text:
Talk:World War II/Archive 7

WWII
What did people call the war before "World War II" became commonly used?

What?
Home front is the name given to the activities of the civilians in a state of total war (sometimes referred to by the United States as the American Theater of Operations).

What does this mean?

Casualty typo?
In total, about 23 million soldiers lost their lives in the Second World War along with about 57 million civilians.

This doesn't make sense, as earlier in the article it states there were 55-57 million casaulties total. Should that 57 million civilians be changed to 32 million? --Njk 12:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

"Specifically, Allied forces suffered approximately 14.2 million deaths, and Axis forces suffered approximately 6.8 million deaths, Germany specifically had 5 million. The Soviet Union had the largest death toll, suffering an estimated 20 million civilian casualties along with 8 million Soviet soldiers killed." This also doesn't make sense as the Soviet casualites is higher than the total Allied Casualties. Can I suggest that we remove this entire paragraph until someone comes up with some definitive figures? DJ Clayworth 14:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we make it tie up with World War II casualties. DJ Clayworth 14:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Can I also suggest moving Yugoslavia and Greece to the Mediterranean Theatre. Currently Yugoslavia appears in both, which is confusing. DJ Clayworth 14:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Because of my major reorganization into one chronology, Yugoslavia is not a problem anymore. Regards Dna-Dennis 18:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits POV?
Please check out this diff. It's the last version I reverted to the current version, where it looks like some vandalism took place. Does anyone care to comment? I think without sources, the comments on the quality of the respective German and Italian forces might need to be fixed. Wikibofh 15:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Something odd happened here. When I made this edit it was a reversion of someone adding comments about Underpant Gnomes, and if you go to the history and look at the diffs there, that is what you get. The edit you give above makes changes I didn't intend to make at all.

 * Looking at the paragraph you are talking about, the whole thing is inappropriate. I don't think the comments about relative qualities of the Axis forces is appropriate or necessary. If we record the facts that the Italian invasion was repulsed by the Greeks, and then the German invasion succeeded in capturing Greece, readers can draw their own conclusions. The stuff about Narvik shouldn't be there, even if it is right, which is doubtful. DJ Clayworth 15:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I've neutralized both the sections about the Greek conflict. DJ Clayworth 15:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Good work. It looks to me like in the reversions of vandalism some of this snuck in, so I wanted to bring it up so we could figure it out. It's always annoying when the vandals don't just make one large easy obvious thing for us to whack. :) Wikibofh 16:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Not that the changes really bother me, because all I fixed in the missing paragraphs was some minor grammatical stuff, but are you guys seriously so politically correct that you're afraid the article might offend fascist Italian forces from 60 years ago? I think we're pretty safe there. Do we really need to beat around the bush and hint at the fact that the German military was a stronger opponent than the Italians? That's just the way it was, plain and simple. If this is some kind of ethnic debate, then that's not my department - I don't have a drop of Greek, German, or Italian in me - but if this was actually eliminated due to lack of "sources" pointing to the basic inferiority of the Italian army... that's just absurd. There's no need to list a source, because any book - any book - can back that up. Kafziel 17:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

There are several reasons to eliminate what was said. Firstly this is a really long article; it should be shortened wherever it can be, and assessments of the Italian forces capabilities can go in specific articles about the WWII Italian military. Secondly, facts are always preferable to opinions. No matter how factual you may think your assessments are, someone will disagree. I ran into an editor who insisted that an entire section on the Italian Parachute Regiment be inserted into an article on the North Africa campaign, not because it played a large part in the campaign (it didn't) but because that regiment had been exceptionally brave, and he thought it should be in there to counter the seeming bias that the italian army did not fight well. DJ Clayworth 17:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

And that's an extremely revisionist idea. It's just rearranging facts to skew the neutrality of the article in the opposite direction. It's still wrong. It's a fact that the Italians won relatively few victories and were defeated in a far shorter amount of time, while inflicting far fewer casualties on the Allied opposition. If that doesn't mean they were deficient, then how do we define "deficient"? Kafziel 18:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Overall improvement
So, now I am about to stick out my neck again... I've read a lot of info on why the WW2 article failed as featured article, and why a complete rewrite was considered. It seems to me that the main concern was the lack of organization. Now, I don't know the status of the rewrite, but this original article is updated on a daily basis, that is, much more often than the rewrite; today is July 30 and the last update for the rewrite was June 2. Is the rewrite scrapped, one wonders?

I have identified the following main criticism of the WW2 page:
 * 1) Lack of organization
 * 2) Sections missing (e.g. "Resistance Movement")
 * 3) More media files exist that could be referenced
 * 4) Each section should have a lead picture
 * 5) Better grammar and style

I myself agree with the above (I am currently trying to fix note 3 by adding appropriate Wikimedia images). Now, I would also like to give the organization issue a try, but this will be a little bit tricky:

Currently the article with its corresponding table of contents have two dimensions: After some consideration I believe it should be the other way around, i.e.
 * 1) Theaters (Europe, Pacific, Mediterranean)
 * 2) A chronological within the theaters (1939, 1940 etc..)
 * 1) Chronology (1937 - 1945)
 * 2) and the theaters within the chronology

Otherwise, for instance, the war will end on two very different places in the article (Berlin and Japan).

I would really like to hear opinions on this.

Regards, Dennis Nilsson, Dna-Dennis 08:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

''PS. Let's work together to make this article a FA. DS.''

Another suggestion: shouldn't all main articles be listed under "See also"? Dna-Dennis 10:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I have now seen to that all main topics have corresponding pictures. Dna-Dennis 12:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I am currently working towards achieving "chronology" as the first dimension, but don't worry, I will be careful and make this in small steps. I will first try to rename the very long titles like "3.6 1944: France invaded, Soviet-Finland armistice, surrender of minor Axis, Ardennes offensive".

If you have opinions on this work, please post them here on the talk page.

Regards, Dna-Dennis 16:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I have now managed to shorten all subtitles under "Europe", "Pacific and East Asia" and "Mediterranean". I would appreciate opinions on this. Regards, Dna-Dennis 17:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I have now merged "Europe" and "Mediterranean" in order to try to implement an overall easy-to-read chronology. Now I will have a go at the "Pacific and East Asia". Dna-Dennis 17:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I have now completed the new chronology as to my suggestion above - now I believe it is more easy to follow the flow of the war from 1939 to 1945. As before, I'd appreciate any opinions.Dna-Dennis 17:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I like this new article. It could still use some fleshing out, like the Causes of War section is way too short and, in general, some missing information in some sections. However, I do like the new article more than the old one (which I read about a month ago). bob rulz 00:08, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you Bob rulz! I've worked hard the last couple of days. Dna-Dennis 00:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Excellent rewrite of this article. I totally approve of the straight-line chronology. It gives a much better overall picture. Good work Dennis. DJ Clayworth 13:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I have now added a summary table (like on the World War I page) because I think:

 * 1) It's good with a summary for the average reader
 * 2) It's nice if the layout of the WWII & WWI pages are somewhat similar

Furthermore, I don't think it clogs up the page, since it appears directly right of the table of contents (which was completely empty before).

It is a template I created called Template:MultiWarbox so it is very easy to edit. I do not know what others will think of it, but, as before, I appreciate any opinions.

Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 03:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

With regards to overall improvement of this very important article, I believe that the story has a beginning (the causes), and an after-math (the Cold War), but lacks any center (except for the many related topics about the theatres of war, etc. at the bottom of the page. But there is no middle, or story of the War itself, such as Hitler's fighting on two fronts, the turning point of the War, invasion of Belgium, Fall of France, Blitz of Britain, Stalingrad counter-offensive, the Russian winter and lack of German preparation for it, U.S. entry into the War, and the preponderance of superior Allied industrial and military strength, supplied by Russia and the United States, after American entry into the War. There is no story of the War itself! It's like reading a magazine about an upcoming baseball game, then showing up to the baseball diamond itself, only to find that the game is already over. -Ned (Sept.)

 * Are you refering to the whole article, or just the intro (above the table of content)? The intro should be kept short, maybe made even shorter, and the rest of the article is very long as well. It's easy to just keep adding, harder to keep the article at a reasonable size and decide what to leave out and put in more specific articles. Shanes 22:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Many historians...
Weasel words. Does anyone have WP:CITE for:

 * By this time the Soviet steamroller had become so powerful that many historians argue that the U.S. and British landing at Normandy was more to prevent a coast-to-coast Soviet block than to fight Germany. In all, 90% of all German casualties were suffered on the Eastern front, and Europe became divided along Germany- had the U.S. not invaded the sparsely defended Western Front, Stalin would have controlled all of Europe. This view-point is seldom heard in U.S. books, movies, and classrooms; an attempt is made to give as much credit as possible to the 1944 "D-Day" landing. (emphasis added)

Wikibofh 21:00, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * I have removed the addition since I believe (1) It is very close to a POV, and (2) It does not belong here, but rather on the D-Day/Battle of Normandy page. In any case, to let this addition be the intro to the "Beginning of the end" is a POV in itself! Regards, Dna-Dennis 11:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Couple changes
This article looks pretty good, but I made a few edits, and wanted to explain them. First, I rewrote some of the atrocities section - it had a lot of editorializing before, mostly about the Soviet Union's war crimes, and lacked some chronology, which I attempted to add. I also brought out the Holocaust in its own sub-heading, and tried to summarize the events of the Holocaust there. Also, I added statistics on the civilian casualties for bombing. To make it explicit from Matthew White's page: Finally, I added a couple of maps from the US Military Academy's site. They are large, but it was odd not to have any. Incidentally, the site is a great resource for anyone needing public domain maps of conflicts. Let me know if you have comments. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Allied bombings:
 * Germany: 305,000 (1945 US Strategic Bombing Survey); 400,000 (Hammond); 410,000 (Rummel, 100% democidal); 499,750 (Clodfelter); 593,000 (Keegan; also Grenville citing "official Germany")
 * Japan: Total: 330,000 (1945 US Strategic Bombing Survey); 363,000 (Keegan, not including post-war radiation sickness); 374,000 (Rummel, incl. 337,000 democidal); 435,000 (P. Johnson); 500,000 (Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War)
 * Axis bombings:
 * Russia: Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): "an estimated 500,000 Soviet citizens died from German bomb attacks."
 * England: Portcities London: >20,000 k. (7/40-5/41) [also London Transport Museum and Virtual London
 * Belgrade, Yugoslavia: German air raid: 6 April 1941): 17 000, Gilbert: 17,000 civilians k. (also Anthony Beevor, Stalingrad)
 * I don't have figures for Poland and France

 * I think your changes were good - not too brief and not to detailed. I also liked the maps! Regards, Dna-Dennis 10:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Captions
I would like to restore the versions of the captions that I added: --Goodoldpolonius2 12:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * First, I would suggest that we change the map captions back, since otherwise the maps are difficult to parse at their current size. The original captions: "Axis powers are in pink, the maximum extent of their conquest in yellow. The Allies are in green," and "The maximum extent of Japanese territory in July, 1942 is in yellow," allow readers to at least tell at a glance the basic participants and geographical extent of the war, without needing to click on the full size picture. Since we have no other maps to illustrate the participants, this is important.
 * Second, the caption for the first picture is a little too glib: "World War II was a truly global conflict with many facets: immense human sacrifice, fierce indoctrinations, and the use of new, extremely devastating weapons—the atom bomb being the ultimate." Of the 50+ million dead, few would be classified as a sacrifice, which implies some sort of semi-heroic choice. Additionally, I don't know what "fierce indoctrinations" means, and why that was a unique feature of World War II.  Finally, "the atomic bomb being the ultimate" reads oddly.  Better to use no caption (since this is just a title picture) or use the summary sentence of the first paragraph: "The most extensive, expensive and bloodiest armed conflict in the history of mankind."
 * Perhaps we should replace the title picture with something that is more informative? Maybe a world map showing the participants in the war, which would give a better summary sense of scale.

