wiki. From the first sentence the inflammatory and prejudice words flow. “often referred to as mountaintop mining/valley fills (MTM/VF),” Not all MTR mines involves valley fills. Some mines use the excess spoil to reclaim older pre-law mines. Other MTR mines utilize small hollow fills in combination with back stacking on bench. Trying to confuse the MTR mining and the valley fill issues is an attempt paint all surface mining on the top of a ridge with the more controversial practice of valley filling. Using the word “extreme topographic destruction and deforestation of the summit” ” is inflammatory. Would these same terms seem appropriate in the description of what happens when a contractor starts building a new housing sub-division.66.63.211.79 (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)reed@setel.com

Unless someone can make serious corrections I will change the section on "Process" to the following in order to remove POV comments and add more detailed facts: >>>Land is deforested prior to mining operations and the resultant lumber is either sold or burned. According to the federal surface mining law SMCRA, the topsoil is supposed to be removed and set aside for later reclamation. however, coal companies are often granted waivers and instead reclaim the mountain with "topsoil substitute." The waivers are granted if adequate amounts of topsoil are not naturally present on the rocky ridge top. Once the area is cleared, miners use explosives to blast away the overburden, the rock and subsoil, to expose coal seams beneath. The overburden is then moved by various mechanically means to areas of the ridge previously mined. These areas are the most economical area of storage as they are located close to the active pit of exposed coal. If the ridge topography is to steep to adequately handle the amount of spoil produced then additional storage is used in a nearby valley or hollow, creating what is known as a valley fill or “hollow fill”. A front-end loader or excavator then removes the coal, where it is transported to a an often on-site processing plant. and washed. Millions of gallons of by-product from this coal processing, called coal sludge or slurry, are often stored nearby in open-air pools isolated from natural waterways by earthen dams. This procedure allows any usable coal particles to separate from the water and settle to the bottom. Once coal removal is completed, the mining operators back stack spoil from the next area to be mined into the now empty pit. After backstacking and grading of spoil has been completed topsoil (or a topsoil substitute) is layered over the spoil layer. Next grass seed is spread in a mixture of seed, fertilizer, and mulch made from recycled newspaper. Dependant on mostly surface owner wishes the land will then be further reclaimed by adding trees if the post mining land use is forest land or wildlife habitat. If the land owner has requested other post mining land uses the land can reclaimed to be used as pastor land, economic development or other uses specified in the SMCRA.

Because coal usually exists in multiple geologically stratified seams, miners can often repeat the blasting process to mine over a dozen seams on a single mountain, increasing the mine depth each time. This can result in a vertical descent of hundreds of extra feet into the earth. Many of these seams mined in the MTR method are to thin to be mined using any other method of mining. <<< End of "process" changes

I have spent many years of my life working in the design and planing of MTR mines. I have retired from the industry for 15 years and love the mountains of East KY and WV. I have a healthy respect for the emotions that this subject brings out in good people on both sides. Wiki is not the place for debating POV for either side. This page should be factual and informative only.66.63.211.79 (talk) 05:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reed@setel.com

The coal slurry impoundments mentioned in the "process" section have nothing to do with MTR mining. They are for disposal of waste materials from coal washing operations, which is done regardless of the mining method. Most pre-date the MTR mining going on in their vicinity. Mention of the impoundments should be removed as that are a topic for a separate article.

Also, draglines are used to excavate the blasted overburden, above the coal - not the coal. The coal is removed with front-end loaders and trucks, or shovels and trucks if the seam is thick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.166.92 (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, so maybe I should just go ahead and make the edit, but this is my first time actually making any kind of a contribution (not quite the first time I've wanted to, though :-) ). It seems to me that, in the Introduction, the phrase, "It is most closely associated with coal mining in the Appalachian Mountains, located in the eastern United States, the most biologically diverse temperate hardwood forests in the world", while technically factual (though unsourced), still reeks of POV.  Unless some direct mention is made of environmental concerns in the Introduction, shouldn't this be moved to the Criticism section?  Editing this to read "It is most closely associated with coal mining in the Appalachian Mountains, located in the eastern United States" would leave the clarity of location untouched, while removing the unexpected and out-of-place reference to ecological concerns.

Reference Source
Reverted back to include Toxic West Virginia reference. This is not link spam, this is an actual documentary that is directly related to this article. Thus this is a related to this piece and needs to be included. Also, you do not gain anything from google as wiki marks all links do not follow! (comment by User:Vicebs)
 * What if we put the Toxic West Virginia link in the External Links section, rather than the article text? If you don't approve of this, then maybe we could move create a new subsection of Criticism about the many documentaries or public awareness boosts that mountaintop removal has received recently (Appalachian Voices' "ilovemountains.org" would be another example for such a section), and move Toxic West Virginia there.  I'd feel much more comfortable about including the link within the article if the advocate for doing so wasn't a representative of the company who produced the film... Doubleplusjeff 15:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In the Economics section a reference is needed for the sentence "Proponents argue that in certain geologic areas, MTR and similar forms of surface mining allow the only access to thin seams of coal that traditional underground mining would not be able to mine. MTR is some times the most cost-effective method of extracting coal and provides high paying jobs[15].[citation needed]" A good reference can be found on the web at the site http://www.coaleducation.org/Ky_Coal_Facts/default.htm. I do not know how to add citation. Someone please add this site. Click "employment" on left margin and then "employment/ wages by county" for detailed informaition. This same site also has some great information of reclamationa and post mining land uses.

Also please add a section on Reclamation and Post mining land uses. A wonderful citation for this section would be the video from the state of Kentucky's web site on Coal Education. http://www.coaleducation.org/miningtv/Elk_in_KY/Elk_in_KY.htm. Please add this to help balance this article.199.43.48.149 (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)reed@setel.com

Fighting Back
Below is text I removed which I believe to be too biased or promotional. I think it would be good to have a summary of movements that are fighting against MTR, which summary could include a lot of material from this addition, but a laundry list of musicians who released albums and wrote books doesn't seem appropriate. --Rschmertz 18:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Artists Fighting Back

 * Writers in the region have been active in the fight against mountaintop removal. In 2005, 16 Kentucky writers released a public statement condemning the mining practice, which led to the issue being widely discussed in the state media for the first time.  Those writers were also active in getting more national coverage for the topic, placing editorials in nationally-read newspapers such as The Washington Post and The New York Times.  In 2006 the authors group released a book of their collected writing on the topic called Missing Mountains, edited by Kristin Johannsen, Bobbie Ann Mason, and Mary Ann Taylor-Hall.  The book was surprisingly popular within the region and included an introduction by Silas House and an afterword by Wendell Berry. In 2006, Kentucky musicians banded together to create a compact disc of music that opposed mountaintop removal. The result was the bestselling Songs for the Mountaintop.  Both book and album were produced by Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, a group of concerned citizens that has been one of the leaders in the fight against mountaintop removal mining. In 2006, West Virginia writers released a similar authors statement and in 2000 one of West Virginia's best known authors, Denise Giardina, campaigned as governor on a ticket to stop mountaintop removal.

