text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Maoririder/Workshop

Possible principles to consider

 * Please expand this list.

 * Do not bite the newcomers Tony Sidaway Talk
 * Sock puppets: Creating a second account for a given class of edits does not itself constitute sockpuppet abuse. However, it does not give an editor free rein to use that account abusively. (Ciz) Tony Sidaway Talk
 * Assume good faith Tony Sidaway Talk
 * Blocking for disruption. Prior warning (is five minutes enough?) Tony Sidaway Talk
 * Potentially controversial blocks such as for disruption, should be reviewed reasonably widely, using a forum appropriate for the purpose such as WP:AN or WP:ANI, not only so that the situation may be publicised widely but also so that the appropriateness of the block may be widely discussed and consensus obtained. Tony Sidaway Talk
 * Blocking for disruption is not punishment, rather it is intended solely to maintain the smooth functioning of the wiki. Blocking for the purpose of enforcing guidelines is inappropriate. Tony Sidaway Talk
 * Civility. Editors to take into account the full spectrum of communication abilities. An editor who is clearly having difficulties is not to be browbeaten. Tony Sidaway Talk
 * It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith. (Note that everyone is expected to assume good faith in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary.) Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy. (from Cool Cat et al) Tony Sidaway Talk

Discussion

 * I definately see your point here. But, I personally don't feel that I was ever "stalking" Maoririder.  I was doing a lot of New Pages patrol during that time.  And his articles were comming up on NP a lot, as he was creating many new articles. Most of these articles had formatting problems, and some did have lack of context to the point that they violated CSD A1.  It seemed appropriate, rather than to constantly fix his articles or tag them CSD, to try and work with him to improve his editing.
 * I think if you read through user talk:Maoririder, the editors who were trying to work with him did assume good faith, and were trying not to bite the newcommer. We were, however, trying to help him understand how to write better stubs. -Satori (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I do recognise that the overwhelming feeling was that here was an editor and he needed help. There was however, I think, an element of needless biting in the justification used by those who planned and executed an eight-hour block on Maoririder, evening of August 2, apparently to enforce unspecified guidelines. I won't discuss this further as it's the remit of arbcom to decide what happened and how to remedy it. And I could well be wrong--I'm only suggesting lines of inquiry, and my suggestions will necessarily be colored by my own view of what's what. Please add your own concerns to the list. --Tony Sidaway Talk 17:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you're laboring under a misconception- as I recall, I discussed a possible block with Lucky 6.9, but, as neither of us were administrators at the time, nothing came of it. Ike actually executed the block, and I'd had no communication with him beforehand, and I don't think Lucky had any either.  In short, there wasn't a conspiracy to block Maoririder.--Scimitar parley 17:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The issue isn't a matter of conspiracy, but newbie biting. The planning and execution of the block involved you, Ike9898, and Soltak. Ike suggested it to you and to Soltak, and eventually performed it. You approved it and recommended a warning (as is required by both policy and commonsense) and in fact you just managed to squeak a warning in on Maoririder's talk page five minutes before Ike implemented it. Soltak who was also consulted approved the block. That Ike discussed it with other first is good. I'm perfectly aware that at the time you were not an admin. Nor was Lucky 6.9, who approved of the block retrospectively. It's a shame that none of you checked Maoririder's output closely enough to realise that he wasn't editing at the time, and his last edits had all been aimed at discussion and expansion of existing articles. He was not engaging in problematic behavior at the time of the block or for an appreciable time beforehand. The second block, executed by the same editor, this time with no warning at all, was if anything worse, for the few stub articles Maoririder created on that day were well written and conformed very well to Wikipedia style (Portland Exposition Building, Million Dollar Bridge). --Tony Sidaway Talk 02:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
UNICOM

A UNICOM (universal communications) station is an air-ground communication facility operated by a non-air traffic control private agency to provide advisory service at uncontrolled aerodromes and airports and to provide various non-flight services, such as requesting a taxi, even at towered airports. It is also known as an aeronautical advisory station, with these terms being used mostly in the Americas. The equivalent European/ICAO service is known as (aerodrome) flight information service, abbreviated as AFIS or FIS. From an ICAO perspective, UNICOM, historically most commonly provided by flight service stations, is an implementation of FIS.