My opinions:
 * a) I agree with this point. I will immediately restore the map captions.
 * b) I agree to an extent. I believe a caption should be here, since otherwise one might think it is a cover of a book. On 'sacrifice': I agree with you, but seriously I can't think of a better word. Any suggestion? On 'fierce indoctrinations': It clearly is a very important facet of WWII (i.e. Nazi master race theory and Japanese militarism), since without the indoctrinations of the people, WWII might never have occured. On 'atomic bomb': The bomb was the ultimate weapon of WWII. Why is that odd?
 * c) I do not agree. I do not think a map is a good intro to the article, since I believe the average reader would be discouraged, believing it is an "elite" article written for WWII enthusiasts. Furthermore, please see the numerous opinions on the talk page ("The Picture" and "The Montage").

Please note that I really appreciate your opinions, and think your map additions are VERY nice. Thanks! If you know of more WWII maps like this, I would appreciate a personal message on my talk page. I also liked your contributions to the "Atrocities" section!

Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 13:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, I understand why you want to keep the picture and caption, that makes sense. Since the caption serves a summary of the war, perhaps taking a line from the article: "The Second World War was the most extensive, expensive and bloodiest armed conflict in the history of mankind," which sums it up.  If you really want to keep the current version, instead of intense sacrifice, what about "large-scale deaths" or "extensive military and civilian casualties." I would drop the indoctrination point entirely, the problem otherwise is that the indoctrination article isn't specific to World War II, so the point you are making about Japanese and German militarism doesn't come through -- besides, every has had intense indoctrination, see the Crusades, for example.  As for the atom bomb, I don't object to its mention, the sentence was a bit awkward. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Good suggestions. I just think they would be too long, but thanks to your answer, I came to think of the following substitutions: 'suffering' instead of 'sacrifice', unlink of 'indoctrinations', and 'like the atom bomb' instead of 'the atom bomb being the ultimate'. I will do this immediately. Thanks again and thanks for your link to the maps! Regards, Dna-Dennis 14:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Temp merge - Intro
I would like to replace the main article's intro with the temp article's intro. It is superior IMO. --JPotter 02:51, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a bad idea. The current intro is rather on the long side but it embraces the entirety of a very complicated and expansive topic. I think the short one in the temp article is bland, too short, and has an oddly written second paragraph. I don't think we should do this. However, feel free to edit the current one, and Be bold--naryathegreat | (talk) 04:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with naryathegreat, it is a bad idea. The quality of the temp intro is not even close to the quality of the intro of the current article. Regards, Dna-Dennis 11:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The start of World War II
The opening lines of the current article was

"World War II or the Second World War was a truly global conflict that began on 7 July 1937 in Asia and on 1 September 1939 in Europe."

I know what the writer implied, but I have changed this to

"World War II or the Second World War was a truly global conflict that began on 1 September 1939."

because of the following reasons

 * The conflict in Asia was not a global conflict - thus the line is misleading and a "slight" POV
 * World War II turned global when the Asian and European conflicts converged - thus September 1939
 * There are a number of other contending dates: Rhineland occupation, Anschluss, Prague etc.
 * But maybe most importantly: it is the common view that the world war started in September 1939

Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 14:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I know this might be squirrelly, but I'm going to go ahead and change it to "World War II or the Second World War was a truly global conflict that by most accounts began on 1 September 1939." Now I know this may not sound definite enough, but I think it would help deflect any criticism of a Eurocentric POV. Tmrobertson 06:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

- Squirrelly it might be, but then I am a squirrel aswell...:) I think your change is good, and I also believe that it probably deflects eurocentroview (may be we can call it EUROPOV?) . Regards! Dna-Dennis 15:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC).

Somebody is insisting on changing the start date to "late 1930s". I do not understand the reason for this, and I think it is way too inexact. I have now changed it back to the previous edit, and I think most people would agree with this, so please do not change it back until you have motivated it here on the talk page, and after we have reached a consensus. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 16:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the re-wording, especially as the start of the war in Asia is noted in the second paragraph. Lisiate 22:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

There was another discussion of this in which B.Bryant noted:

"WWII was two separate wars that merged, giving various options for defining "the starting date". You can opt for when the first started (1931 or 1937), or when the two sub-wars merged (1941), or you can list the starting date of the two sub-wars separately. But there's absolutely no justification for picking the starting date of the second sub-war as the starting date of the entire war."

I do not see what is incorrect about this position, and what is wrong with the original quotation "World War II or the Second World War was a truly global conflict that began on 7 July 1937 in Asia and on 1 September 1939 in Europe," since the former date was obviously far more significant than the latter in the Asian theatre. I agree with B.Bryant in that the wars "merged" in 1941, not 1939 since the United States's entry into the war was highly significant for both theatres in a way that Germany's invasion of Poland simply was not.

While I think providing an objective description of history rather than 'refuting charges' whether or eurocentrism or anything else should be our goal, someone has removed even the "most accounts" qualification from the original paragraph, which I have inserted back in. But I think it would still be better to go back to the original wording.Cicero83 02:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

We have to draw the line somewhere

First of all, I have no personal opinion on when the war started. The problem is, when we are writing the introduction we simply must draw the line somewhere. For instance, if we are discussing the start date, we could also discuss the end date; not every conflict was resolved in 1945. Now, we all know that World War II is a general western term for the world-wide conflicts at the time, and a common view is that two (unspecified) conflicts - West and East - converged on some point in history. Again, where do we draw the line? It is all about perspective and which physical resolution of the world we use. Consider the following examples:

 * WEST/EAST : In this case I believe the merge occurs on 1 September 1939, because Europe is the Western world and Asia the Eastern. Not 1941 because: (1) this is later, (2) USA is part of the West and (3) The armed conflict between USA and Japan is an addition to the West/East conflict which was already present due to alliances, supplies, lend/lease etc.

 * WEST/ASIA : It could be argued that the merge occurs 22 June 1941 as Germany invades Russia, since Russia is part of Asia. It could also be argued that it occurs 7 December 1941 as Japan attacks USA, but again, this is later.

 * USA/WORLD : The merge occurs 7 December 1941 as Japan attacks USA and Germany declares war on USA. The problem is, this would be USA POV.

My opinions are:

 * 1) It would be wrong to imply a start date of one conflict, like Japan/China 1931 or 1937, because this is a local conflict and World War II, as the name implies, is a term for the global conflict. Therefore my opinion is that we have to consider when the merge occurs.

 * 1) We have to draw the line. I believe our perspective and physical resolution should be WEST/EAST as mentioned above.     Therefore: 1 September 1939 or simply 1939.

 * 1) We can't omit the dates altogether - they are too important to the average reader in the intro

Last, I agree with Cicero83 that it is quite important to use "by most accounts" when referring to the start of the war.

Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 13:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis, I agree we have to draw the line somewhere, but I'm afraid that bias drawn from tradition is coloring our discussion of where to draw that line.

Your stated opinion above regarding the 1939 date seems to imply two disputable points: (1) The date when the two theatres converge as opposed to when sustained fighting first broke out is the important date. (2) Two localized wars, one in the West and one in the East adds up to a single merged war. The argument relies on the presence of 'alliance, supplies, lend-lease,' etc. but then again, lend-lease by itself did not mean the United States was in the war, nor was the degree of cooperation great enough such that Japan can have said to have really assisted the invasion of Poland.

The argument that the war merged on 7 December 1941 can be made independent of USA POV. It lies in that: (1) World War II's claim to be a truly global conflict rests on it having involved all the major powers in the world in the actual fighting, and did not achieve this status until 7 December 1941 (2) World War II's claim to be a single war encompassing both the European and Asian theatres rests on the existence of at least one power engaged in both theatres, and this did not substantively occur until 7 December 1941.

From this perspective we can opt for when the first started (1931 or 1937), or when the two sub-wars merged (1941), or we can list the starting date of the two sub-wars separately (The ending dates are indeed listed separately). But there's still no justification for picking the starting date of the second sub-war as the starting date of the entire war.

Part of the problem is there is more here than the unmitigated search for truth. We face the fact that a convention has developed over time among Anglo-American historians that the war began on 1 September 1939. At the same time Wikipedia's policy clearly stands against taking a POV view even if it is a majority POV, either explicitly or implicitly. Currently, the bulk of the article and certain associated articles assumes the war began on 1 September 1939. Frankly I do not know what to do about this, but it seems the status quo is more a result of convention rather than of pure objectivity. Regards, Cicero83 14:17, 16 August 2005

 * Thanks for your opinions, Cicero83! You are clear and concise, and it is quite clear that neither you or me has an intended personal opinion on the matter. And what you said above made me think about it...why am I (and others) partially convinced that the war started on 1 September 1939? It can only be because we learned it in school, we read it in the books and everyone we talk to says so. As you say, it is a majority POV, and as you imply, it can be a very complicated discussion. And I repeat your words: neither I know what to do about this. I guess it was you who wrote the current text: "The conflict by most Western accounts began in 1939". And considering your words on POV, I think the line is almost completely unquestionable, since it deflects Western POV. So perhaps we should go with this status quo? In any case, I urge other users to join this discussion, and then maybe both Cicero83 and myself can get some fresh ideas on the matter. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 19:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that the causes of World War II include the ideas that started it: imperialism, fascism, Naziism, and communism. I think these important ideas are relevant and should at least be mentioned. If not, what were they fighting about? Land? You can always buy real estate. If you at least mention some of these ideas, you can always refer the readers over to a section entitled, "some of the Causes of WWII."-Ned. (Sept.)