US Tag
I just did some major re-edits to the page, but my main point for writing on the discussion page is that I removed a US-centric tag from the page. The reason I removed it is that, while this page does concentrate on the US primarily, the practice takes place almost exclusively, as far as I've ever heard, in the appalachian mountains located in the US. While I've heard about plenty of strip mining in other countries, and a few MTR sites out west, but I've never heard of an MTR site in another country, so basically MTR is as American as Mount Rushmore and the tag seems as aptly placed here as it would be on that page. D-rew 00:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that really, MTR is by far most common in the US, so yeah, its not much help focusing on another country that hardly practices MTR at all. --66.32.252.104 19:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to include "U.S." where sentences related specifically to the U.S. I also added a reference to Peru's Yanacocha gold mine, which appears to use MTR. Doubleplusjeff (talk)
 * Yanacocha is open pit, not mountaintop removal. I removed the reference to Yanacocha.Plazak (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't like the specification "in the U.S." because I think it is unneccesary. As stated elsewhere on this page no references have been found to MTR outside the U.S.  I'll give it a few days, but if no references can be found I think they should be removed.D-rew (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside links
So, the links section is too big, and I'm having difficulty whittling it down because so many of the different links are so similar (community groups against MTR). For most of them it would be difficult to justify which ones are more important, but I don't advocate deleting all of them because methinks they are an important part of the MTR debate. Any help i could get in this area would be...well...helpful.D-rew 21:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe add a subsection for the dozen-odd grass roots groups? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.10.180.196 (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why was the Mountaintop Removal Mining Index link removed? Seems like the kinda link we want.D-rew (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy
I'm thinking about creating a seperate page for the controversy over MTR per pages like Free trade controversy and Global Warming controversy. Thoughts?D-rew (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

 * My vote would be to keep Controversy as part of the MTR core article, but to further break up this section into distinct sub-sections. I could easily see the following subheaders:
 * Biodiversity
 * Health Concerns ...which would contain the "coal-dust" paragraph, as well as perhaps info about well/groundwater pollution.
 * Sludge Ponds
 * Social Causes against MTR ... this is obviously a huge deal (if this sounds PoV, just look at the "External Links" section), in my opinion "newsworthy" enough to have its own section in an encyclopedic article.
 * Doubleplusjeff 18:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Hmmm, I like that idea, I think it'll certainly helps us all work on inevitable POV battles on a one by one basis, as well as laying the criticisms out better, for all to see. The biodiversity section and sludge ponds are already starting to look good .D-rew 06:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the Controversy/Criticism section is getting pretty large and should be moved to Criticism of mountaintop removal mining (leaving a summary and a link to the main article). Only two of the sections above are stated in the main article and that section already takes up 1/2 of the page, although I think the sludge pond should be considered an issue with coal mining in general (although there is nothing referencing it in that article or in environmental effects of coal either), not just MTR, but that is a whole other kettle of fish.  Maybe once Social causes (defiantly part of the criticism portion) and health concerns are added a split should take place...thoughts?--Kelapstick (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I get concerned when the page reads the "main issue has been over the physical alteration of the landscape." Actually, nature will erode the mountains anyway.  Since nobody is seeking to stop "natural" erosion, I don't think the controversy is the "alteration" of the landscape so much as it is the rate at which it changes and the effects, if any, of said change.  Scientists will state that erosion will eventually reduce the mountains in the eastern USA to lower elevations.  Is this "lowering of elevations" through "erosion" bad?  No, we live in a dynamic system (the universe), and we can not stop these processes.  Humans tend to like things to "stay the same" and generally are, for some reason, scared of change.  Let us at least describe the reason opposition to mountaintop mining exists and stay away from describing it as being concerned with the "physical alteration of the landscape."  The landscape will change--when the temperatures rise, when sea-level rises, etc...  I'd follow facts--does it degrade water quality, reduce habitat, provide jobs, and others so that people can reach a decision--on their own.  I don't think Wikipedia should "preach."  Rather, I'd like to see Wiki provide honest facts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.86.101 (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

On avoiding future edit wars

 * How do ya'll think this statement should read.

"Some controversy over the practice stems from both the extreme topological and ecological changes that the mining site undergoes, as well and the storage of waste material generated from the mining and processing of the coal."

I edited it to read

"The controversy over..."

but it was reverted by TMLutas for this reason "Some people just don't like coal and oppose MTR as a way to incrementally kill all mining."

Despite a lack of evidence to the contrary I edited in the poorly worded statement "More generally many object to the use of coal as an energy source." which was rv by Djoeyd114, as NPOV issue.

My question is, how should it read? I think we should say what the controversy over MTR is, and not wishy-washy around it. If there is something besides the issues listed that is controversial about MTR, it seems like it should be added to make this page all the more encyclopedic. Opinions?D-rew 21:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

 * To be honest, I think that this is pretty clear:

 * "Some controversy over the practice stems from both the extreme topological and ecological changes that the mining site undergoes, as well and the storage of waste material generated from the mining and processing of the coal."Athene cunicularia 00:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Why wouldn't you want to state what all the controversy is over. If the statement doesn't entirely cover the controversy (implied by the some) than it seems we can put what else is controversial.  Not to mention I've heard few lamer resons than this"Some people just don't like coal and oppose MTR as a way to incrementally kill all mining" for editing. D-rew 01:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't have a good draft for how it should read but here's my two cents on the big picture. Some people don't like energy, period. They're called luddites and rarely operate in the open because their ideals are so ugly once you work out the math (90%+ human death rates to get to a sustainable luddite world) that few actually openly adhere to the ideology. Other people don't like coal because they perceive it as dirty and ecologically unsound. Any technique that enhances the economic viability of coal is going to get dumped on by these greens.

 * And then there's the crowd that have no problem with energy, no problem with coal, yet find MTR to be a bad idea. This is the most attractive of the opposition positions and all three factions will tend to make public statements on these grounds to maximize their popularity and effectiveness.

 * I believe a good open would recognize the anti-coal and anti-energy aspects of MTR controversy while concentrating on those opponents who are merely upset about this specific technique. TMLutas 22:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Advocating for a lack of POV, How about this as a last statement?
 * Coal's mining and use as a fuel have long been controversial amongst environmentalists due to potential environmental impact and coal burning's potential role in global warming.  Much of the controversy over MTR ,however, stems from both the extreme topological and ecological changes that the mining site undergoes, and well and the storage of waste material generated from the mining and processing of the coal.
 * My guess is (observing some of your statements) you might not like the GW tie in. The reason I inserted it is to get a full view of what the controversy is over, and, like you said, go general to specific.D-rew 06:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

 * How about this
 * Because of the destructive nature of the practice, Mountaintop removal mining is controversial among environmentalists, local residents, and others; controversy over the practice stems from both the extreme topological and ecological changes that the mining site undergoes, as well and the storage of waste material generated from the mining and processing of the coal.Athene cunicularia 16:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Since I posted this two days ago and nobody has responded, I'm going to edit the page.Athene cunicularia (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

 * In an attempt to include both sides I edited the paragraph to read
 * Because of the physically destructive nature of the practice, MTR mining is controversial, and is disparaged by environmentalists, local residents, and others. Controversy over the practice stems from both the extreme topological and ecological changes that the mining site undergoes, as well as from the storage of waste material generated from the mining and processing of the coal. Advocates of MTR point out its efficiency, its ability to provide jobs, and the resulting increase of flat land in areas where there is often little.
 * Approve / Disapprove?D-rew (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I'd highlight the contradiction that people who oppose mountaintop mining do not oppose "natural" erosion that will reduce the elevations of the mountains. Simply expose a flaw in that argument does not mean that mountaintop mining is any more "acceptable."  Rather, it simply removes a flaw in many arguments made to say that mountaintop mining is "wrong" or "bad" due simply to the topographical alteration.  Since "natural" erosion will eventually lead to lower elevations, it isn't the change in elevation that is alarming or controversial.  It may be the rate of said change is a problem, but nobody is suggesting we go build Mount Saint Helens back up to its "pre-blow" dimensions--and that was a big change.  Rather it is "man" that is changing the mountain top.  I'd simply describe "changes in topography are often cited as ..... but that nobody complains when natural process alter topography (give examples if you want)."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.86.101 (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Valley Fill Photo?
Anyone have a quality photo of a valley fill? The article refers to these over and over, but the textual description is difficult to convey what one actually is. Please include a photo thumbnail if you have one. Doubleplusjeff —Preceding comment was added at 18:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 * ilovemountains.org has some good images on their flickr site. I'm currently in contact with someone at the organization in an attempt to be allowed to use the images b/c they are copyrighted.D-rew 06:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Good valley fill pix here - sorry Im a new user and cant add them - these are not copyrighted

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/008/10.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/008/index.html&usg=__guTK_Xuaq6w1781p53zKF7abz4I=&h=394&w=525&sz=30&hl=en&start=15&sig2=hpXp6ZW7L7L6Xg3iYUw3Cw&tbnid=qOhmcl8AeTPpqM:&tbnh=99&tbnw=132&ei=P6wpSZzbHqDMefe8vMQC&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmartin%2Bcounty%2Bcoal%2Bimpoundment%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den --Flashdark (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Has there been any progress on getting a free photo of a valley fill? There are a lot at Flickr; it's just a question of sending a Flickr Mail to the photographer and requesting that they change their license on that photo to Creative Commons. Badagnani (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Global tag
Since you mentioned it, what is the reason for removing the global tag?Athene cunicularia (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