Description
UNICOM is employed at airports with a low volume of general aviation traffic and where no control tower is active. UNICOM stations typically use a single communications frequency. Some airfields always offer UNICOM service while others revert to UNICOM procedures only during hours when the control tower is closed. Under this protocol, aircraft may call a non-government ground station to make announcements of their intentions. Pilots who join the frequency later can request field advisories, which may include "weather information, wind direction, the recommended runway" and any previously reported traffic.

In some cases, the ground station is not staffed, and attempts to communicate will, of course, receive no acknowledgement. During these times, pilots self-announce their position and/or intentions over the CTAF frequency, which is often the same as the UNICOM frequency. When a part-time UNICOM station is located on the same airport as a part-time control tower, the same frequency will be used by both ground stations to avoid confusion. Many UNICOM stations are nowadays operated by a fixed-base operator (FBO), and it may be possible to request services such as fuel trucks, taxi service from the airport, outgoing phone calls, and others.

Frequencies
The actual frequency used at any particular airport can be found on the relevant sectional, terminal area chart or in airport directories, such as the Canada Flight Supplement.

United States
In the United States, radio frequencies made available by the Federal Communications Commission for use as UNICOM are:

Airports with an Air Traffic Control tower or FSS (Alaska only) on the airport.
 * 122.950 MHz

Airports without an Air Traffic Control tower or FSS on the airport.
 * 122.700 MHz
 * 122.725 MHz
 * 122.800 MHz
 * 122.975 MHz
 * 123.000 MHz
 * 123.050 MHz
 * 123.075 MHz

Canada
In Canada, the radio frequencies assigned for UNICOM are:

 * 122.700 MHz
 * 122.725 MHz
 * 122.750 MHz
 * 122.775 MHz
 * 122.800 MHz
 * 122.825 MHz
 * 122.950 MHz
 * 123.000 MHz
 * 123.300 MHz
 * 123.350 MHz
 * 123.500 MHz

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

title: UNICOM


text:
Talk:ZET 2200

I would be interested to know what sort of deadman equipment the ZET 2200 has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.85.31 (talk • contribs • WHOIS ) -- It starts braking when driver removes his hand from controler in speed, except when controler is in idle position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.139.70.213 (talk • contribs • WHOIS )

Merge with CROTRAM
There is not much info in either page and some of it is the same. Myrtone@ZET 2200.com.au

Croatia the fifth country to produce low-floor trams?
What is the definition of a low-floor tram? Even if it means "100% low-floor", please count with me: 1. Germany (MAN, AEG, DUEWAG, Siemens, ADtranz, Bombardier Transportation -- if you count that as a German company, not Canadian...), 2. Austria (SGP), 3. Switzerland (ABB, SIG), 4. France (Alstom), 5. Italy (Socimi, Breda)... And if it includes _any_ low-floor tram, then the list is even longer (Czech Republic, Russia...).

In fact there is a difference! Croatia is the fifth country with the company/ technology on it's own! It is possible that there are some other low-floor trams in Russia, Czech Rep. etc... but they DO NOT HAVE COMPANYES ON THEIR OWN ( which arren't in possession of other multinational corporations!), also they doesn't possess their own technology developed! For your information, "Crotram" is the consortium of two companies predominantly owned by croatian stock holders ( multinational companies are almost entirely excluded!), unlike many of the companies you have mentioned esp. ABB, Bombardier, ADtrans, also possibly Alstom!

title: Talk:ZET 2200


text:
Talk:Marketing myopia

marketing myopia
Is there a relation between marketing myopia and market timing? If there is, what is that factor that decides that ideal time? Is it driven by customers, or by producers?

In Theodore Levitt's paper, it talks about consumer orientedness. However, there are examples of improper timing as well. So what exactly decides the market being ripe and ready to handle a new product?