Edits by Paranoid
Paranoid insists on removing parts of useful info and replacing it with his own POV, hardly accepted by any serious historian, not to mention common sense. In particular, the problems I have with his version are: Also, his version does not include the following statements which seem perfectly right to me: --Halibutt 07:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) After all Soviet attempts to oppose Germany by aiding its ally Czechoslovakia and later Poland were prevented by Poland and other countries - this needs a proof and a source. It's the first time I hear that the Soviets were trying to help Poland and that Poland made such help impossible
 * 2) Soviet Union had to sign the non-aggression Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - nobody forced the Soviets to sign a pact partitioning its neighbour states. Also, if it wasn't for the secret ammendment to it, the Soviets would have absolutely no border with Germany and no aggression would be possible between the two states.
 * 1) Until  attacked by it in June 1941, the Soviet Union was effectively allied with Nazi Germany through the non-aggression Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - which is a fact. It was not only a political alliance dividing the spheres of influence, but also a strategical and military one, with military cooperation during the war against Poland in 1939. Finally, the alliance included economical cooperation which involved millions of tonnes of war materiel and resources traded between the states.
 * 2) leading to the USSR later invading and occupying parts or the whole of Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Romania - which is also a fact and part of the World War II. Why should these agressions, often by means of military force, be omitted?
 * 3) However, the US did aid the allies and after first Japan and then Germany declared war on the US and launched attacks on US soil, the US had no choice but to fully enter the war - again, a plain fact. Why should this be deleted from the text?

 * Saying that the USSR was allied with the Nazis is also rather POV. But mostly, it suggests that they were allies in the war, which is not the case because the treaty was signed just before the war broke out. Of course, the short timespan between the treaty and the outbreak is highly suggestive, but an encyclopedia may not infer too much. So I rewrote it to exclude the uncertainties. This is not meant as a definitive version, but seems a more neutral basis to add facts, if necessary. A tricky point is whether the attacks of the USSR (your one but last point) were part of WWII. There is a similar discussion here, about the starting date of the war. Japan had already started fighting before Germany did, but that is not taken to be part of WWII. And it isn't mentioned in this section. So I'd say mention both or neither. In this section, that is. DirkvdM 09:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

 * At least two of the aggressions by the Soviet Union were undoubtedly a part of WWII: the backstab of Poland and attack on Finland. Both of them happened during the WWII, were connected to the world-wide politics and influenced the overall situation in the world (if it wasn't for the Soviet invasion, Romania would stand by the Allied side for a longer time and if it wasn't for the Winter War, the Allies would not land in Norway so quickly). Anyway, as to the two sides being allied during their common war against Poland - undoubtedly yes. Although the pacts they signed were not called an alliance, but such a double speech was common in both regimes. Anyway, both the secret protocol and later ammendments to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact fit all the criteria of a military alliance:
 * On August 19 the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement was signed. It practically meant that, until the start of Barbarossa, the Soviets were supporting the Germans by handing them raw materials. Such an open support for a warring state is often regarded as a breach of neutrality - and this was the case

 * On August 28 both states signed the M-R Pact, which, among other things, decided the fate of Poland, which was to be dismantled and divided between them

 * On September 17 the USSR fulfilled the pact by invading Poland. Although no declaration of war was issued, the state of war occured as the Soviet attack fits all criteria of an aggression. Also, the aggression was in accordance with the earlier agreement with Germany.

 * Finally, on September 28 the original M-R pact was ammended to exchange parts of Polish territory for that of Lithuania - which makes the original intentions even more clear.
 * All in all, the M-R pact and the Nazi-Soviet Alliance might've been a controversial issue before 1992, that is before the Russians admitted that there was such a pact. But nowadays? Halibutt 21:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Soviet Union was not neutral. It had a non-aggression pact and it was co-operating in various areas, but it wasn't "effectively allied". Simple as that.
 * No. Soviet Union simply got back the West Ukraine and West Belorussia that were annexed by Poland in 1920. Please look at the map, it's that simple.
 * The declaration of war WAS issued. Read any history book and find out how the embassador in Moscow simply was refusing (illegally) to accept the note. Also note that by 17.09 the Polish government has already fled the country.

 * The intent still is and will remain controversial as long as anti-Soviet forces will try to make it seem as if Soviet Union was bent on world domination. Paranoid 09:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * So it's rather complicated. Too much to mention in the 'Participants' section, I'd say. Or is there one thing that really stands out and deserves (and will fit in) a short mention? DirkvdM 10:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The fact that the Soviet Union at first joined the war against the allies on the axis side surely deserves a mention. As to the points by Paranoid:
 * Indeed, the Soviet Union breached its neutrality by concluding an alliance with Germany and breaking the non-aggression treaty with Poland and the Peace of Riga.
 * Well, The Soviet Union got back the area it never owned. Bolshevist Russia occupied the area between July and August of 1920, but that was hardly an ownership. Also, show me a rule of the international law that says that all pacts can be broken as long as one state wants to get some area back...
 * Another effect of commie propaganda. The alleged lack of Polish government at home was used as a casus belli in the declaration handed over to the Polish embassador overnight of September 16. However, the government left the state 24 hours later, after the Soviet tanks were already approaching the place where it was located, which makes such a casus belli a complete rubbish. Also, there was no declaration of war, at least neither the Polish nor Soviet government issued it. Or am I wrong? Please provide sources, such a discovery would really be interesting... Halibutt 16:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * About that first (unnumbered) remark. It should then be made clear that the allies in this sense existed before the war even started, because people will associate the term 'allies' with the war and thus could easily misinterpret that. The Allies article it links to even states that "the Allies of World War II came together as World War II unfolded and progressed". But it also states that the USSR at first wanted to join the allies and that then also deserves a mention. I now see that it is all even more complicated than I thought, so a short introduction like this needs careful handling. Especially stating that the USSR was effectively allied with the Axis (which only formed in late 1940) sounds a bit POV since it could just as well have been that they wanted to prevent Germany from conquering too much land (especially Poland). But now I am speculating. DirkvdM 20:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, indeed it's a speculation. The official Soviet propaganda stated that the invasion of Poland happened because of the need to protect the Polish citizens against the Nazi attack. Quite a bizarre explanation, especially that the alleged protection consisted of warfare and then of NKVD-led terror. To set it in proper context: the USSR captured approximately 50% of Polish territory with circa with circa 12 millions of people. Until June of 1941 between 1,5 million and 2 millions of them were sent to Soviet prisons, Gulags or simply murdered. That's not what I would call protection of civillians... Halibutt 14:22, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * So that was even the official reason. Whichever is the case, my point is that all this needs too much explaining, for which there is no place in this section, so maybe it had better stick to the NPOV facts. DirkvdM 17:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

 * And the NPOV fact is that the two powers were effectively allied. Halibutt 22:04, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, no, that's an interpretation. The fact is that they had a non-aggression treaty. By the same reason you could say the US were allied with all European nations (Monroe) or the Netherlands with Germany because they choose to remain neutral, which is also a sort of unilateral non-aggression  statement. DirkvdM 08:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt's bias
Halibutt, you are too biased to reason rationally about this topic. I notice that your arguments follow the following pattern: But you don't care about your original point, you simply like to be winning the debate, no matter what this debate is about. You forget A - your original assertion and no longer care whether it's true or not, as long as you can make some new claims that sound true to your ears.
 * You say that A is true.
 * I counter this saying that A isn't true, because B
 * You argue that B is not exactly true, because of C.

For example, saying "Indeed, the Soviet Union breached its neutrality by concluding an alliance with Germany and breaking the non-aggression treaty with Poland and the Peace of Riga." doesn't prove that Soviet Union was allied with Germany, you simply repeat your assertion, adding some other facts, which aren't very related.

You also choose to completely ignore other facts that don't support your point, such as the fact that Poland itself was the first to annex part of Czechoslovakia without any permissions from other countries (Germany had such permission).

Or the fact that Soviet Union warned (23.09.1938) Poland that their 1932 non-aggression pact is void if Poland attacks Czechoslovakia (then a Soviet ally).

The fact that Soviet Union wanted to help Czechoslovakia defend itself against the Nazi Germany (and that France and Britain wanted it too), but Poland refused to let Soviet forces through, despite many pleadings from France (then also an ally of Czechoslovakia) and Britain.

Or the fact that Ribbentrop promised to Poland German support in case of a Polish-Soviet conflict (01.10.1938, letter of Polish embassador in Germany).

Or the fact that in 1939 Britain and the Soviet Union offered Poland to extend its alliance with Romania for defence against Germany as well. Or the fact that France (then an ally of Poland) asked Poland to provide a narrow corridor for the Soviet Army (Soviet Union was in 1939 an ally of France) to pass through Poland and attack Germany, assisting French forces. Poland always refused.

Halibutt, you don't know history and you are trying to present it wrongly in this article. This is not commendable at all. Paranoid 10:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Don't turn this discussion into a field of personal attacks. As per your specific arguments:
 * I listed all the arguments for treatment of Nazi-Soviet cooperation as an alliance. I only forgot about the common declaration of September 18, issued simultaneously in Berlin and Moscow, and Molotov's speech of October 31st. You did not list yours to prove that the military, political and economical cooperation was not an alliance. Please do so.
 * Polish relations with Czechoslovakia were completely unrelated to the war of 1939. There was no war between Poland and Czechoslovakia for the disputed area of Cieszyn, the armed conflict ended in 1920, when the area was conquered by Czechoslovakia. In 1938 it was retaken peacefuly by Poland, after a common Polish-Czechoslovakian conference and negotiations. Though it might've influenced the public relations of Polish diplomacy, there's no connection with the Soviet-German cooperation. - and that's what we're discussing here.
 * I don't know if Poland was warned. But anyway, there was no war between Poland and Czechoslovakia and the Polish-Soviet non-aggression pact was never renounced by either side. Neither was the Riga peace treaty.
 * Poland refused to let the Soviet forces enter its territory - no wonder why. Is it already a cassus belli?
 * As to the possible Polish-German alliance against the Soviet Union - such proposals arrived from Berlin several dozen times, since early 1930's. Even as late as 1939 Ribbentrop suggested that Poland could exchange Danzig for Odessa. However, all such proposals were dismissed.
 * As to the extended alliance with Romania - I admit I never heard of it before. The alliance of 1922 was valid against aggression by USSR, perhaps there were some plans to extend it, but I don't see how this fact might've influence the Nazi-Soviet alliance, especially that the Polish-Romanian pact was a purely defensive alliance.
 * As to the "narrow corridor" - please provide evidence. It seems highly unlikely, especially that it was obvious to everyone in Poland that letting the Red Army in is much easier than expelling it out. Which, BTW, was proven by its presence in Poland or the Baltics for 50 years after WWII...
 * Anyway, I'm still waiting for your arguments that the Nazis and Soviets were not allied in 1939. Halibutt 14:40, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Power vacuum in the aftermath
I just learned about a period called 'Bersiap' in Indonesia after the Japanese left, which created a power vacuum. Because it is too specific to mention here, I put that in History_of_Indonesia. But I can imagine that similar things happened elsewhere and a general remark about that would be in place in this article. DirkvdM 11:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

template
a template for the world war 2 would be good

Poland
, and  insist on refining the list of major participants (see the recent history). As far as I can get it from their comments, their view is that the participants are to be listed by number of casualties. However, I fail to understand why Poland was listed out. Why is it not listed then? Halibutt 06:17, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) If we are to list countries by number of casualties, then Poland should be in with more than 6 millions casualties
 * 2) If we are to list states by their entry into WWII, then Poland should be in as it fought since September 1st, 1939 to August 15, 1945.
 * 3) If we are to list states by number of troops, then Poland should be in as the second most numerous ally between 1939 and 1941 and then the fourth most numerous until the ned of WWII in Europe (with roughly 800.000 in 1944, if we count Polish Armies marching from the east, the west and at home