 * If you want the full shpeel see the US tag talk portion of the page. In short its not that this page isn't centered on the US, its that all evidence points to MTR being centered in the US.  If we can get some references on global MTR sites or something like that than I think the tag could be placed back in.D-rew (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Okay, got it, thanks. Sorry for the oversight. Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Not a problem, never hurts to reiterate these things.D-rew (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a kind of strip mining?
Isn't this just a kind of strip mining? Isn't the main difference that this tends to remove more surface layers (and are not expected to restore them)? In theory a strip mine might be shallow and could work its way beyond the horizon, by having one working trench and placing the removed surface layers behind it as it progressed. Removing a mountain top implies not gluing together a replacement (which is not practical with current costs and materials). -- SEWilco (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strip mining is so named, not because it "strips" off the overlying rock, but because the mining is done in long strips. In contour stripping (in mountainous terrain), mining is done in long strips along the outcrop.  In area stripping (in flat ground), mining is again done in long strips, with the overburden from each strip placed in the excavation produced by the previous strip.  As far as I know, mountaintop removal mining is not done in long strips, and so more resembles open-pit mining (paradoxically, however, without the pit) than strip mining.  I'm not a coal miner, but there are probably some out there who can correct any errors in my statement.  Plazak (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I also see that you have taken it upon yourself in the Mining article to redefine Mountaintop Removal Mining as a type of strip mining. Perhaps you should consult with others first.  Plazak (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sludge ponds
NOTE: The thread about the Buffalo Creek Flood was moved from another section of the Discussion page to here, for semantic cohesion.

While the Buffalo Creek Flood illustrates the danger of slurry ponds, this particular dam wasn't a result of mountaintop removal, but rather another type of coal mining. Of course, the article doesn't directly attribute it to MTR, but perhaps another example would be better. Doubleplusjeff 03:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Inclusion of the Buffalo Creek disaster in the mountaintop removal article is highly misleading, as it implies that the disaster was connected to mountaintop removal. This example whould be removed.  Plazak 01:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not stated in the article that either of the two sludge ponds mentioned, either at Marsh Fork Elementary School, or the Martin County Sludge Spill, are related to MTR. If they are related to MTR, this fact should be stated and documented. If not, they should be moved to the article on coal sludge ponds. Plazak (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There are MTR mines above both the Marsh Fork School and at Martin County Coal, where the Oct 2000 spill occurred. I have personally seen both of these mine sites and photos are here http://www.appvoices.org/images/MarshForkAerial_full.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashdark (talk • contribs) 19:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The photo shown in the link above does not show a MTR mine above the impoundment. I live in the center of the MTR area and have worked on MTR jobs. Most MTR mines do not have sludge ponds. Sludge ponds are used in conjunction with "coal washer plants" that primarily porcess coal mined from underground mines. The sludge spills should not be allowed in this article. 199.43.32.81 (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reed@setel.com

I work for MSHA in a Division responsible for slurry/tailings ponds. The Shumate Prep Plant and Impoundment (near Marsh Fork school) and the Brushy Fork Prep Plant and Impoundment up the valley, both have received almost all their coal from underground mines. This will change a bit as the MTR operations nearby start up - but the slurry imprisonments have nothing to do with MTR - they would be needed regardless of the mining method.

I will remove the reference to them in the "Process" section - which itself needs much further amplification. The "sludge pond" section really doesn't belong in this article at all but needs to be in a separate article or as an expansion to the (currently incomplete) Tailings pond article. I'll let someone else remove this section and take the flack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.166.92 (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Agree that the sludge pond section is misplaced> I will (temporarily) blank it pending moving it to a more appropriate place.--Pete Tillman (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

article split
I copied the criticism section in a new article (Criticism of mountaintop removal mining) and the see also links that were to opponents of MTR mining, as they are more related to the criticism of MTR than to MTR itself. The leading two paragraphs are still in this article, but the criticism is large enough to warrent its own. The criticism section of any article should not make up half the content, even if it is a controversial subject.--Kelapstick (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was asked to review what you've done here and I've reverted you and deleted the criticism page. I don't really have much of an opinion about this article because I know nothing about this subject but shunting the criticism off to the side on an article that isn't excessive in length does raise concerns about a POV fork. I ask you to please discuss moving the content with other editors because I don't think this is a non-controversial move. The reason I reverted you is that when you created the new article, you violated the terms of the GFDL by not referring to the fact that you had copied the text from this page, but rather it was presented as though it was all your own work. This is a violation of the GFDL which requires the original authors be credited with their work. Please don't move it again without a consensus with other editors. Sarah 08:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I reverted the page move to a capitalised title because this article describes a mining process and doesn't appear to be a proper noun. The article itself doesn't use capitals except for when using acronyms and both the websites used as external links use lower case. So I can't understand why it was capped and there doesn't appear to be any discussion here. I don't have any personal objection to it being capitalised if it is decided that is appropriate but it doesn't seem consistent with the MOS or with its usual usage. Sarah 08:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Image size
I removed the forced image size of the two pictures in the article heading, they were pretty big, and overlapped (on was centred). They maybe should be a little bigger and moved somewhere further down the article (or not). Also there is an image of a Dragline at the Centralia Coal Mine, is that an MTR mine, the mine's article doesn't say anything about it.--kelapstick (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral writing/NPOV nomination
Though it appears to have been discussed in years past, I took a look at this article, and it only took a moment or two for it to reek of bias to me. I've found numerous places where both the writing and the content appear to have a conspicuous lack of neutrality, earning a flag for each. To go over a few of the more prominent examples that stuck out:
 * Writing: This isn't quite as serious a problem as the POV one, but it still further compounds things. Many of the issues here might not be the result of deliberate bias, but nonetheless exemplify what to strive to avoid when writng a neutral article.
 * Potential over-use of double-quotes: Starting right with the introduction, I see heavy use of double-quotes around various terms. According to the Manual of Style, they would be justified if the enclosed terms were being used in an unconventional or unattrubatble manner, but given that they appear to all be cited through reliable sources, use of double-quotes is unjustified. In such cases, because the purpose is to mention the word rather than use it, the Manual of Style recommends italics instead.
 * I would also note that not all uses of double-quotes are unjustified, though, as some properly fulfil the use of scare quotes, such as the term "fill material", as it is in reference to the term being ill-defined. The quotes are unjustified merely when the term has a well-cited or consensus definition that is being used.
 * Weasel words: While it appears that prior attempts have cleaned some of these up, I notice some still remain. One quote that stands out is "According to SMCRA, the topsoil is supposed to be removed and set aside for later reclamation." The sentence is cited with what appears to be a good, reliable source. Were the statement a known lie, the use of the phrase "according to" would be justified. However, as the exception is based on the granting of waivers, which aren't gauranteed.

 * Similarly, "Critics contend that MTR is a destructive and unsustainable practice..." doesn't appear to be cited, and is another classic example of weasel words? Who, precisely, are the critics? It should either have a reliable source cited right there that echoes the same statement, or should be removed in favor of a more list-like organization detailing specific examples of these "critics."

 * Lastly, I see mention of "desired geological material," which strikes me as an unusual way to describe mineral resources. This feels like it could be another example of weasel-wording, in a manner as to try and distance it from more "accepted" resources.