--Sorry, but now one has defined Marketing Myopia yet. Yes it is a term in Theodore Levitt's paper but what is it?198.82.167.74 (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This article just discusses what people think about the term without actually defining the term. Any chance someone could define it? --66.207.212.26 (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Marketing Myopia is where management are product focused rather than customer focused —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.62.133 (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I recommend significantly shortening the article. I made simple grammar edits, but could a content expert tighten this up a bit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gprobins (talk • contribs) 16:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Marketing myopia


text:
User talk:Ravenx16

I am Ravenx16. I am kind of new to this so please be patient. - For the moment there is nothing of much interest here.

title: User talk:Ravenx16


text: Wikipedia:STALK

title: Wikipedia:STALK


text:
Depository bank

A depository bank (U.S. usage) or depositary bank (predominantly EU usage) is a specialist financial entity which, depending on jurisdiction, facilitates investment in securities markets.

Depository banks in the United States
In the United States, a depository is a bank organized in the US which provides all the stock transfer and agency services in connection with a depositary receipt program. This function includes arranging for a custodian to accept deposits of ordinary shares, issuing the negotiable receipts which back up the shares, maintaining the register of holders to reflect all transfers and exchanges, and distributing dividends in U.S. dollars.

Depositary banks in the European Union
In the EU, a depositary is a financial institution which provides fiduciary/custodian services to Investment Funds authorised to trade in any EU jurisdiction as a UCITS or Alternative Investment Fund. Both the UCITS (2009/65/EC) Directive and AIFMD (2011/61/EU) Directives require that authorised investment funds have a depositary appointed to the fund to safekeep the assets of the fund (whether by taking them into custody, or record-keeping and verifying title of them) and oversee the affairs of the fund to ensure that it complies with obligations outlined in relevant laws and the fund's constitutional documents. Depositaries have been subject to significantly increased regulation in the EU in recent years and the proposed “UCITS V” directive proposes to continue this trend by imposing a “strict” standard of depositary liability for the loss of fund assets, other than in certain circumstances.

title: Depository bank


text:
Harriet Chalmers Adams

Harriet Chalmers Adams (October 22, 1875 – July 17, 1937 ) was an American explorer, writer and photographer. She traveled extensively in South America, Asia and the South Pacific in the early 20th century, and published accounts of her journeys in National Geographic magazine. She lectured frequently on her travels and illustrated her talks with color slides and movies.

Early life and marriage
Harriet Chalmers Adams was born in Stockton, California to Alexander Chalmers and Frances Wilkens. As a child, she enjoyed numerous horseback adventures with her father, including a yearlong trip from Oregon to Mexico through the Sierra Nevada Mountains when she was 14.

On October 5, 1899, she married Franklin Pierce Adams, an electrician. He loved to travel as well, so instead of spending their money on buying a house, they lived in a boarding house and traveled with the money they saved.

Travels
In 1900, Adams went on her first major expedition, a three-year trip around South America with her husband, during which they visited every country, and traversed the Andes on horseback. The New York Times wrote that she "reached twenty frontiers previously unknown to white women." Adams chose practical clothing for her explorations, typically wearing pants, boots, and a man's shirt. During her travels, she focused on the customs, folklore, and languages of the peoples she visited, and lived among them, sharing their sleeping customs and food.

In a 1910 trip, she retraced the trail of Christopher Columbus's early discoveries in the Americas, and crossed Haiti on horseback. In 1915, Adams was prepared to board the RMS Lusitania in New York to sail to Liverpool when she received word that her father was ill. She travelled back west to see him, but was still on the ship's manifest and so was reported as "missing" after the ship was torpedoed and sank.

Adams served as a correspondent for Harper's Magazine in Europe during World War I. She was the only female journalist permitted to visit the trenches.

When she and her husband visited eastern Bolivia during a second extended trip to South America in 1935, she wrote twenty-one articles for the National Geographic Society that featured her photographs, including "Some Wonderful Sights in the Andean Highlands" (September 1908), "Kaleidoscopic La Paz: City of the Clouds" (February 1909) and "River-Encircled Paraguay" (April 1933). She wrote on Trinidad, Surinam, Bolivia, Peru and the trans-Andean railroad between Buenos Aires and Valparaiso.

Although invited to lecture by The Explorers Club, she was not invited to join the group (which remained male-only until 1981). In 1925, Adams helped launch the Society of Woman Geographers to address the issue of "the isolation of women of the exploring species", and served as the society's president until 1933. She later also joined the Royal Geographical Society.

In all, Adams is said to have travelled more than a hundred thousand miles, and captivated hundreds of audiences. The New York Times wrote "Harriet Chalmers Adams is America's greatest woman explorer. As a lecturer no one, man or woman, has a more magnetic hold over an audience than she."