 * I don't insist on anything, I just made one edit. Anyway, I agree that it seems unfair to leave Poland out. Like I said, I listed them by the number of military casualties because that seems to me to be the best indicator of the war effort, which in turn seems the best basis to list countries under a heading of 'Main Participants'. And in this respect Poland comes next in line after France. I drew a line somewhere, rather arbitrarily and Poland only just 'lucked out'. Which is unfair considering that the war started with Poland and that it was a country that suffered immensely (by total death toll second after the USSR, although that, of course, was much bigger country). So I added it to the list. Just one thing, though. If the Polish army involvement was so numerous then why did they suffer so little casualties? (relatively speaking!) Good fighters? I thought they even got the worst jobs (well, actually, that's just based on A bridge too far).

 * Oh, hold on, I did put Poland in there, in 7th place. It just doesn't appear. And I don't know how to fix that. Adding a 7th country to the Axis doesn't help. I'll probably need to edit 'MultiWarbox', but how do I get there? DirkvdM 07:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * What's Yugoslavia doing above France and Poland? Yugoslavians barely fought outside their own country. The only way they could qualify in here is if you include the casualities during the guerilla war, where 'military' becomes a bit doubtful. I also think its unfair and misleading to include Finland in the list of main Axis powers. Whatever the numbers sometimes we know that there are special circumstances, and Finland is one of them. The Finns fought a war against only one power, who attacked them. The fact that they ended up allied with the Axis was pure circumstance. As for the rest of the list - if the Big Three don't go first, then what we have is a joke.

The point here is that, whatever the figures, the listings here are misleading. We owe it to our readers not to give them a false impression. Sometimes you can't choose who you list based only on a number. DJ Clayworth 13:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

But then what can one base it on? What is the notion of the 'Big Three' based on? I suppose that's western-centric (or what do you call that?). And that is confusing, since there were in many respects two wars, in Europe and in Asia, that got mixed up. If you look at the death toll (military or civilian) then there were just a 'Big Two', namely the USSR and China. And then nothing for a long, long time. Taking China off the list is ludicrous. Taking Finland off would make sense, though, since that needs some explaining that can't be given there. DirkvdM 06:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It all depends on how you count the casualties. For instance, the number of Soviet military casualties was huge, but noone knows how many of those people in fact perished in Gulags or elsewhere, as the numbers cited by the Soviets cannot be checked in any way. Likewise, the problem with Polish military casualties is that often the historians count only the soldiers of armed forces in the east and in the west, without counting the Home Army. Also, as to the Home Army losses - are the soldiers killed not in an open battle but in slaughterhouses of the Gestapo or SS or in concentration camps to be listed or not? And so on.

 * Other thing is that the Polish Army that fought alongside the western allies had a really low casualty rate. This was mostly due to the fact that Polish generals tried to spare as many of their soldiers as they could as there was no manpower pool to draw new recruits from. I remember reading the memoirs of Anders who mentioned that he had two main problems during the Battle of Monte Cassino. The first was that the German lines were to be broken at all cost since all manpower reserves were laying ahead, in German POW camps and in concentration camps. The second was that he had to spare as many people in a frontal assault in order to be able to continue the war since once his corps would be withdrawn from the front, there would be no chance to reinforce it. So, most Polish units fought longer battles yet lost less men (in many cases, at least).

 * The situation of the Polish Army fighting alongside the Soviets was much worse as the Soviet orders completely disregarded any losses in cannon fodder and in many cases the Polish divisions were ordered to storm fortified positions with no artillery cover or even reconnaissance. This was the case of forcing the Vistula, the Battle of Lenino or battles for the Pomeranian strongholds. Halibutt 18:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt 18:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * I totally agree with Dirkvd; under a heading called 'Main Participants' I also believe the best basis is military casualties, since the word "participant" indicates "voluntarily" and civilian casualties are certainly not voluntarily.

Now, I do not think a general page like 'World War II' benefits from heated conflict on whether a particular country should be in a summary list or not. I would hate to think that Halibutt takes on a particulary Polish POV, but I can assure you that I have no intention of diminishing the importance of Poland. I just try to comply to Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

To resolve this conflict, I will alter the template 'MultiWarbox' (which I created) to include seven countries on each side. This will make Poland go in on 7th, which I hope will be to Halibutt's satisfaction. Somebody resorted the Allies to put USA and UK on top. This does not comply with our discussion, so I will resort the Allies to the correct sorting (Russia first). I urge those who object to consult the piecharts on World_War_II_casualties.

Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 10:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:World War II/Archive 7


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B-Sides, Ace of Base

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus Ryan Norton T 22:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

B-Sides, Ace of Base
I don't feel this warrants an article - individual singles might be notable enough for articles, and B-side information might sit well on those articles, but this is less notable in my opinion and verges on the crufty. Delete CLW 14:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. More pointless cruft. / Peter Isotalo 15:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Ace of Base. If that would clutter too much, then keep, or merge with a discography of Ace of Base in sections. Trollderella 15:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Ace of Base. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza  18:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup and merge with Ace of Base. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep separate, not every Ace of Base reader would want to see this, but some would. Kappa 01:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --badlydrawnjeff 13:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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


text:
Marcelo Nova

Marcelo Nova is a Brazilian singer born in the state of Bahia.

He began his career in the group Camisa de Vênus in the 1980s and had recorded several hit songs such as "Bete Morreu" (Betty Died), "Eu Não Matei Joana D'Arc" (I Did Not Kill Joana D'Arc), and "Silvia". At a young age he was a fan of Raul Seixas, and towards the end of Seixas' life, they both worked together on songs, having released the 1989 collaboration A Panela do Diabo (The Devil 's Saucepan), the final album recorded by Seixas.

He also worked with Eric Burdon.

title: Marcelo Nova


text:
Attilâ İlhan

Attilâ İlhan (15 June 1925 – 10 October 2005) was a Turkish poet, novelist, essayist, journalist and reviewer.

Early life and education
Attilâ İlhan was born in Menemen in İzmir Province, Turkey on 15 June 1925. He received most of his primary education in İzmir. However, because of his father's job, he completed his junior high school education in different cities. Aged 16 and enrolled in İzmir Atatürk High School, he got into trouble for sending a poem by Nazım Hikmet, a famous dissident communist Turkish poet, to a girl he was in love with. He was arrested and taken into custody for three weeks. He was also dismissed from school and jailed for two months. After his imprisonment, İlhan was forbidden from attending any schools in Turkey, thus interrupting his education.

Following a favourable court decision in 1941, he received permission to continue his education again and enrolled in Istanbul Işık High School. During the last year of his high school education, his uncle sent one of his poems to CHP Poetry Competition without telling Attilâ. The poem, Cebbaroğlu Mehemmed, won the second prize among many poems written by famous poets. He graduated from high school in 1942 and enrolled in Istanbul University's law school. However, he left midway through his legal education to pursue his own endeavours and published his first poetry book, Duvar (The Wall).

Years in Paris
In his second year at Istanbul University, he went to Paris in order to take part in supporting Nazım Hikmet. His observations of the French and their culture were to influence many of his works.

After returning to Turkey, he repeatedly ran into trouble with the police. Interrogations in Sansaryan Han influenced his works based on death, thriller, etc. Although this atmosphere of tension was not in his first poems, the poet published poems in which he remembered or criticized his old days, especially in his books such as Bela Çiçeği. He was detained several times.

Attilâ İlhan stated that the nickname "Captain" was given to him by his friends after he grew a beard for a while during his years in Paris. The poem "The Captain", consisting of five parts, was effective in the treatment of the nickname.

Return to Istanbul
In 1973, he took on the investment of Bilgi Publishing House and moved to Ankara. He wrote Hyena Share and Rubbing Salt in the Wound in Ankara. The writer, who stayed in Ankara until 1981, settled in Istanbul after publishing his novel Fena Halde Leman (Terribly Leman). His journalism adventure in Istanbul came to the fore with Milliyet (2 March 1982 - 15 November 1987) and Gelişim Publications. Attilâ İlhan, who wrote for Güneş newspaper for a while, continued to write for Meydan newspaper between 1993-1996. He continued his columns in Cumhuriyet newspaper from 1996 to 2005. With the start of television broadcasts in Turkey in the 1970s and their distribution to large audiences, Attilâ İlhan also returned to writing scripts.

Headlines on Eight Columns, Eagles Fly High and Tomorrow is Today were the TV series that were watched with admiration by the public.

By the time his first novel, The Man on the Street, was published, he had written 10 novels. These do not cause light on any day. Attilâ İlhan explains the reason for this in an interview: "... there are many other novels. But why were they not published? There was a very detailed reason. Because we know that the writers' first novels describe their experiences. That is not novelism either. They keep a diary." (Think, June 1996).

While other writers of the period who started their novel adventure mostly dealt with local and travel events and people, Attilâ İlhan worked in a structure that dealt with the city people and the recent economic and social aspects of Turkey. He not only reflected the big cities of Turkey such as Istanbul and Izmir, the lifestyle of his period, and the appearance of their economic and social heroes, but also examined how Western culture reflected on Turkey, its positive and negative situations, within a structure that overlapped with the characters he drew and the cities in Europe. .