Overall, I see that this article DOES have the potential to be neutral, but it's got a long way to go. And right now, the lack of neutrality is almost certainly the biggest single detriment to the article: normally lack of solid content and inline citations/sources are the biggest hurdle toward getting to B/GA+ status, but this article already has way, way more good sources listed than any other Start-class I've seen. It just needs stronger neutrality. Nottheking (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Point-of-View: It appears that this article, which is about an apparently passionate subject matter, has had a lot of non-neutrality built into the content. Avoiding bias in an encyclopediac article is relatively simple; for a subject like this, the article should discuss the definition of the subject, its context, (history, legal environment, etc.) and then its impacts, (economic, ecological, health) including any reception/response/criticism arising from it; even with the apparent majority being critical of the subject, it's still possible to maintain neutrality while not giving undue weight to any potential counter-viewpoints. Here's some examples I spotted where things went wrong:
 * Improper/poorly-cited introduction: The first half is allright. "Peer-reviewed studies show that mountaintop mining has serious environmental impacts..." however, is apparently un-cited, only sourcing the "adverse human health impacts." That level of detail doesn't belong in the introduction; mention of criticism can be warranted, if included in a neutral manner. As is, it appears to give undue weight to criticism, as this article is not "Criticism of Mountaintop mining removal."
 * Early focus on deforestation: Although it's not until the "process" section right thereafter where it's even explained how deforestation directly comes into play, the fourth paragraph of the "overview" section switches right from describing the location of MRM, and then launching into a well-cited series of notes on the deforestation taking place there. Such sentences are well-sourced and written in a manner that on its own is satisfactorally neutral, but its placement is problematic, again applying undue weight. Rather, it should be further down the article, as one of the core statements of the "environmental impacts" section.
 * What's the SMCRA? While I was able to go and readily find out that the article was referencing the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, the article provides no inline linking or any case where it even provides the full name. While mostly an error of writing/wikifying the article, it also could be construed to try and minimize the weight of this piece of legislation which is core and critical to the article.
 * Messy "impacts" section: For the most part, this sections problems are NOT neutrality-related, but amidst the poor organization of it, it also placed some more undue weight on "critics contend"s. This section is on impacts, not "critics," so it should follow a clear structure that reflects this, based around a small number of core, well-established facts, such as the previously-mentioned section on deforestation. Then it should follow up with more specific supporting notes on each major point.
 * The entire "Community Action" section: This is possibly the worst offender in terms of POV in the article. Beginning with "Some artists have been leaders in the fight against the process of mountaintop removal," it reads right off as more or less a direct advertisement for a cause. That section should not even exist, at least as named and structured. Certainly, there's room for "criticism," and with a topic this controversial such a section is necessary in order for the article to be neutral. But to lay it out as if it's accepted consensus that opposing MRM is "the good fight" is downright bias. Some of the contents could be worked into a proper "criticism" section where appropriate, but by and large the section needs to be deleted.

 * I agree with a lot of what you say and have made some changes to the article. The "Community action" section has been cut back a lot, and the title changed to "Books and films". I'm removing the tags, and ask that you edit the article in the usual way to make any further changes that are needed. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

7 Years Later
This article is still as biased as it was.

This article was added as a subset to the "Surface Mining" article. Where it belongs.

Additionally, the proper name is Mountain Top Mining. MTR is only used by environmentalists... Google:  "Mountain Top Removal Mining"    the only results are from environmentalist sites.

By allowing the name to stay this article remains a POV issues and furthers an agenda.

Deletion of article, merging under surface mining, renaming to its proper name: Mountain Top Mining.

PeterWesco (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Than I would suggest attempting to improve it and submitting a formal move request rather than outright proposing it for deletion.--kelapstick(bainuu) 07:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Agreed the article should be titled mountaintop mining and mounaintop removal mining should simply link to this page, and not be the title.

Boundarylayer (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was withdrawn. Cancelled per WP:SNOW Article move request has been cancelled. WP:SNOW  PeterWesco (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Mountaintop removal mining → Mountaintop mining – WP:POVTITLE  WP:PRECISION. Mountaintop Removal Mining is "new speak" used by environmental groups. MTM is the name used in text books, non-agenda publications, the US Goverment, etc. To illustrate this point I refer to one of the POV references used in the article: http://www.grist.org/article/epa-sleep-in-lisa-jacksons-fundamental-misunderstanding/   The aforementioned source describes their anger that the government has not adopted their terminology. The continued use of MTRM instead of MTM is a continued demonstration on the blatant POV of this article. MTR/MTRM will still be referenced in the article and it will be done in a way to remain NPOV and certainly not how MTM is currently referenced. Precision:  As discusssed below, MTM is surface mining and always requires the removal of the mountaintop. PeterWesco (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MOS:CAPS, Mining should not be capitalized. Comment. Regarding POV, it is impossible for this article to have a so-called neutral POV.  With the word "removal", it is "biased" in favor of environmentalists, without the word "removal" it is biased in favor of industry.  As long as both are covered in the lead sentence, what's the big deal?  The only way Wikipedia could remain "neutral" is to change the title back and forth on some regular schedule.  As per point of fact though doesn't the operation in fact "remove" a mountain top, i.e., after the mining is done, is not the surveyed elevation of the mountain lower? Wbm1058 (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Another thought: Do mining operations ever put an underground mine shaft on the top of a mountain, mine at the top of the mountain by extracting coal up the shaft, leaving the mountaintop intact, and not removing it?  If so, then perhaps this article needs the word "removal" to disambiguate this type of mining from the underground shaft type which is done on a mountaintop.  If mountain top mining always removes the mountaintop, then I suppose this disambiguation is unnecessary, and per WP:PRECISION, "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that."  So if "mountaintop mining" unambiguously defines the fact that the mountain top is removed, then perhaps the word "removal" is over-precision and can be removed. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Mountain Top mining always involves the removal of the mountain top.  The process described in the article is not disputed.   Explosives are used to take off the summit ridge, the waste is dumped in the valleys, etc etc.    It is a form of surface mining...   Surface mining does not involve shafts.   Refer to the article:  surface mining.  Agreed on MOS:CAPS, I have adjusted to address your (correct) concern. PeterWesco (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Comment. On 20 January 2007, Mountaintop removal moved to Mountaintop removal mining, reason: This name is used in the article and is more accurate. It also matches what is used in wictionary. Moving more in an "industry-friendly" direction.  Keeping both removal and mining in the title, rather than one or the other, is a fair compromise?  But checking out Wiktionary, since 14 January 2007, the entry has been mountaintop removal. I see that the acronyms used in the article are either MTR or MTM, there is no MTRM acronym in the article.  I suppose "mountaintop removal" unambiguously defines a mining operation, unless one might remove a mountain for some reason other than resource extraction.  Maybe, per WP:COMMONNAME "use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Wbm1058 (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Baffling. How exactly is this a POV title when you concede that "Mountain Top mining always involves removal of the mountain top."? You're on slightly firmer ground with the precision argument, but I had never heard your proposed title, so I decided to play the hits game (phrases in quotation marks, -wikipedia for the general search, keyword search for WorldCat):
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Term !! Google !! GBooks !! GNews !! GScholar !! JSTOR !! WorldCat
 * Mountaintop removal mining || 184,000 || 3,340 ||157 || 572 || 33 || 135
 * Mountaintop mining || 110,000 || 2,920 || 104 || 711 || 39 || 100
 * }
 * As you can see, it's very mixed usage. I agree with Wbm that both possibilities are POV (cf. the repeated clashes over Pink slime), but it looks like the current title was chosen as a compromise between "Mountaintop removal" (skews anti-industry) and "Mountaintop mining" (skews pro-industry). It seems we're all agreed that the topic in question is literally mining after the removal of a mountaintop, so I see no compelling reason to change. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * }
 * As you can see, it's very mixed usage. I agree with Wbm that both possibilities are POV (cf. the repeated clashes over Pink slime), but it looks like the current title was chosen as a compromise between "Mountaintop removal" (skews anti-industry) and "Mountaintop mining" (skews pro-industry). It seems we're all agreed that the topic in question is literally mining after the removal of a mountaintop, so I see no compelling reason to change. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose per BDD, further, you can mine at the top of the mountain by tunneling without removal, so it becomes ambiguous with the rename -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

 * oppose Both terms are used, both are used to advocate a POV position, so neutrality and commonname don't help us much here. However in the form described here, mountaintops are removed, so clarity favours the current nameat Mountaintop removal mining.Andy Dingley (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

See here Large Numbers of Birth Defects Seen Near Mountaintop Mining Operations 2011- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110623090001.htm
 * Agree, although I think it's not all that important, for the sake of NPOV I agree with the renaming as the most authoritative publications on the process use MTM and not MTRM.