She died in Nice, France, on July 17, 1937, at age 61. An obituary in The Washington Post called her a "confidant of savage head hunters" who never stopped wandering the remote corners of the world. She is interred at the Chapel of the Chimes in Oakland, California.

Of women as adventurers, she wrote "I've wondered why men have so absolutely monopolized the field of exploration. Why did women never go to the Arctic, try for one pole or the other, or invade Africa, Thibet, or unknown wildernesses? I’ve never found my sex a hinderment; never faced a difficulty which a woman, as well as a man, could not surmount; never felt a fear of danger; never lacked courage to protect myself. I’ve been in tight places and have seen harrowing things."

General references

 * Anema, Durlynn. Harriet Chalmers Adams: Adventurer and Explorer. Aurora, Colorado: National Writers Press, 2004.

title: Harriet Chalmers Adams


text:
User:Poulpy

Hey there! As of now, I've been mostly performing interwiki links to the French Wikipedia, where I'm a lot more active. I'm becoming more and more willing to write in English, even though I find it somehow hard to write in that language in an encyclopedic way (despite my en-3 posted right over there).

fr:Utilisateur:Poulpy

title: User:Poulpy


text: User talk:150.176.165.5

title: User talk:150.176.165.5


text:
Talk:Isotropic coordinates

Vorticity tensor
Currently, there is no article, AFAICFind, on vorticity tensor (as applied to fluid dynamics), although there is one on vorticity; I assume that there will be in the future. I think it better, however, to use the link vorticity tensor (relativity) for the one that refers to the congruence (it should avoid a future problem). ---Mpatel (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * That is correct. This is one of the strange gaps in WP coverage. ---CH 00:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Students beware
I created the original version of this article and had been monitoring it for bad edits, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning this article to its fate.

Just wanted to provide notice that I am only responsible (in part) for the last version I edited; see User:Hillman/Archive. I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions, although I hope for the best.

Good luck in your search for information, regardless!---CH 00:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Unclear lede
What the heck does this mean:
 * This means that the angular isotropic coordinates do not faithfully represent distances within the nested spheres

Faithfully for who? With respect to what? A freely falling observer? Something else? Also this:
 * Compare Schwarschild coordinates, where the radial coordinate does have its natural interpretation in terms of the nested spheres.

What is a "natural interpretation"??? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Isotropic coordinates


text: User talk:64.8.33.192

title: User talk:64.8.33.192


text:
Talk:Battle of Halbe

Three lines

 * "The most astonishing part of the story is not the numbers who died or were forced to surrender but the 25,000 soldiers and several thousand civilians who succeeded it getting through three lines of Soviet troops

In the above quote Beevor mentions "three lines of soviet troops". But his text is a bit hazy as to what they were, I would guess that the ran along the three of the four main north south roads which he shows on as a map in his book on page xxv the first two of which he mentions in passing with the fighting in the text:
 * 1) Berlin-Dresden autobahn
 * 2) Strasse 96, between Zossen and Mark
 * 3) Strasse 101, North of Lucenwalde
 * 4) Strasse 2, between Elsholz and Beelitz

Can anyone else confirm from another source where these soviet lines were. I would guess he meant the first three roads but I do not want to put a guess into the article :-) Secondly his text does not mention what happened around Strasse 101 which would be a nice to have in this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Regarding Strasse 101, according to le Tissier there was a Soviet blocking position there, where troops attempting to break out had to run a gauntlet of fire (is that the correct expression). But it does not appear that a pitched battle occurred there.  Andreas 15:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

More sources needed
I think the article could benefit from a better structure with more sub-headers, and the use of additional sources. I will go and do some of this myself (and try to answer Philip's question in the process, but it will take some time. Andreas 13:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Numbers of units
Should not the unit numbers be switched to the more common and coloqial style of say 9th Army instead of Roman numerals? --Gbinal 08:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just done that. I preserved all your edits, even though we edited concurrently. Andreas 09:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

See also discussion here. But continue discussion on this page. Andreas 12:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Rather than argue this further today I intend to edit the rest of the article and once we have that stabalized then we can discuss this further. Philip Baird Shearer