Istanbul–Paris–Izmir triangle
He returned to Paris again in 1951 because of an official investigation about an article in Gerçek newspaper. In this period he learned to speak French and studied Marxist philosophy. In the 1950s Attilâ İlhan spent his days along an Istanbul–Paris–İzmir triangle and during this period he became popular in Turkey. After returning to Turkey, he resumed studying law. However, in his last year at law school, he left university and took up a journalistic career. His relationship with the cinema also started in this year. He began writing movie reviews and critiques in Vatan newspaper.

Artistic versatility
After completing his military service in Erzurum in 1957, İlhan returned to Istanbul and concentrated on cinema. He wrote screenplays for nearly 15 movies under the pen name Ali Kaptanoğlu. However, cinema didn't meet his expectations and he returned to Paris in 1960. During this period, he analyzed the development of socialism and television. The unexpected death of his father caused him to return to his hometown of İzmir, where he would remain for the next eight years. During this period, he served as the editorial writer and editor-in-chief of the Democratic İzmir newspaper. During the same years, he also wrote poetry books, Yasak Sevişmek and Bıçağın Ucu of the Aynanın İçindekiler series.

Political views
Attilâ İlhan was a Kemalist and socialist. In his later life, he appeared on television programs where he discussed literary and social issues. Although he was a devoted communist, he never espoused Stalinism and he always took a nationalistic point of view within communism. He was also an intellectual figure in Turkey where his ideas influenced the public. In his series of books entitled Hangi …, he questioned the imitative intellectualism which dominated the cultural and political life of Turkey.

Personal life
He married in 1968 and remained so for 15 years. He was the brother of famous Turkish actress Çolpan İlhan, wife of the late Sadri Alışık, himself a famous actor.

Death
Attilâ İlhan had his first heart attack in 1985. İlhan's cardiological problems continued after this date, and his health condition deteriorated further from 2004 onwards. He was 80 years old when he died of his second heart attack at his home in Istanbul on October 10, 2005[1].

He was deemed worthy of the 2003 Sertel Democracy Award. He won the 1946 CHP Poetry Competition Second Place, the 1974 Turkish Language Association Poetry Award with the Detainee's Diary and the 1974 Yunus Nadi Novel Gift with Hyena Payı. The Attilâ İlhan Science, Art and Culture Foundation, which was established in 2007 after his death, continues its work.

Poems

 * Duvar (The Wall)
 * Sisler Bulvarı (Boulevard of Mists)
 * Yağmur Kaçağı (Escapee from Rain)
 * Ben Sana Mecburum (Compelled to You)
 * Bela Çiçeği (Trouble Flower)
 * Yasak Sevişmek ( Forbidden Love)
 * Tutuklunun Günlüğü (A Prisoner's Diary)
 * Böyle Bir Sevmek (Loving Like This)
 * Elde Var Hüzün (Grief Remains)
 * Korkunun Krallığı (Kingdom of Fear)
 * Ayrılık Sevdaya Dahil (Parting is in Love)
 * Allende Allende
 * Pia

Novels

 * Sokaktaki Adam (The Man on the Street)
 * Zenciler Birbirine Benzemez (Black Men Don't Look Alike)
 * Kurtlar Sofrası (Feast of Wolves)
 * Bıçağın Ucu (Tip of the Knife)
 * Sırtlan Payı (Hyena's Share)
 * Yaraya Tuz Basmak (Salting the Wound)
 * Dersaadet'te Sabah Ezanları (Morning Adhans in the Abode of Felicity (Istanbul))
 * O Karanlıkta Biz (Us in That Darkness)
 * Fena Halde Leman (Desperately Leman)
 * Haco Hanım Vay (Haco Hanım Wow)
 * Allah'ın Süngüleri "Reis Paşa" (Bayonets of God "Reis Pasha")

Essays

 * Abbas Yolcu
 * Yanlış Kadınlar Yanlış Erkekler (Wrong Women Wrong Men)
 * Hangi Sol (Which Left)
 * Hangi Sağ (Which Right)
 * Hangi Batı (Which West)
 * Hangi Seks (Which Sex)
 * Hangi Atatürk (Which Atatürk)
 * Hangi Edebiyat (Which Literature)
 * Hangi Laiklik (Which Laisism)
 * Hangi Küreselleşme (Which Globalization)
 * Gerçekçilik Savaşı (War of Reality)
 * İkinci Yeni Savaşı (War of the Second New)
 * Faşizmin Ayak Sesleri (Footsteps of Fascism)
 * Batının Deli Gömleği (The Straitjacket of the West)
 * Sağım Solum Sobe (My Right my Left, Sobe!)
 * Ulusal Kültür Savaşı (National Culture War)
 * Sosyalizm Asıl Şimdi (Socialism Now)
 * Aydınlar Savaşı (War of Intellectuals)
 * Kadınlar Savaşı (War of Women)
 * Bir Sap Kırmızı Karanfil (A Red Carnation Stalk)
 * Ufkun Arkasını Görebilmek (To See Beyond the Horizon)

Short stories

 * Yengecin Kıskacı (Crab's Pincer)

Translations

 * "Kanton'da İsyan" (The Conquerors by André Malraux)
 * "Umut" (Man's Hope by André Malraux)
 * "Basel'in Çanları" (The Bells of Basel by Louis Aragon)

title: Attilâ İlhan


text:
Len Wills

Leonard Edward Wills (8 November 1927 – September 2010) was an English footballer who played in the Football League for Arsenal.

Life and career
Born in Hackney, London, Wills first played for the youth teams of non-league Eton Manor, before being signed by Arsenal in October 1949. For the next four years he played in Arsenal's reserve team, playing either at right half or right back. In October 1953, Arsenal's regular right back, Joe Wade, damaged his knee, and Wills promptly stepped up to replace him, making his debut against Tottenham Hotspur on 10 October 1953 – Arsenal won 4–1.

Wills played so well that he replaced Wade for the rest of that season, playing 30 matches, and another 24 in 1954-55. However, Arsenal signed Stan Charlton in November 1955 and he displaced Wills out of the Arsenal first team. Wills became a bit-part player for the next couple of seasons, deputising for Charlton at right back or Dennis Evans at left back.

After Charlton left the club in 1958, Wills regained the right back position, and became a regular in the side for the next three seasons, but by 1961 his age was starting to count against him. Youngsters Dave Bacuzzi and Eddie Magill shared the right-back spot during 1961-62, with Wills not getting a single game. He left the club on a free transfer at the end of that season, signing for Romford. In all he played 208 games for Arsenal in League and FA Cup, scoring 4 goals. He never won a major trophy at Arsenal (arriving in the first team just after the 1952-53 title triumph), but did play in their 1953 FA Charity Shield win over Blackpool.

After retiring from playing, Wills left the game completely and had a second career in the DIY retail trade.

Wills died in Essex in September 2010 at the age of 82.

title: Len Wills


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/False Alarm

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — J I P | Talk 16:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

False Alarm
nn band. They are "ready to hit it big." R. fiend 14:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn.--Alhutch 15:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As always, once they hit it big, we'll be ready to keep an article. Until, delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - vanity article with POV problems. Listen to the clips on their website and decide for yourself whether they're ever likely to "hit it big"... CLW 16:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone else The Land 18:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (and then make it a redirect to False alarm). BD2412  talk 20:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and make redirect to False alarm per BD2412. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * a False alarm indeed. Delete. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Please dont bring your bias crap to wikipedia --Neo2256
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Calcio Foggia 1920

Calcio Foggia 1920, commonly referred to as Foggia, is an Italian football club based in Foggia, Apulia. It currently plays in Serie C, having last been in the top level Serie A in 1995.

It plays in Serie C, the third division of the Italian championship. The team experienced the best periods in its history in the 1960s and 1970s, in Serie A, and above all in the first half of the 1990s, playing four seasons in the top flight, coming close to qualifying for the UEFA Cup and gaining media exposure in European level for expressing an unprecedented, fast and attacking football.

On 23 April 2017, the club regained promotion to Serie B after a 19-year absence, but folded again only two years later, to restart from Serie D in 2019 as Calcio Foggia.

Foundation and early years
The club was founded in 1920 as Foggia Calcio. The club spent its early history playing football in the lower leagues, winning a championship in the dilettanti in 1933.

In 1957–58, a merger took place between Foggia Calcio and Foggia Incedit, forming Unione Sportiva Foggia as the club is today. In 1961–62, the team was taken over by President Domenico Rosa Rosa, a wood industrialist, and coach Oronzo Pugliese, who quickly led them to promotion to Serie B.

Reaching Serie A
History was made in the 1963–64 season, when Rosa Rosa and Oronzo Pugliese's Foggia reached Serie A for the first time. From 1964–65, Foggia managed to compete in three consecutive seasons in the top flight. On 31 January 1965, still under the guidance of coach Pugliese, Foggia recorded a historic 3–2 victory against Inter, who were at the time led by manager Helenio Herrera. The season was crowned by the national call-ups of Micelli and Nocera who played for Italy against Wales. Italy won 4–1 and Nocera managed to get on the scoresheet. At the end of the season, Pugliese left to take charge of Roma.

Pugliese was replaced by Egizio Rubino, and Foggia, although with more difficulty compared to the previous season, managed to survive the drop again. The following year, however, Foggia was relegated. It was a forgettable championship, after 10 matches Foggia had collected only three points and scored just 24 goals. Rubino was sacked and replaced by Bonazzini. The team improved under Bonazzini but failed to avoid relegation. At the end of the season, president Rosa Rosa also left the club, following their relegation.

Relegated at the end of the 1966–67 season, Foggia returned to the top flight in 1970–71, with Tommaso Maestrelli on the bench. Maestrelli would later win the 1973–74 scudetto with Lazio. Luigi Del Neri was, at the time, a Foggia player. The club was relegated again and returned to Serie A in 1973–74, before another relegation which came after a 6-point deduction for alleged corruption relating to the referee of a home match against Milan. The coach that season was Lauro Toneatto. Foggia played two more seasons in Serie A in 1976–77 and in 1977–78, when they were once more relegated to Serie B.

Glory years and Zemanlandia
Following their relegation back to Serie B, Foggia were then dealt with a further blow with relegation to Serie C. They battled their way in Serie C1 throughout much of the 1980s. This was a particularly tough time for Foggia as their regional rivals, Bari, Lecce, Barletta and Taranto were all playing at higher levels.

In 1989, with the appointment of Czech coach Zdeněk Zeman, the club began to enter the greatest period in its history. The aggressive and entertaining football of the Bohemian coach was based on a 4–3–3 formation. Pressure, offside tactics and frenetic movement of both players and the ball made up the trademark style of Zeman's Foggia. The club first returned to Serie B, and then the following season in 1990–91, they won the Serie B by a large margin and returned to Serie A.