& http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111212153119.htm Cumulative Impact of Mountaintop Mining Documented Boundarylayer (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Cancelled per WP:SNOW Article move request has been cancelled. PeterWesco (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Also called "hilltop removal mining"?
Is there a specific term for mining on the summit of a hill instead of a mountain or are they called the same thing? Hilltop removal mining does not redirect to this article.  Volcano guy  07:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Spelling
It's Hobet, not Hobit, you ignorant, murderous environmental liberals. As for POV, this entire article is written from one that paints all capitalists and workers as some kind of demonic entity. It's skewed so far left that it's nothing more than socialist propaganda.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mountaintop removal mining. 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/20081120041942/http://westvirginia.sierraclub.org/newsletter/archives/2007/09/a_002.html to http://westvirginia.sierraclub.org/newsletter/archives/2007/09/a_002.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Legislation in the United States
Hello, I have added informaiton to the legislation section. Some information pertained to what was previously posted, but I have added the most recent information I could find.Camisasn28 (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Reclamation
Hi Wikipedia, I added a reference to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to the section on reclamation of Mountaintop Removal mine sites. I also included links to other relevant pages from within the section, including the wiki pages on erosion and reforestation. I felt that it was important to include the legislation the laid the groundwork for how MTR mine sites are reclaimed today. SandersJR (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Bias
"Critics contend that...", this transition sentence comes across as ambiguous. The opposing groups pertinent to this topic are not clear. I also do not think that a "Critics" section is necessary or helpful. Would a section providing historical context of opposing groups that have been involved be more effective? Morgan.emma (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Mountaintop removal mining in urdu
Translate it 202.47.55.103 (talk) 08:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mountaintop removal mining


text:
Eduard Kuznetsov (dissident)

Edward Samoilovich Kuznetsov (Эдуа́рд Само́йлович Кузнецо́в, אדוארד קוזנצוב; born 29 January 1939) is a Soviet-Israeli dissident, refusenik, journalist, and writer. One of the leaders of the 1970 Dymshits–Kuznetsov hijacking affair, Kuznetsov's case drew international attention following his death sentence. As a result of global protests, his sentence was commuted to fifteen years' imprisonment.

Dymshits was released in 1979 as part of a prisoner exchange between the Soviet Union and the United States, and he subsequently made aliyah to Israel. Throughout the 1980s, Kuznetsov participated in the operations of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty before beginning the publication of the Russian-language Vesti in 1992. Kuznetsov is also a writer, having written three novels (two of which were written during his prison sentence and smuggled out of the country).

Samizdat and dissident activity
Kuznetsov was born in 1939. He studied at the philosophy department of Moscow State University.

While at university, Kuznetsov became involved with the first unsanctioned samizdat (self-published) magazines. In 1958-61, he co-edited the underground literary journals Sintaksis and Boomerang, and helped compile the samizdat poetry anthology Phoenix.

In 1961, Kuznetsov was arrested and tried for the first time for his involvement in publishing samizdat, and for making overtly political speeches in poetry readings at Mayakovsky Square in central Moscow. Among those also attending these informal gatherings were Yuri Galanskov, Vladimir Osipov and Vladimir Bukovsky. Kuznetsov was sentenced to seven years imprisonment.

Dymshits–Kuznetsov hijacking affair and aliyah
Following his release in 1968, Kuznetsov became one of the primary organisers of the Dymshits–Kuznetsov hijacking affair in June 1970, alongside Mark Dymshits. Arrested for "high treason," he was set to be executed, but after lodging an appeal and international protests, his sentence was replaced with fifteen years in prison and labour camp. His case "opened the doors of emigration to thousands of Soviet Jews." In the 1970s, Kuznetsov shared a prison cell with Danylo Shumuk for five years.

In 1979, he and four other dissidents (Dymshits, Baptist preacher Georgi Vins, samizdat writer Alexander Ginzburg, and Ukrainian nationalist Valentyn Moroz) were exchanged for two Soviet spies arrested in the United States. Kuznetsov then immigrated to Israel.

Literary and other activities
From 1983 to 1990, he was chief of the news department of Radio Liberty in Munich. In 1992 he co-founded the Israeli Russian-language newspaper, Vesti (The News), which he edited until 1999.

Kuznetsov is a member of the PEN Club and has been widely published in European, US and Israeli media. He is the author of three novels: Prison Diary (1973), Mordovian Marathon (1979) (both written secretly in prison and smuggled abroad) and Russian Romance (1984). All three have been translated into many languages. In 1974, Prison Diary won the Gulliver Award in France, being declared the best book written by a foreign author.

In 2005, Kuznetsov participated in "They Chose Freedom", a four-part television documentary on the history of the Soviet dissident movement. He currently lives in Jerusalem, Israel and is a board member of the Gratitude Fund, an organisation supplying financial aid to former Soviet dissidents.

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

title: Eduard Kuznetsov (dissident)


text:
D+M Group

D+M Group, formerly known as DMGlobal and D&M Holdings, is a Japanese corporation that owned several audio and video brands. It was formed in 2002 from the merger of Denon and Marantz. It had acquired several other companies since that time. Prior to 2008, it was owned by RHJ International, which is associated with Ripplewood Holdings. In 2008, it was acquired by K. K. BCJ-2, a Tokyo corporation owned by investment funds advised by Bain Capital. In August, 2010, Jim Caudill, a former Stanley Black & Decker executive, was named CEO.

In April 2014, D+M Group sold Denon Professional, Marantz Professional, and Denon DJ to inMusic Brands. In February 2017, D+M Group was acquired by American company Sound United LLC.

Holdings and brands

 * Boston Acoustics
 * D&M Professional
 * Denon
 * Denon DJ
 * Marantz
 * Polk Audio
 * Rio (defunct)
 * The Speaker Company

title: D+M Group


text:
Grevillea robusta

Grevillea robusta, commonly known as the southern silky oak, silk oak or silky oak, silver oak or Australian silver oak, is a flowering plant in the family Proteaceae, and accordingly unrelated to true oaks, family Fagaceae. Grevillea robusta is a tree, and is the largest species in its genus. It is a native of eastern coastal Australia, growing in riverine, subtropical and dry rainforest environments.

Description
Grevillea robusta is a fast-growing evergreen tree with a single main trunk, growing to 5-40 m tall. The bark is dark grey and furrowed. Its leaves are fern-like, 10-34 cm long, 9-15 cm wide and divided with between 11 and 31 main lobes. Each lobe is sometimes further divided into as many as four, each one linear to narrow triangular in shape. It loses many of its leaves just before flowering.

The flowers are arranged in one-sided, "toothbrush"-like groups, sometimes branched, 12-15 cm long. The carpel (the female part) of each flower has a stalk 21-28 mm long. The flowers are glabrous and mostly yellowish orange, or sometimes reddish. Flowering occurs from September to November and the fruit that follows is a glabrous follicle.

Taxonomy and naming
Grevillea robusta was first formally described in 1830 by Robert Brown after an unpublished description by Allan Cunningham. The type specimen was collected by Cunningham on the eastern edge of Moreton Bay in 1827. Brown's description was published in Supplementum primum Prodromi florae Novae Hollandiae. The specific epithet (robusta) is a Latin word meaning "strong like oak" or "robust".

Distribution and habitat
Silky oak occurs naturally on the coast and ranges in southern Queensland and in New South Wales as far south as Coffs Harbour where it grows in subtropical rainforest, dry rainforest and wet forests. It is now relatively rare in its natural habitat but has been widely planted. It has become naturalised in many places, including on Norfolk Island, Lord Howe Island and the Atherton Tableland in Australia, and overseas in South Africa, New Zealand, Hawaii, French Polynesia, Jamaica and Florida. It is regarded as a weed in parts of New South Wales and Victoria, and as invasive in Hawaii and South Africa.

Uses
Before the advent of aluminium, Grevillea robusta timber was widely used for external window joinery, as it is resistant to wood rot. It has been used in the manufacture of furniture, cabinetry, and fences. Owing to declining G. robusta populations, felling has been restricted.

Recently G. robusta has been used for side and back woods on guitars made by Larrivée and others, because of its tonal and aesthetic qualities.

Cultivation
When young, it can be grown as a houseplant where it can tolerate light shade, but it prefers full sun because it grows best in warm zones. If planted outside, young trees need protection on frosty nights. Once established it is hardier and tolerates temperatures down to -8 C. It needs occasional water but is otherwise fairly drought-resistant. Care needs to be taken when planting it near bushland because it can be invasive.

G. robusta is often used as stock for grafting difficult-to-grow grevilleas. It has been planted widely throughout the city of Kunming in south-western China, forming shady avenues.

G. robusta is grown in plantations in South Africa, and can also be grown alongside maize in agroforestry systems.

In the UK, G. robusta has gained the Royal Horticultural Society's Award of Garden Merit.