The article now seems to be stable so I intend to re-insert the Roman numerals for German Armies because: --Philip Baird Shearer 12:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it makes it easier to identify the which side the army belongs, in the text.
 * The convention of using Roman Numerals for the German Army is quite common in English books.
 * The actual proposed guideline recommends using words as in German Ninth Army so there is no particular reason to use 12th over XII, other than familiarity for some editors.
 * If we were dealing with German Armies which had Roman numerals which were not easy to translate or looked clumsy eg XXXXVIII, then rejecting them on practical grounds or esthetics would make more sense but IX and XII are numbers on a clock face and familiar to most.
 * In this article we are using Arabic numerals for Soviet corps while the guidelines recommend using Roman numerals for corps. I approve of this as it helps to distinguish them from German Corps, in the same way as XII and IX help to distinguish German and Soviet armies.

 * Could we not better use the device that Ziemke is using in 'Moscow to Stalingrad', namely to Italicise the Soviet (or German) Army numbers, or to write them out? Having Roman numerals for German armies is really grating on my eyes, and it makes it much more difficult to distinguish between Armies and Corps. Finally I know of nobody who is using this device in the serious military history literature - if you do, please provide the information. So I am quite against it. Andreas 13:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You preference is to use "12. Armee" so how can "XII Army" be any more grating than "12th Army" for you? Also are you suggesting that we should designate all Soviet corps with Roman numerals? If not why not? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

 * 12. Armee is the correct German term, and since I am a German native speaker it is not looking wrong to me, even if it is part of an English text. I do understand and accept it is different for English speakers, and will change the way I number German armies to reflect that. XII Army looks wrong (grates) because Roman numerals are for Corps, not Armies.  I have no strong feelings about the use of Roman numerals for Soviet Corps.  I usually prefer to use the correct historical designation, and to use formatting to ensure that the difference can be seen. But as I said, I would be happy either way for the Soviet corps.  If a Russian military expert came along giving reasons why that was totally wrong I may change my mind.  I also would like to find an acceptable solution here that can be applied across a range of articles, not just this one. Andreas 14:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes

 * last days -- depends what you think the battle of Halbe was but I take it to be the breakout. It's begining is clear but the end of the battle is not described in detail in Beevor, if you have another source which states when the breakout ended, then we can use that.
 * I am using le Tissier, according to him it ended on the 1 May. This is confirmed both by German eyewitness accounts, and by the 1st UF report to Moscow. After 1 May the question for the escapees was on how to get to the Elbe.
 * Good then lets use it and reference it. Philip Baird Shearer
 * Sure. Page 206. Andreas 15:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not here! in the text! Philip Baird Shearer
 * I know ;-) I wrote this when you were editing, so I did not want to get in the way. Andreas 17:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Don't need the "son of" in the link name as it is not included in the page name.
 * Not sure what you mean, but feel free to edit.
 * The Russian middle name is "son of Andreas" or whatever. Philip Baird Shearer
 * Ah! Maybe a Russian native speaker should weigh in on this one - it is my understanding that the convention is to refer to the Russian names with both first names shortened. I am happy either way, but it should be the correct Russian way, as far as I am concerned. Andreas 15:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Three Soviet fronts did not attack on the 16th only 2 did, I don't think all the detail is necessary, also 1UF attacked over the Neisse.
 * 2nd BF attacked on either the 19th (Glantz) or 20th (le Tissier), and was part of the Berlin Operation, so I would leave them in the entry para. You are right about the attack across the Neisse, my mistake.