After returning to Serie A in the 1991–92 season, Foggia dei Miracoli, as they were known, proved to be competitive with any opponent and was appreciated by the press because of the attractive football they played. The term Zemanlandia was then coined to indicate the style created by Zeman, and became strictly associated to the Foggia team of the 1990s. The Foggia team also featured star players, especially attacking trio of Giuseppe Signori, Francesco Baiano and Roberto Rambaudi, as well as Russian star Igor Shalimov. That season, Foggia achieved the amazing feat of scoring 58 goals while also conceding 58. Foggia soon lost many of these quality players, including their three key forwards, and had to replace them with young talent. The club completed three Serie A campaigns finishing mid-table. In Serie A 1993-94, Foggia's football continued but the depleted squad was no longer as competitive and the club was relegated back to Serie B in 1995.

Zeman left to join Lazio at the end of that season, marking the end of Zemanlandia whilst the club was beset with financial problems. The Foggia glory days had come to an end.

Decline, Serie C and Zeman's return
Following the drop, Foggia spent two seasons in Serie B achieving mid-table finishes, before another relegation followed at the end of the 1997–98 season. They did not fare any better down in Serie C1, with another successive relegation to Serie C2.

Playing football in Italy's fourth tier was far less glamorous than the Zemanlandia days but the club set itself on the long road back in 2002–03, when led by coach Pasquale Marino and key players Roberto De Zerbi and Michele Pazienza, they were promoted back to Serie C1.

After the 2003–04 season, in which they finished mid-table but with good signs for the following year, Foggia were hit with financial problems and lost the coach Marino and all the best players.

Second U.S. Foggia
The news sent the fans into despair but Giuseppe Coccimiglio took over the reins of the club and gave confidence to the new club which assumed the team's historic name, Unione Sportiva Foggia, and was able to keep their place in the league, thanks to Comma 3 of the Article 52 of N.O.I.F.

After two more seasons finishing in mid-table, during which there were five coaching changes, Coccimiglio was criticised for not paying players' wages, a situation which created instability. After complex negotiations, the company passed into the hands of a team of local entrepreneurs led by Tullio Capobianco.

The club spent the following years mid-table in C1, narrowly losing a promotion playoff in 2006–07 against Avellino which would have seen them return to Serie B. The following season, 2007–08, they again reached the playoffs, this time losing to Cremonese.

In June 2010 Pasquale Casillo, chairman and owner during the glory years of the 1990s, re-acquired the club, and reformed the old trio of Foggia heads by appointing back Zdeněk Zeman as manager and Giuseppe Pavone as director of football. However, despite impressive performances from several young and promising players who went on to play at the highest level like Lorenzo Insigne and Marco Sau, Foggia missed out on playoff qualification.

Second Foggia Calcio
After the end of the 2011–12 season, Foggia was declined to enter Lega Pro Prima Divisione and was thus was excluded from professional football.

In the summer 2012 a new company named A.C.D. Foggia Calcio was founded to continue the football history of the city of Foggia. The club restarted from Serie D thanks to Article 52 of N.O.I.F. and was immediately promoted to Lega Pro Seconda Divisione through a repechage, dropping the A.C.D. part of their denomination in the process.

Over the next 5 seasons, the club will make the climb from Serie D (fifth level) to Serie B (second level); all this thanks to the coaches Pasquale Padalino, Roberto De Zerbi (who also won a Serie C Italian cup) and Giovanni Stroppa.

Third Foggia Calcio
After the end of the 2018–19 season, Foggia was declined to enter Serie C and was thus was excluded from professional football.

In the summer 2019 a new company named Calcio Foggia 1920 was founded to continue the football history of the city of Foggia. The club restarted from Serie D thanks to Article 52 of N.O.I.F. and was soon promoted to Serie C.

Supporters
Football has always been a popular sport to follow in the city of Foggia, especially since the Zeman years. I Satanelli can also count on support from across the Province of Foggia.

The only twinning Foggia fans have is with the supporters of Cagliari and more specifically with the Sconvolts 1987 ultras. However, each group has personal friendships, notable are those with Monza, Latina and Budapest Honvéd.

93 year-old Foggia fan Nonno Ciccio has been attending matches consistently since 1937, with the exception of wartime years. Nonno is now cited as the oldest ultra in Italy and still regularly attends Foggia matches, home and away.

Managerial history
Foggia have had many managers and trainers throughout the history of a club, in some seasons more than one manager was in charge. Here is a chronological list of them from 1923 onwards. • 🇮🇹 Roberto Fini– 1923–28

• 🇮🇹 Severino Rosso– 1928–29

• 🇭🇺 Béla Károly– 1929–32

• 🇦🇹 Tony Cargnelli– 1932–33

• 🇦🇹 Engelbert König– 1933–34

• 🇮🇹 Silvio Stritzel– 1934–35

• 🇮🇹 Giovanni Batista Rebuffo– 1935

• 🇭🇺 Wilmos Wilhelm– 1935–36

• 🇭🇺 Béla Károly– 1936–37

• 🇮🇹 Angelo Benincasa– 1937–39

• 🇭🇺 István Fogl – 1939–40

• 🇭🇺 Ferenc Plemich– 1940

• 🇭🇺 István Fogl – 1940–41

• 🇭🇺 Ferenc Plemich– 1941

• 🇮🇹 Angelo Benincasa– 1941–46

• 🇮🇹 Piero Andreoli– 1946–47

• 🇭🇺 Lajos Politzer– 1947–48

• 🇮🇹 Angelo Benincasa– 1948–49

• 🇭🇺 András Kuttik– 1949

• 🇮🇹 Vincenzo Marsico– 1949–50

• 🇭🇺 András Kuttik– 1950

• 🇮🇹 Vincenzo Marsico– 1950–51

• 🇦🇹 Tony Cargnelli– 1951–52

• 🇮🇹 Cesare Migliorini – 1952

• 🇮🇹 Vincenzo Marsico– 1952–53

• 🇮🇹 Cesare Migliorini – 1953–54

• 🇭🇺 Lajos Kovács– 1954–55

• 🇮🇹 Leandro Remondini– 1955

• 🇮🇹 Vincenzo Marsico– 1955–59

• 🇮🇹 Leonardo Costagliola – 1959–60

• 🇮🇹 Paolo Tabanelli– 1960–61

• 🇮🇹 Leonardo Costagliola – 1961

• 🇮🇹 Oronzo Pugliese– 1961–65

• 🇮🇹 Egizio Rubino – 1965–66

• 🇮🇹 Luigi Bonizzoni– 1966–68

• 🇮🇹 Serafino Montanari – 1968

• 🇮🇹 Tommaso Maestrelli– 1968–71

• 🇮🇹 Ettore Puricelli– 1971–72

• 🇮🇹 Lauro Toneatto– 1972–74

• 🇮🇹 Cesare Maldini– 1974–76

• 🇮🇹 Roberto Balestri – 1976

• 🇮🇹 Ettore Puricelli– 1976–78

• 🇧🇷 Cinesinho– 1978–79

• 🇮🇹 Giorgio Sereni– 1979–80

• 🇮🇹 Ettore Puricelli– 1980–81

• 🇮🇹 Vasco Tagliavini– 1981–82

• 🇮🇹 Fernando Veneranda– 1982

• 🇮🇹 Lamberto Leonardi– 1982–83

• 🇮🇹 Lamberto Giorgis– 1983

• 🇮🇹 Romano Fogli – 1983–84

• 🇮🇹 Ettore Puricelli– 1984

• 🇮🇹 Lamberto Giorgis– 1984–85

• 🇮🇹 Graziano Landoni – 1985

• 🇮🇹 G.B. Fabbri– 1985

• 🇮🇹 Corrado Viciani – 1985–86

• 🇮🇹 G.B. Fabbri– 1986

• Zdeněk Zeman– 1986–87

• 🇮🇹 Roberto Balestri– 1987

• 🇮🇹 Pippo Marchioro– 1987–88

• 🇮🇹 Roberto Balestri– 1988

• 🇮🇹 Giuseppe Caramanno– 1988–89

• 🇨🇿 Zdeněk Zeman– 1989–94

• 🇮🇹 Enrico Catuzzi – 1994–95

• 🇮🇹 Delio Rossi– 1995–96

• 🇮🇹 Tarcisio Burgnich– 1996–97

• 🇮🇹 Domenico Caso– 1997

• 🇮🇹 Beniamino Cancian– 1997–98

• 🇮🇹 Domenico Caso– 1998

• 🇮🇹 Lorenzo Mancano– 1998–99

• 🇮🇹 Fabio Brini– 1999

• 🇮🇹 Piero Braglia– 1999–00

• 🇮🇹 Lorenzo Mancano– 2000

• 🇮🇹 Ignazio Arcoleo– 2000–01

• 🇮🇹 Bruno Pace– 2001–02

• 🇮🇹 Carlo Florimbi– 2002

• 🇮🇹 Pasquale Marino– 2002–04

• 🇮🇹 Giuseppe Giannini– 2004–05

• 🇮🇹 Massimo Morgia– 2005–06

• 🇮🇹 Giorgio Rumignani– 2006

• 🇮🇹 Silvano Fiorucci– 2006

• 🇮🇹 Stefano Cuoghi– 2006–07

• 🇮🇹 Fulvio D'Adderio– 2007

• 🇮🇹 Salvatore Campilongo– 2007–08

• 🇮🇹 Giuseppe Galderisi– 2008

• 🇮🇹 Raffaele Novelli– 2008–09

• 🇮🇹 Antonio Porta– 2009

• 🇮🇹 Guido Ugolotti– 2010

• 🇨🇿 Zdeněk Zeman– 2010–11

• 🇮🇹 Valter Bonacina– 2011

• 🇮🇹 Paolo Stringara– 2011–12

• 🇮🇹 Valter Bonacina– 2012

• 🇮🇹 Pasquale Padalino– 2012–13

• 🇮🇹 Roberto De Zerbi– 2014–16

• 🇮🇹 Giovanni Stroppa– 2016–18

• 🇮🇹 Gianluca Grassadonia– 2018

• 🇮🇹 Pasquale Padalino– 2018–19

• 🇮🇹 Gianluca Grassadonia– 2019

• 🇧🇷 Amantino Mancini– 2019

• 🇮🇹 Ninni Corda– 2019-2020

• 🇮🇹 Ezio Capuano– 2020

• 🇮🇹 Vincenzo Maiuri– 2020

• 🇮🇹 Marco Marchionni– 2020–2021

• 🇨🇿 Zdeněk Zeman– 2021–Present

Honours

 * Serie B
 * Winners: 1990–91

 * Serie C
 * Winners: 1932–33, 1959–60, 1961–62, 2016–17

 * Serie C2
 * Winners: 2002–2003

 * Serie D
 * Winners: 2019–2020

 * Coppa Italia Serie C
 * Winners: 2006–07, 2015–16

 * Supercoppa di Serie C
 * Winners: 2017

title: Calcio Foggia 1920


text:
Sam McPheeters

Sam McPheeters (born 1969) is an American artist, journalist, novelist, and performer.