Toxicity and allergic reactions
The flowers and fruit contain toxic hydrogen cyanide. Tridecylresorcinol in G.robusta is responsible for contact dermatitis.

title: Grevillea robusta


text:
User talk:Paganpan

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! D. J. Bracey (talk) 21:13, 29 August 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 declined: Simon Davies (lawyer)
Hello Paganpan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Simon Davies (lawyer), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Paganpan


text:
Hüma Hatun

Hüma Hatun (هما خاتون, "bird of paradise/phoenix" c. 1410 – September 1449) was a  concubine of Ottoman Sultan Murad II and the mother of Mehmed II.

Life
Although, some Turkish sources claim that she was of Turkic origin, Hüma Hatun was a slave girl of European origin. Nothing is known of her family background, apart from the fact that an Ottoman inscription (vakfiye) describes her as Hātun binti Abdullah (daughter of Abdullah); at that time, people who converted to Islam were given the name Abdullah meaning Servant of God, which is evidence of her non-Muslim origin. According to the tradition, she was of Italian and/or Jewish origin and her previous name may have been Stella or Esther. According to another view, she was of Greek or Slavic origin. Based on the fact that Mehmed II was fluent in the Serbian language, it was concluded that she may have been of south Slavic origin, most likely Serbian. Finally, it has also been claimed that she may have been Greek. Her name, hüma, means "bird of paradise/phoenix", after the Persian legend.

Hüma Hatun entered in Murad II's harem around 1424. By him she had firstly two daughters, Hatice Hatun in 1425 and Fatma Hatun in 1430, and finally, on 30 March 1432, she gave birth to her only son, the future Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror. In 1438, Mehmed was circumcised along with his elder half-brother, Şehzade Alaeddin. When Mehmed was 11 years old, he was sent to Manisa as a prince governor. Hüma followed her son to Manisa. Her children's wet nurse was Hundi Hatun (d. 14 February 1486): usually styled Daye Hatun (lady governess), she became very wealthy and influential enough during the reign of Mehmed II, enough to fund several charitable foundations and commission prayers for her soul.

In 1444, after the death of Mehmed's elder half-brother, Şehzade Alaeddin, who died in 1443, Mehmed was the only heir left to the throne. In that same year, Murad II abdicated the throne due to depression over the death of his son, Şehzade Alaeddin Ali Çelebi, and retreated to Manisa.

Her son Şehzade Mehmed succeeded the throne as Mehmed II. She held the Vâlide Hatun position for two years. In 1446, Murad took over the throne again, and Hüma and her son returned to Bursa. However, Mehmed succeeded the throne in 1451, after the death of his father, but she never became a Valide Hatun as she died before the accession. She was not alive to see the conquest of Constantinople, which became the capital of Ottoman Empire for nearly five centuries, before the Empire was abolished in 1922 and Turkey was officially declared as a republic.

Death
She died in September 1449 in Bursa, two years before her son's second accession to the throne. Her tomb is located at the site known as "Hatuniye Kümbedi" (Hatuniye Tomb) to the east of Muradiye Complex, which was built by her son Mehmed. The quarter where her tomb lies has been known thus far as Hüma Hatun Quarter.

Issue
By Murad II, Hüma Hatun had two daughters and a son:
 * Hatice Hatun (1425 – after 1470). She married Candaroğlu İsmail Kemaleddin Bey and had three sons: Hasan Bey (who married is cousin Kamerhan Hatun, daughter of Mehmed II, and had a daughter, Hanzade Hatun), Yahya Bey and Mahmud Bey. Her descendants were still alive during the reign of Abdulmejid I, in the 19th century. In August 1470, she remarried with Isa Bey.
 * Fatma Hatun (1430 – after 1464). She married Zaganos Pasha and had two sons: Hamza Bey and Ahmed Çelebi, who would become an important adviser to his cousin Bayezid II. Following her divorce in 1462, she married Mahmud Çelebi.
 * Mehmed II (1432–1481). Sultan of the Ottoman Empire after his father and conqueror of Constantinople in 1453.

In popular culture
Hüma Hatun was portrayed by Leyla Feray in the docuseries Rise of Empires: Ottoman (2020).

title: Hüma Hatun


text:
User talk:Marduk1234

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! D. J. Bracey (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Marduk1234


text:
User talk:Huttson

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! D. J. Bracey (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Paul à Québec
Please note that what you're trying to add to Paul à Québec is not actually helpful. Section headers are not added to an article until there's actually content for those headers to head — they are not added to an article as blank sections. And neither do we want the cast list to contain every single person who was credited as making any appearance in the film, even just as a barista in a coffee shop scene or as a stunt double — we only want a film's article to name the actors who played major characters, or at least have Wikipedia articles to link to, not every single person whose face can be seen in it at all. A person who wants to see a complete cast list can click on the link to the film's IMDb page that's present under external links — Wikipedia is concerned with what's encyclopedic about a film, not with documenting every minor detail about it. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Huttson


text:
User talk:RobertMarrs

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Amren (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

The O'Toole Brotherhood Betrayed

Marrsy boy, trying to do down the Glasgow Uni Shinty Club, poor show old boy, a recognised historic club and a founder memeber of the national leagues and a senior club just the same as any other Shinty club, with the misfortune of being attached to galsgwo Uni for our name. How can you expect to have a decent article on the fantastic sport of Shinty without giving a description of the teams that play it? Glasgow Univeristy were just blessed by the existence of myself and my knowledge of the Wikipedia. How's life?

Eoghan

12/4/06

title: User talk:RobertMarrs


text:
User talk:Gatti

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! D. J. Bracey (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Fair use rationale for File:Elballo-stage1-3.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Elballo-stage1-3.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  04:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Elballo-stage0-3.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Elballo-stage0-3.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  17:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of ProRattaFactor for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ProRattaFactor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/ProRattaFactor until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Odie5533 (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gatti


text:
User talk:Dcmcgov

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! D. J. Bracey (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

UPCI Page
I was not aware I had to discuss content changes on the discussion page of the UPCI page. My apologese to you. I was not trying to get into revert-war with you. I simply felt that the Globe Logo was blurry and not legible and replaced it with a cleaner logo. While the Globe Logo is on our letter head the UPC uses many banners for there websites and events. When I am unblocked from making edits I will be glad to discuss content Issues. I apologize and hope you can forgive me. Sincerely Ninety9

Oxnard Plain
Thanks for Oxnard Plain and other recent contributions. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

America's Army
Hello Dcmcgov,

Would you happen to play America's Army, or at least have played anytime recently? Your Wikipedia account name sounds like someone I have played that game with, but I can't remember if it was your account name verbatim. --Lan56 04:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

July 2007
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war  according to the reverts you have made on United Pentecostal Church International. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Gscshoyru 18:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

=UPCI page= Thanks for your input. However, I am not in a revert war, I am attempting to stop one. Look at the history page. I have repeatedly asked user Mikkirose to engage the discussion page, but this user ignored me and continues to revert back to edits that are unnaceptable. I have asked 4 times. I'm not a novice to Wikipedia. Thanks for your help, perhaps there is something you could do. Dcmcgov 18:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

 * If you know and understand the WP:3RR then report the user when it is violated, and don't violate it yourself. That's about as much as I can help you with. And I know the feeling of someone not listening... but to be fair I put the message on both your pages. Gscshoyru 18:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

 * You've technically violated WP:3RR now on this page - as I said to Mikkirose, please take it to the talk page, as I'd rather not have to start handing out blocks.  E LIMINATOR JR   TALK  18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

=Hi, Dc=

I'm looking back over the history of the page and I have to wonder if perhaps you got caught in the line of fire (by the way, I did respond on the discussion page before your last edit, so feel free to check that out). There are a couple of guys who persistantly blather nonsense about not needing anything negative on the page about the UPCI, but, upon review, I can't see that you were one of them. Their ideas are a clear violation of the NPOV rule on Wikipedia, but I think from your note you would agree that there is a place for criticism of organizations.

To me, it seems that the best solution is for you to write up a criticism section. You seem to know what you want it to look like, and then maybe I will see the superiority of your plan. Actually, the section isn't my writing anyway, so it's not like I'm sentimentally attached. It just seems to me that the solution to having a poorly constructed criticism section isn't just to remove all criticism, but to write a better one.