 * I think it is best to translate Generaloberst as General. Colonel-General if you must but it sounds like something out of a B movie about the Cold War.
 * Colonel-General then - the problem is that 'General' was a separate rank (as in 'General der Infanterie') below Generaloberst.
 * But the rank does not exist in the English speaking world so IMHO translating it as General is better than translating it into a rank that does not exist. Philip Baird Shearer
 * That leaves us with a wrong rank. I am not very happy about that. Ziemke (IIRC) and Glantz, as well as many others, use Colonel-General, although Glantz is a bit more variable about it.  So I think it is fair to argue that while not existing in the English-speaking world, the rank is being translated quite regularly in works on WW2. Andreas 15:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok then put it in with the first one linked to Colonel General so native speakers will be able to follow the link to see what the rank is. Philip Baird Shearer
 * Will do. Andreas 17:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Andreas 09:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think that town of before every town is neccessry that is what links are for. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just did that for clarification, feel free to delete. Andreas 14:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Andreas Where did you get the number of 14 king tigers from (Beevor definatly said 10)? I suspect it depends on which day they took the count! --Philip Baird Shearer 15:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure that originally came from me, if it did it was le Tissier. I'll check that again. They had 14 Panther tanks, that much I am sure of. Andreas 15:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I added a more detailed tank count and a note on where it comes from, including a short discussion on the likely number of King Tigers. Andreas 16:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Recent addition on this is MUCH BETTER Philip Baird Shearer
 * Thanks. Andreas 17:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Andreas 15:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Had a look at your reversion. Maybe it is better we talk it through first?
 * Kindersoldaten - it is a German word, a noun, it has to be capitalised.
 * We have had this debate before (over autobahn). I don't like it and don't see why one would expect to use German grammar rules in an English text. However if you are attached to it I will not revert it if you chage it again. Philip Baird Shearer
 * I am not going to die in a ditch over it. Just looks as wrong to me in non-caps as it does to you in caps.  Since this is English-language Wiki, happy to leave it. Andreas 17:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing Generaloberst to General gives a wrong rank. It's left in for the Russians, why not the Germans?
 * Which Russian in this article?
 * In the formation list.Andreas 17:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The date range is 21 April to 1 May.
 * Ended 1st of May ok, but the start was not until April 24 or 25th that the battle of Halbe started. (Either with Wenck's XX Corps attacking eastwards on the 24th or better the 25th when Busse was given authority "to decide for himself the best direction of attack".
 * Okay. Andreas 17:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A lot of the links to German towns do not work - maybe better to leave 'town of' in front of those.
 * It just that I think it makes the text stilted and in time the town links will be stubbed or better. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hope springs eternal. But you are right. Andreas 17:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

IX Guns
From the Battle of the Seelow Heights  the page
 * 9th Army had: 14 divisions, 512 tanks, 344 artillery pieces and 300 to 400 anti-aircraft guns

Source: Page 76, Ziemke, Earl F. Battle For Berlin: End Of The Third Reich, NY:Ballantine Books, London:Macdomald & Co, 1969.

From this article:
 * ''The 9th Army at this stage had already suffered heavy losses in the Battle of the Seelow Heights. It is estimated that it had less than 1,000 guns, 79 tanks and probably a total of 150-200 combat-ready armoured fighting vehicles left.

Seems to me that it could not have had more than 744 guns to start with. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You have to add V Corps guns, but I think that it is unlikely to reach 1,000 guns. You have to remember though that the 1,000 includes mortars above 76mm if counted by the Soviet method (which I think it was), but the 744 by Ziemke probably won't include that. Oh, and it is 9th guns. ;-) Andreas 20:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I suspect Ziemke was a better historian than that because the numbers on the page I quoted are comparing the relative strengths of the opposing sides at the start of the campaign. --20:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think it has anything to do with historian quality, but simply with the sources. Ziemke does not give his, but it is likely he uses German army records.  I'll check what le Tissier is using later. It is my understanding that the Soviets simply count differently. Andreas 06:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Checked, le Tissier is counting guns and mortars, for both sides, so it should stay like that to have the correct comparison. Andreas 09:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

V Corps and where the losses were suffered
V Corps, which was a part of 9th Army by the time of the Battle of Halbe, suffered its losses during the Neisse battles, so it maybe best to say something like 'losses suffered during the opening stages of the Battle of Berlin', or sumfink. What do you think? Andreas 20:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The IX was chewed up on the Seelow Heights, V Corps was not so badly damaged. V Corps was north of the main 1UF attack. That it still existed as a Corps is evidence of that! This complication is mentioned in the text but there is to date no mention of what the IX was doing before the start of the Battle of Halbe. For this reason I think the text should include the Seelow Heights where most of the IX had been concentrated and destroyed by Zukov, rather than a bolt on Corps who's arrival is already explained in this text.Philip Baird Shearer 20:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Good point. I'll include a para on 9th Army's actions before the encirclement in the prelude, based on Ziemke. Andreas 06:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Air Supply
I would prefer to leave the original sentence in, since according to le Tissier the air supply was attempted (i.e. supplies were loaded onto planes and the planes took off). It failed because they could not locate the drop point and no supply from the planes to the ground could be established. It was therefore not complete fantasy at this stage of the war. There are also reports of air attacks by German planes on Soviet formations during the battle. Andreas 14:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