Early life
Raised in Albany, New York, he became a published author at age 12, with Travelers' Tales, a collection of regional folklore.

Music
In 1985, McPheeters grew active with the hardcore punk scene, producing several fanzines and organizing local concerts. After moving to New York City in 1987, he co-founded Born Against in 1989 and the Vermiform Records label in 1990. In 1993, he co-founded the Virginia-based band Men's Recovery Project, and in 2003, he co-founded the Los Angeles-based band Wrangler Brutes.

Publications
Starting in 2005, McPheeters has written for a variety of national magazines, including the Chicago Reader, Huffington Post, the OC Weekly, Vice, and the Village Voice. In 2012, his first novel, The Loom Of Ruin, was published through Los Angeles-based Mugger Books and received positive reviews. He lives in Pomona, California.

In 2016, Talos Press release McPheeters' second novel, Exploded View.

Discography

 * Fear of Smell (1993)
 * Feer of Smell (1998)
 * Sam McPheeters / The Catholic Church (1998)

with Born Against
Compilation appearances
 * Born Against (1990)
 * Eulogy
 * Nine Patriotic Hymns for Children
 * Battle Hymns of the Race War (1993)
 * Suckerpunch split
 * Screeching Weasel split (1993)
 * Universal Order of Armageddon split (1993)
 * Man Is The Bastard split (1994)
 * Murders Among Us (1990)
 * Forever
 * Bllleeeeaaauuurrrrgghhh!
 * Our Voice, Pro Choice
 * Give Me Back (1991)
 * The Dignity of Human Being is Vulnerable
 * God's Chosen People
 * False Object Sensor

with Men's Recovery Project

 * Frank Talk About Humans (1994)
 * Botanica Mysteria (1996)
 * Grappling with the Homonids (1998)
 * Golden Triumph of Naked Hostility (1998)
 * Resist The New Way (1999)
 * Boldies over Basra (2000)
 * The Very Best of Men's Recovery Project (2005)

with Wrangler Brutes

 * Cassette
 * Tour 7"
 * Zulu (2004)

title: Sam McPheeters


text: User talk:83.24.238.194

title: User talk:83.24.238.194


text:
Overlaying

Overlaying or overlying is the act of accidentally smothering a child to death by rolling over them in sleep.

Alleged instances of overlaying were perceived to be one common way of covering up infanticide in Victorian England. Many wet nurses were accused of this, and in many counties the wet nurse would have to provide a crib out of her own money to ensure that she would not sleep with the child.

The London coroner Athelstan Braxton Hicks noted that "during the last ten months no less than 500 cases had occurred in which children had been suffocated while in bed with their parents, in London alone." He estimated that a third of the allegedly accidental deaths of children were due to suffocations. Overcrowded conditions often led to overlaying and in another case he noted "it was no use reading the father a lesson on sleeping in a crowded room, for he was hard-up and could not pay for large apartments. The jury returned a verdict of "Accidental death," and expressed its opinion that the father had done the best he could in the circumstances."

In researching smothering deaths by black slaves in the American South, which occurred nine times more frequently than in white families, Michael P. Johnson suggests that sudden infant death syndrome was in fact to blame (which, if it happened in white families, would be heavily underreported because of the social stigma attached).

title: Overlaying


text:
Jirjis al-Makin Ibn al-'Amid

Jirjis al-Makīn (جرجس المكين; 1206–after 1280, maybe 1293), known by his nisba Ibn al-ʿAmīd (ابن العميد), was a Coptic Christian historian who wrote in Arabic. His name is sometimes anglicised as George Elmacin (Georgius Elmacinus).

Life
Several details about his ancestors and some biographical elements are provided in his own history. He is also mentioned in the biographical dictionary of Ibn al-Ṣuqāʿī (d. 1325) and in a polemical tract by Ibn al-Wāsiṭī (d. 1312). He was born in Cairo in Ayyubid Egypt on February 18, 1206. His full name in Arabic was Ğirğis (George) ibn al-ʿAmīd Abī l-Yāsir ibn Abī l-Makārim ibn Abī l-Ṭayyib al-Makīn ("the Powerful One"). His great-grandfather was a merchant from Tikrit in Iraq who settled in Egypt.

He was a Coptic Christian, and held high office in the military (dīwān al-ğayš) in Damascus. Such a position carried risks. He was twice imprisoned, possibly because of links to the unrest in Syria at the time of the Mongol invasion; in one case for over a decade. While in prison, he began to write his chronicle.

He died in Damascus: the date given by his biographer Ibn al-Ṣuqāʿī is 1273, but this is likely to be a mistake for 1293 (respectively, 672 and 692 of the Hijri calendar: 7 and 9 are often confused in Arabic manuscripts).

Works
He is the author of a world chronicle in two parts. It is traditionally known as al-Majmu` al-Mubarak (The blessed collection), but in fact its real title is simply Kitāb al-Taʾrīḫ (Book of History/of Chronology). The first portion runs from Adam down to the 11th year of Heraclius and consists of a series of 166 numbered biographies, in some manuscripts ending with a list of the Patriarchs of the Church of Alexandria. The second half is devoted to Islamic history, from the time of Muḥammad to the accession of the Mamluk Sultan Baybars in 1260. This second half is mainly derived from al-Ṭabarī, as the author tells us, through Ibn Wāṣil.

The Kitāb al-Taʾrīḫ is essentially a learned compilation of earlier sources: the Bible first and foremost, the world chronology of Ibn al-Rahib, but also the works of the Melkite authors Ibn Biṭrīq (Eutychius of Alexandria) and Agapius (al-Manbiǧī), the Josippon, hermetic sources, and a mysterious Rūzbihān, who is credited with a history of pre-Islamic Persia. The book proved influential among different readerships: Eastern Christians, Muslim historians, and early modern Arabists. It is preserved in more than 40 manuscripts in different recensions. In particular, it was used by the 14-15th century Mamluk historians Ibn Khaldūn, al-Qalqashandī, and al-Maqrīzī.

The second half of the Kitāb al-Taʾrīḫ was published in Arabic with Latin translation in Leiden in 1625. It was the fact of Thomas Erpenius, although it was completed and published posthumously by his disciple Golius. The Historia Saracenica, as Erpenius entitled it, was a breakthrough in European knowledge of Islamic history and it was soon translated into French by Pierre Vattier as L'Histoire mahometane (Paris, 1657). An abbreviated English translation was also made from the Latin by Samuel Purchas as early as 1626. The edition and translation by Erpenius was one of the first ever made of an Arabic text in early modern Europe and suffers accordingly from the lack of lexica. It has been only partially emended by a new Egyptian edition by ʿAlī Bakr Ḥasan (Cairo, 2010, unfortunately on the same two manuscripts that were used by Erpenius).

The work is still partly unedited. In 2023 Martino Diez published a critical edition with English translation of the first quarter, from Adam to the end of the Achaemenids, which is expected to be followed by a second volume from Alexander the Great to Heraclius. The last part, from the author's birth to the end of the work, was edited by Claude Cahen and translated into French by Anne-Marie Eddé and Françoise Micheau.

An Ethiopic translation of the whole work also exists. From the manuscript British Library, Oriental 814, E. Wallis Budge translated the chapter on Alexander the Great, which contains verbatim extracts from the old Arabic Hermetic work al-Isṭimākhīs.

Muffaḍḍal ibn Abī l-Faḍāʾil, who may have been the author's great-nephew, wrote a continuation of the chronicle to the death of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn in 1341. This appendix mainly covers secular history, with only limited references to events in the Coptic community. The continuation was apparently written for personal use and has been edited and translated in European languages: from the beginning to 1317 by Edgar Blochet, in French; from 1317 to the end by Samira Kortantamer, in German.

Editions and Translations

 * Martino Diez, al-Makīn Ǧirǧis Ibn al-ʿAmīd: Universal History: The Vulgate Recension. From Adam to the End of the Achaemenids, Leiden: Brill.com (2024), ISBN 978-90-04-54998-2. Critical edition with English translation and introduction.
 * Thomas Erpenius, Historia Saracenica […], Arabicè olim exarata a Georgio Elmacino fil. Abuljaseri Elamidi f. Abulmacaremi f. Abultibi, et Latinè reddita operâ ac studio Thomae Erpenii […], Lugduni Batavorum [Leiden]: ex Typographia Erpeniana Linguarum Orientalium, 1625.
 * The Saracentical historie ... Written in Arabike by George Elmacin ... And translated into Latine by Thomas Erpenius ... Englished, abridged, and continued to the end of the Chalifa's, by Samuel Purchas ...: p. [1009]-1047, incl. special t.p. -- the 4th part of Pvrchas his Pilgrimage..., 4th ed (?) London (1626).
 * ʿAlī Bakr Ḥasan, Taʾrīḫ al-Makīn: Taʾrīḫ al-muslimīn min Ṣāḥib Šarīʿat al-Islām Abī l-Qāsim Muḥammad ḥattā l-dawla al-atābakiyya, al-Qāhira: Dār al-ʿAwāṣim, 2010.
 * Claude Cahen, "La ‘Chronique des Ayyoubides’ d’al-Makīn b. al-ʿAmīd,” Bulletin d’études orientales, 15 (1955–1957), pp. 109–184,.
 * Al-Makin Ibn Al-Amid, Chronique des Ayyoubides (602-658 / 1205/6-1259/60), Tr. Anne-Marie Eddé et Françoise Micheau, Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 1994, ISBN 2-87754-001-4. 148pp. -- French translation of the portion from 1205 to 1259.