What do you think?

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Dcmcgov! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Carlos Martínez (boxer) -

Nomination of Ben Olson for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ben Olson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ben Olson until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Timmy Curran

The article Timmy Curran has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Where's the beef? This guy has no major achievements and founding an organization is not inherently notable. The only source is miles from reliable."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. John from Idegon (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dcmcgov


text:
Mareth Line

The Mareth Line was a system of fortifications built by France in southern Tunisia in the late 1930s. The line was intended to protect Tunisia against an Italian invasion from its colony in Libya. The line occupied a point where the routes into Tunisia from the south converged, leading toward Mareth, with the Mediterranean Sea to the east and mountains and a sand sea to the west.

The line ran along the north side of Wadi Zigzaou for about 50 km south-westwards from the Gulf of Gabès to Cheguimi and the Djebel (mountain) Matmata on the Dahar plateau between the Grand Erg Oriental (Great Eastern Sand Sea) and the Matmata hills. The Tebaga Gap, between the Mareth line and the Great Eastern Sand Sea, a potential route by which an invader could outflank the Mareth line, was not surveyed until 1938.

After the French Armistice of 22 June 1940, the Mareth Line was demilitarised under the supervision of an Italo-German commission. Tunisia was occupied by Axis forces after Operation Torch in 1942 and the line was refurbished and extended by Axis engineers into a defensive position by building more defences between the line and Wadi Zeuss 3.5 mi to the south but French-built anti-tank gun positions were too small for Axis anti-tank guns which had to be sited elsewhere.

The Battle of Medenine (6 March 1943) against the Eighth Army was a costly failure. At the Battle of the Mareth Line (16–31 March 1943) the Eighth Army was contained within the Mareth Line defences. An outflanking move west and north of the Mareth Line was followed by Operation Supercharge II which broke through the Axis defences of the Tebaga Gap and led them to retreat from the Mareth Line to Wadi Akarit. The Mareth Line is derelict and is commemorated at the Mareth Museum.

French strategy
In the 1930s the defence of the French colonial empire (French Indochina, Pacific Islands, West Indies, African colonies and Syria–Lebanon) was left to the French Foreign Legion, colonial and "native" units, the Marine nationale (Navy) and the Armée de l'Air (Air Force). By the late 1930s, the Navy had only one aircraft carrier and the Armée de l'Air could spare only second-rate aircraft. Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia provided much of the manpower of the Armée coloniale and Tunisia, with the Italian colony of Libya to the east, was excepted from the priority given to the defence of metropolitan France. French plans for defence of Tunisia assumed that Italy would launch an overwhelming assault that France could not easily oppose. Italy was expected to launch attacks on Egypt and Tunisia as soon as war was declared, with the Italian Navy securing supply and blocking any substantial Anglo-French relief. With a force of six divisions, a fortress division and a cavalry division to defend Tunisia, capable of only local operations with limited objectives. The French army considered the construction of a "Maginot Line in the desert" (ligne Maginot du désert).

Geography
Central Tunisia is dominated by the Atlas Mountains, while the northern and southern portions are largely flat. The primary feature in the south is the Matmata Hills, a range running north-south roughly parallel to the Mediterranean coast. West of the hills, the land is the inhospitable Jebel Dahar and the Dehar region of desert beyond to the west, making the region between the hills and the coast the only easily traversed approach to northern Tunisia. A smaller line of hills runs east–west along the northern edge of the Matmata range, further complicating this approach. At the far northern end of the Matmata Hills is the Tebaga Gap. From the Mediterranean the coastal plain rises gently to the Matmata Hills. The plain consists of gravels and sands, with salt flats between the sandy areas, which turn into bogs after light rain becoming impassable to wheeled vehicles. There are numerous wadis from the hills to the sea, including the bigger Wadi Zeuss and Wadi Zigzaou. Inland, the sources of the wadis are steep and rocky, widening near the coast, the beds having streams or muddy bottoms, with firmer areas traversable by vehicles.

Plans
In January 1934 planning began on the new fortifications; Infantry officers selected the sites for strongpoints to dominate the ground in front with overlapping fields of fire. In 1936, the French government provided funds for construction after Italy formed the Rome–Berlin Axis with Germany, creating a greater threat to French security in North Africa. The casemates designed for the line had much less concrete than comparable examples in France and had no fossé (gap) rather a stable door, in case the lower part was blocked by débris. In September 1936, during a meeting with General Joseph Georges, it was agreed that the fortification of the Mareth Line, Bizerte, Medenine, Ben Gardane and Foum Tataouine (Tataouine) must be completed. Medenine, Ben Gardane to the west and Tataouine to the east, were south of the proposed line, Tataouine being the place where the routes to Mareth passed through the bottleneck between the Matmata Mountains and the sea.

The line was divided into eastern and western sectors with a main line of resistance and a reserve line about 1.5 km back. A secteur défensif (SD) was to be built on the rocky Dahar Plateau, which later became part of an SD across the Matmata Hills to Kebili on the edge of the Chott el Djerid. The chott and Chott El Fedjaj drained across Tunisia into Wadi Akarit, across Tunisia but Wadi Akarit was only sketchily fortified, the French concentrating on the Mareth Line 50 km south, to cover Gabes. The gap between the Mareth Line and the Great Eastern Sand Sea, a potential route by which an invader could outflank the Mareth line, was not given consideration until 1938. General Georges Catroux and Colonel Gautsch surveyed the area and in their assessment predicted that three divisions could advance from the Libyan border to Ksar (fortified village) el Hallouf and Bir (well) Soltane in six days and then advance into the gaps either side of Djebel Melab and those between Djebel Tebaga and the Matmata Hills.

Mareth Line
The Mareth Line consisted of casemates surrounded by barbed wire and built for all-round defence in the main and reserve lines, the obstacles being doubled on the fronts and sides. The strongpoints in the main line included flanking machine-gun casemates and anti-tank gun positions; in the reserve line artillery emplacements provided covering fire in the gaps between the strongpoints in the main line. Some of the flanking casemates for machine-guns covering the gaps were connected by galleries; strongpoints on the plain and in hills had anti-tank positions. An anti-tank obstacle of vertical rails was built along the front of the line and the sides of Wadi Zigzaou were steepened. Eight artillery casemates, forty infantry casemates or blockhouses and fifteen command posts were built. The eastern sector had twelve strongpoints in the main line and eleven in the reserve line. The western sector had eleven strongpoints in the main line and seven in the reserve line.

In the Matmata hills, Ksar el Hallouf covered an anti-tank ditch which continued the position beyond the main line which ended on the foothills. An infantry position was dug into the Matmata hills at Ksar-el-Hallouf and in the Dahar beyond, a strongpoint at Bir Soltane had two 75 mm turrets, removed from Char 2C tanks built in 1918. At Ben Gardane an advanced position was built consisting of a square redoubt inside an anti-tank ditch with casemates on the flanks and concrete infantry shelters. Small triangular strongpoints at the corners were surrounded by anti-tank rail obstacles that continued around the position. The Mareth line was equipped with obsolescent 75 mm and 47 mm naval guns for anti-tank defence and a few new 25 mm anti-tank guns and infantry small arms. The artillery casemates with 75 mm guns and most of the blockhouses and casemates had embrasures for automatic weapons. In 1938 work the Mareth line was so important that work on coast defences was stopped and in 1939 the line was occupied by colonial divisions and some locally raised units. After the outbreak of the war, a line of advanced positions (avant-postes) was built on high ground at Aram 10 km south of the main line.

Demilitarisation 1940, Axis occupation 1943
The Second World War began in 1939 but the Mareth Line was inactive from 1939 to 1940, as Italy remained neutral until a few days before the Armistice of 22 June 1940, after which, the line was demilitarised by an Italo-German commission. In November 1942, the British Eighth Army (General Bernard Montgomery) defeated Panzerarmee Afrika at the Second Battle of El Alamein and the British First Army landed in French North Africa in Operation Torch. Axis forces occupied Tunisia in the Tunisia Campaign and from November 1942 to March 1943, the Panzerarmee conducted a fighting retreat through Egypt and Libya, pursued by the Eighth Army. In March the Eighth Army reached the Libya–Tunisia border and paused at Medenine to prepare to attack the Mareth Line. Axis engineers built an outpost zone from Wadi Zeuss 3.5 mi back to the Mareth Line. Field fortifications were constructed at Sidi el Guelaa, south of Aram on the main road from Medinine to Mareth, around Aram and at Bahira. The Mareth Line was refurbished for occupation by the Panzerarmee and by March 1943, more than 100 km of barbed wire, 100,000 anti-tank mines and 70,000 anti-personnel mines had been laid, bunkers had been reinforced with concrete and armed with anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns.