Studies

 * Georg Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, volume 2. Lists manuscripts of the work.
 * M. Th. Houtsma, E. van Donzel, E. J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913-1936, p. 173f. At Google books
 * Awad, Wadi Abullif, “al-Makīn Ǧirǧis ibn al-ʿAmīd wa-tārīḫuhu. al-Ǧuzʾ al-awwal: al-maṣādir wa-l-marāǧiʿ, wa-l-sīra,” in: Wadi Awad (ed.), Actes de la septième rencontre des Amis du patrimoine arabe-chrétien, Cairo: The Franciscan Centre of Christian Oriental Studies, 1999, pp. 5–24.
 * Witold Witakowski, Ethiopic Universal Chronography in Martin Wallraff, Julius Africanus und die christliche Weltchronistik, deGruyter (2006) pp. 285–301.
 * Gawdat Gabra, Historical Dictionary of the Coptic Church, Scarecrow Press (2008), ISBN 978-0-8108-6097-1. pp. 22–23.
 * Samuel Moawad, “al-Makīn Jirjis ibn al-ʿAmīd (the elder),” Christian Muslim Relations, vol. 4 (2012), pp. 566–571.

title: Jirjis al-Makin Ibn al-'Amid


text:
Talk:Twenty Four Seven

Came across this randomly. Original page was unclear, but on research was an album by Dallas Crane. It was linked to by several places, only one having to do with Crane. Moving Crane's album to another page, which will still need work. PerlKnitter 14:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Twenty Four Seven


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remixes, Ace of Base

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash talk 23:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Remixes, Ace of Base
Ace-of-Base-cruft - I don't believe this deserves its own article. I don't think this shoud be merged to the main Ace of Base article, either, for fear of clogging it up. Delete CLW 14:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC) *Keep. This is a type of list that should be kept. It can be maintained, it involves otherwise difficult to get information, and is likely too large to merge anyways. --badlydrawnjeff 13:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC) Apparently I was wrong, now that Qirex added the info with ease to the discography page, no reason to duplicate. Delete. --badlydrawnjeff 13:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pointless cruft. / Peter Isotalo 15:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Ace of Base. If that would clutter too much, then keep, or merge with a discography of Ace of Base in sections. Trollderella 15:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ace-of-base-cruft - now there's a word I didn't expect to ever see. Delete, unencyclopaedic and not worth merging - a lot of singles have remixes on their B-side, and a list of every single one for every artist with such singles would clutter up a huge number of articles. --Last Malthusian 16:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Cruft. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza  18:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ace-of-base-cruft. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, discographies are encyclopedic, wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 01:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but this isn't a discography. Discographies include singles, albums, and possibly compilations, not remixes. The excessive length of this list and its extremely low information-to-data ratio (so which is better: the Armand's 'British Nites' Remix of Lucky Love or Armand's 'British Nite' Mix Edit?) illustrate why that is. As for your other argument, I see your WP:NOT paper and raise you one WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. --Last Malthusian 10:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: I just spent half an hour cleaning up this exact same information over at Discography of Ace of Base. This is a useless, hard-to-read duplicate. --Qirex 02:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Kelvin Grove

Kelvin Grove or Kelvingrove may refer to:
 * Kelvin Grove, Calgary, a neighbourhood of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
 * Kelvin Grove, Queensland, a suburb of Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
 * Kelvin Grove, Palmerston North, a suburb of Palmerston North, New Zealand
 * Glasgow Kelvingrove (UK Parliament constituency)
 * Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, Glasgow, Scotland
 * Kelvingrove Park, Glasgow, Scotland
 * Kelvingrove, Glasgow, an area of Glasgow, Scotland

title: Kelvin Grove


text:
Virginia State Route 288

State Route 288 is a primary state highway in the U.S. state of Virginia. It is a freeway-standard partial beltway around the southwest side of the Richmond, Virginia metropolitan area in portions of Goochland, Powhatan, and Chesterfield counties. SR 288 was officially dedicated as the World War II Veterans Memorial Highway in 2004.

Route description
SR 288 may be thought of as the southwestern portion of an "outer beltway" of Richmond, although there is no such roadway formally designated. The route begins at Interstate 95 north of Chester, and extends northwesterly through Chesterfield County and Powhatan County. It crosses the James River on the World War II Veterans Memorial Bridge into Goochland County in Richmond's Far West End area, where it terminates at Interstate 64 near Short Pump, near the northern terminus of Interstate 295.

The highway has been built entirely to Interstate standards.

History
In 1968, Congress passed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, which expanded the Interstate Highway System by 1,500 mi. The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) resolved in its August 1968 meeting to apply to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) for approval of five new stretches of Interstate. Three of these – the future I-195 and I-664 plus an expansion of the Berkley Bridge on I-264 – were submitted and approved. The other two presumably received no further action because they are not in AASHTO's records; these are today SR 288 and SR 164.

Sections of the road were built over a period of more than 15 years. During that time, the planned routing of the northern portion was changed substantially, and not without some conflict within the communities. The 17.4-mile-long southern portion of SR 288 in Chesterfield County (from Interstate 95 to State Route 76 near Midlothian) was completed in 1989.

Initially, the highway was planned to continue north and west of this temporary terminus to connect with Interstate 64 at Interstate 295, creating a seamless straight connection between SR 288 and I-295. This would have formed a partial beltway (I-295 north of I-64 and east of I-95, and SR 288 in the southwest quadrant).

However, this planned corridor and a river crossing into Henrico County west of Richmond was abandoned in 1988. This was due to a peculiarity in the varying powers and abilities of local governments to control growth and preserve rights-of-way resultant from the Byrd Road Act of 1932. While Henrico County had been able to preserve its corridor, there had been development of residential neighborhoods and homes along and within the intended path in Chesterfield County during the years after initial planning. Despite opposition by both Henrico County and the City of Richmond, a more westerly alignment north of SR 76 was selected. Much of the planned section in Henrico County became the John Rolfe Parkway corridor there.

Instead, a more westerly alignment was selected through Powhatan and Goochland Counties, causing a break in what would have been a continuous loop between SR 288 and I-295 at their northern juncture. In 2004, construction of this "western alignment" as it became known was completed, including a new crossing of the James River known as the World War II Veterans Memorial Bridge.

Henrico County was able to preserve its planned corridor for Route 288 from development while Chesterfield County was not. This was partially because Henrico and Arlington County are the only two counties in Virginia which control and maintain their own secondary highways and streets. VDOT handles this for Chesterfield and all other counties, but has little control of residential development.

Exit list
All exits are unnumbered.

title: Virginia State Route 288


text:
Downtown Brooklyn: A Journal of Writing

Downtown Brooklyn: A Journal of Writing (ISSN 1536-8475) was an annual American literary magazine which was published between 1992 and 2018.

History and profile
Downtown Brooklyn was founded by the poets Barbara Henning, Rudy Baron and Wayne Berninger.

The first annual issue appeared in 1992.

The magazine was published annually and was edited by faculty and students in the English Department at the Brooklyn Campus of Long Island University.

The editors accepted submissions of poetry, literary prose, and visual art from faculty, staff and students at the campus, although cover art was at times solicited from local artists who had shown their work in campus galleries.

Downtown Brooklyn went online in 2014. Issues number 23-25 appeared as PDFs, and issues number 26-27 appeared in the form of Tumblr blogs. Issue 27 was the final issue.

Full sets of print back-issues are available in the Periodicals Collection of Salena Library at Long Island University (Brooklyn Campus) and in the Little Magazine Collection of Memorial Library at The University of Wisconsin–Madison.

title: Downtown Brooklyn: A Journal of Writing


text:
User talk:Smurrayinchester/Balderdash!

Frequently Asked Questions about Balderdash!
Why have I never heard about balderdash before? Please, the title is Balderdash!. And you probably have. Remember that sitcom they showed last time they canceled Only Fools and Horses? That was probably Balderdash!.

Where can I see balderdash? I've said it once and I'll say it again. The title is Balderdash!. It is often shown on Bank Holidays and rainy Sundays, generally on UKTV Gold.

'''Is balderdash; sorry Balderdash! available on DVD?''' Not yet. It is believed that the production company will release an extended edition, along with footage left from the cancellation of 'Aardvark, if you can get it'.

Why isn't this article in the main space? Because, until the DVD is released around 30th March, 2006, this article will be factually very incorrect. For example, due to an editing error, the credits were replaced by a vintage episode of Bill and Ben; The Flower Pot Men, so no cast list survives. When the DVD comes out, it is promised that it will include cast. Until then, the article will stay in my user: space.

What would have happened had the series continued? Had the series continued, as shown in this section (user:Smurrayinchester/Balderdash!), the family would have dodged an escaped aardvark, an escaped serial killer, Soviet troops, a brick, the aardvark again, and nuclear bombs. The plan for the finale was to have a telephone vote, similar to the text voting on such shows as Pop Idol, and the audience would choose which character to kill off. This would then be broadcast from pre-recorded deaths. It is expected that these will be included as special features on the DVD.

What other special features will be on the DVD? I'm glad you asked. As well as the scenes from 'Aardvark...', pre-recorded deaths and credits as shown above, it will also include audio commentaries by the director, currently known only as Alan Smithee, an optional 'laughter track' (now with 30% more laughs) and the TV trailer.

Infrequently Asked Questions about Balderdash!
Why is it called Balderdash!? See balderdash. Basically, it can mean nonsense, a receding hairline or cheap wine. Balderdash! features all three.

Is that the one with all those old people? No. That's Last of the Summer Wine.

'''Why was the show cancelled? It sounds funny.''' The executives at the television stations couldn't handle the show. Plus, the episodes made many jokes about the Cold War. Then the Berlin wall came down and the episodes made no sense anymore.

Is there really such as thing as Balderdash!? Of course there is. This proves it: balderdash.

Was a sequel planned? As a matter of fact, yes. It is a mystery as to why the sequel, Rubbish! was written before the pilot even aired, but it revolved around Kevin Crimble taking up a job driving a Dustbin Cart to support his new family after his wedding at the end of the first series. It was believed continuity issues such as the end of the Cold War, the fact that he already had a good job, and was widely expected to be killed off at the end of the first series (see above) led the show to be scrapped.

 smurray  in  chester (User), (Talk), (Recent Contrib) 14:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Never Asked Questions about Balderdash!
'''Why does a Google Search for Balderdash! turn up nothing useful?''' Don't know. Government conspiracy, perhaps?

'''Why does the show make no sense. I mean, an aardvark?! Come on!''' Hey, hey, hey! I just write the article!

Are you crazy? Perhaps.

Other questions about Balderdash!
Please ask any questions you may have here:

title: User talk:Smurrayinchester/Balderdash!


text:
Cantabrian

Cantabrian or Cantabrians may refer to:
 * People and things related to the modern Spanish autonomous community and historical region of Cantabria
 * Cantabrian people, modern inhabitants of Cantabria
 * Basques, as they were sometimes referred during Modern Age
 * Cantabrian Mountains, mountain range in Northern Spain
 * Cantabrian Sea, southern end of the Bay of Biscay
 * Cantabrian language, also known as montañés, a Romance language variety belonging to Asturleonese, spoken in northern Spain
 * Cantabri, the ancient Celtic inhabitants of Cantabria
 * Cantabrian Wars, war during the Roman conquest of the ancient Cantabria and Asturias
 * Cantabrian circle, a military tactic employed by ancient Cantabri horse archers
 * People from the region of Canterbury, New Zealand

title: Cantabrian