Medenine and Mareth
The Axis forces opposing the Eighth Army were renamed the Italian 1st Army (General Giovanni Messe) on 23 February 1943 and attempted a spoiling attack, the Battle of Medenine (Unternehmen Capri, Operation Capri). The attack was a costly failure and the Axis troops withdrew to the Mareth Line to await the British attack. Rommel called the Mareth Line "a line of antiquated French blockhouses, which in no way measured up to the standards required by modern warfare...". The Mareth Line was garrisoned by the 136th Infantry Division "Giovani Fascisti" from the coast to Zarat, the 101st Motorised Division "Trieste" covering the Gabès–Mareth road around Mareth and Aram, the 90th Light Division to the south of the "Trieste" Division at Aram and Sidi el Guelaa cutting the road and covering Wadi Zeuss, 80th Infantry Division "La Spezia" south of the 90th Light Division, the 16th Motorised Division "Pistoia". South of "La Spezia", near Beni Kreddache covering the Hallouf Pass the line was held by the 164th Light Afrika Division. The 15th Panzer Division with 32 operational tanks was based at Zerkine 5 mi north-west of Mareth. In reserve were the 21st Panzer Division south-west of Gabès and the 10th Panzer Division south-west of Sousse with 110 operational tanks. The line from Djebel Tebaga to Djebel Melab was held by the Raggruppamento Sahariano. The British survey of the Mareth Line, the positions of Zarat sudest (Zaret South-West), Ouerzi, Ouerzi Ouest (Ouerzi West), Ouerzi Est (Ouerzi East), Ksiba Ouest and Ksiba Est being of particular interest, was assisted by General Marcel Rime-Bruneau, a former Chief of Staff of the Tunisian garrison and Captain Paul Mezan, the former Garrison Engineer of the Mareth Line.

Battle of the Mareth Line
On 19 March 1943, the Eighth Army made a frontal assault against the Mareth Line in Operation Pugilist. The 50th Northumbrian Infantry Division penetrated the Line near Zarat but was driven back by the 15th Panzer Division and the "Giovani Fascisti" on 22 March. Reconnaissance by the Long Range Desert Group had shown that the line could be outflanked. A force could pass through the southern Matmata Hills, reach the Tebaga Gap from the west and reach the coastal plain behind the Mareth Line. During Pugilist, Montgomery had sent the 2nd New Zealand Division around the Matmata Hills but its attack was contained at the Tebaga Gap from 21 to 24 March. Montgomery sent the 1st Armoured Division (X Corps) to reinforce the attack at the Tebaga Gap. The British attacked again in Operation Supercharge II on 26 March and broke through the gap the next day. This success, combined with another frontal assault on the Mareth Line, made the position untenable; the Italian 1st Army escaped encirclement when the 1st Armoured Division was held up at El Hamma and the Axis forces retreated to Wadi Akarit, 60 km to the north.

Post war
After the Battle of the Mareth Line, the defences were left to become derelict and are commemorated at the Mareth Museum at Gabès.

title: Mareth Line


text:
User talk:ClaytonHowl

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! D. J. Bracey (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Proposed deletion of Future Bible Heroes
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Future Bible Heroes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:ClaytonHowl


text: User talk:216.227.19.56

title: User talk:216.227.19.56


text:
Khin Myo Chit

Khin Myo Chit (ခင်မျိုးချစ်, ; 1 May 1915 – 2 January 1999) was a Burmese author and journalist, whose career spanned over four decades. She began her career writing short stories in Burmese for Dagon Magazine in 1934. She worked on the editorial staff of The Burma Journal during anti-colonial movements. After the war, Khin Myo Chit wrote for The Oway, a Burmese newspaper.

National activism
Her birth name was Khin Mya. She started her work in Burmese culture, literature and politics in the 1300 Movement. She acted as deputy head of the Women's Front of the 1300 Movement which demanded self-rule at the Shwedagon Pagoda in Rangoon (now Yangon) on 29 January 1939. Starting from that moment, she adopted the name, Khin Myo Chit.

Journalism
After the 1300 Movement, Khin Myo Chit started writing in many patriotic Burmese papers, including the Deedoke Journal.

She graduated from the University of Rangoon in 1952, and served as an editor for The Guardian Daily, when she began writing short stories and articles in English. Her story, "The 13-carat Diamond", which appeared first in The Guardian Daily, was featured in Fifty Great Oriental Stories, published by Bantam Classics. Other stories, including "Her Infinite Variety" and "The Four Puppets", won acclaim in Asia. During her career, Khin Myo Chit wrote many English publications, including a historical novel on King Anawrahta.

Khin Myo Chit also served as an editor in the Working People's Daily, voicing her political opinions and also her nationalistic spirit. She also wrote many books on Burmese culture – such as the Wonderland of Burmese Legends, where she documented famous myths, legends and folktales of Myanmar, and the Colourful Burma series.

Death
Khin Myo Chit died on 2 January 1999 at her home in Yangon. Her son, Khin Maung Win and daughter-in-law Tekkatho Shwe Yi Win are Burmese writers.

Literary career

 * 1932 – "Patriotism" (a poem that earned her pen name)
 * 1936 – College Girl (a novelette for serialization in The Sun a daily paper.)
 * 1945 – Three years under the Japs.
 * 1955 – "13 Carat Diamond" (short story published in The Guardian magazine, later included in 50 Great Oriental Stories in Bantam Classics.)
 * 1963 to 1968 – Heroes of Old Burma and Quest for Peace (an autobiography) (Both serialized in The Working People's Daily.)
 * 1969 – 13 Carat Diamond and Other Stories
 * 1970 – "Her Infinite Variety" (a prize-winning short in the Horizon magazine short story competition.). "The Four Puppets" (included in Folk Tales of Asia by UNESCO). Anawrahta of Burma(Myanmar) (Publication of Heroes of Old Burma (Myanmar), which was later re-printed under the titles 'Anawrahta' and 'King Among Men'.)
 * 1976 – Colourful Burma (a practical and poetic guide for the visitor who wants something better than a tourist view of Myanmar, later reprinted under the title 'Colourful Myanmar'.
 * 1977 – Burmese Scenes and Sketches
 * 1980 – Flowers and Festivals Round the Burmese Year: Kyaikhtiyo (a short history of Kyaikhtiyo Pagoda, published in the Asia Magazine.)
 * 1981 – "A Pagoda Where Fairy Tale Characters Come to Life" (a tale-like description of Melamu Pagoda in the outskirts of Yangon, published in the Asia Magazine.)
 * 1984 – A Wonderland of Burmese Legends (published by the Tamarind Press in Bangkok later reprinted in Myanmar under the title A Wonderland of Pagoda Legends
 * 1995 – Gift of Laughter (on the picturesque speech of the people of Hladaw, a village in Central Myanmar, selections of which have been published in the Pyinsa Rupa magazine.)
 * 2005 – Stories and Sketches of Myanmar

title: Khin Myo Chit


text:
Future Bible Heroes

Future Bible Heroes is an American indie pop group led by Stephin Merritt, best known for his work with The Magnetic Fields. Merritt shares vocal duties with fellow Magnetic Fields member Claudia Gonson, who sings on the entirety of 2002's Eternal Youth. In contrast to much of Merritt's work with other groups, the Future Bible Heroes work largely on electronica-based disco, with music provided by Chris Ewen, formerly of Figures on a Beach.

In 1995, the group contributed the song "Hopeless" to the AIDS benefit album Red Hot + Bothered, produced by the Red Hot Organization.

Albums

 * Memories of Love (1997)
 * Eternal Youth (2002)
 * Partygoing (2013)

EPs

 * Lonely Days (1997)
 * I'm Lonely (And I Love It) (2000)
 * The Lonely Robot (2003)

title: Future Bible Heroes