 * If the Germans did not have the air-transport to support the 6th Army during the Battle of Stalingrad. They sure did not have anything like the air-transport capability needed to support an Army Group in the last few days of the war. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The two battles and the aim of the air supply are not comparable. In 9th army's case it was to bring them some minor supplied to help them to break out, in 6th Army it was to allow them to stay put and survive the winter. Andreas 16:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

 * As I said when I removed it, it is misleading. What possible supplies could the transports have delivered which would have made any difference to the outcome of the breakout? It implies that the Germans still had enough air transport and specialised materiel to make a difference. They did not. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I think the interesting point that warrants inclusion is that they actually attempted it, less than three weeks before the war ended, and that it did not fail because of enemy interference. I thought that was quite astonishing, and I know many people have a view that the Luftwaffe had ceased to exist at that point in the war. Andreas 07:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Getting a bit fed up here
Philip

Would you mind explaining why you deleted all this?

STARTS In the area to the west of the encirclement, Soviet forces were already positioned in depth, with (from the north) Soviet 28th Army's 128th Rifle Corps in the area Mittenwalde and Matzen; 3rd Guards Rifle Corps in the area Tornow, Radeland, Baruth, Golssen; 3rd Guards Army's 120th Rifle Corps south of Halbe; 21st Rifle Corps along the Berlin to Dresden autobahn to the west of Lübben; 13th Army's 102nd Rifle Corps with 117th Guards Rifle Division stood near Luckenwalde, while 27th Rifle Corps 280th Rifle Division stood at Jüterbog, where the Wehrmacht's main artillery school was located. In terms of mechanized formations, 3rd Guards Tank Army's 9th Mechanised Corps had its 71st Mechanized Brigade between Teupitz and Neuhof; 4th Guards Tank Army's 68th Guards Tank Brigade stood near Kummersdorf Gut; and 3rd Guards Army's 25th Tank Corps near Duben. Both 3rd Guards Army and 13th Army were to be heavily reinforced throughout the battle, as they were to be in the line of the German break-out. A reinforcment of particular note was the deployment of 1st Guards Breakthrough Artillery Division under command of 3rd Guards Army in the sector Teurow to Briesen ENDS

?

I mean, it is not as if this is the greatest article written in terms of its information, and I made a bit of an effort in adding to it. To just remove it all without any reason, yet leave the highly informative bit about Hitler's tearful rage in strikes me as an odd choice of priorities. Andreas 15:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not delete it, as I said as a comment this was needed, I reformatted it to: In the area to the west of the encirclement, Soviet forces were already positioned in depth, with (from the north) Soviet 28th Army's 128th Rifle Corps in the area Mittenwalde and Matzen; In terms of mechanized formations, 3rd Guards Tank Army's 9th Mechanised Corps had its 71st Mechanized Brigade between Teupitz and Neuhof; 4th Guards Tank Army's 68th Guards Tank Brigade stood near Kummersdorf Gut; and 3rd Guards Army's 25th Tank Corps near Duben. Both 3rd Guards Army and 13th Army were to be heavily reinforced throughout the battle, as they were to be in the line of the German break-out. A reinforcment of particular note was the deployment of 1st Guards Breakthrough Artillery Division under command of 3rd Guards Army in the sector Teurow to Briesen.
 * 3rd Guards Rifle Corps in the area Tornow, Radeland, Baruth, Golssen;
 * 3rd Guards Army's 120th Rifle Corps south of Halbe;
 * 21st Rifle Corps along the Berlin to Dresden autobahn to the west of Lübben;
 * 13th Army's 102nd Rifle Corps with 117th Guards Rifle Division stood near Luckenwalde,
 * while 27th Rifle Corps's 280th Rifle Division stood at Jüterbog, where the Wehrmacht's main artillery school was located.

--Philip Baird Shearer 15:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

 * My sincere apologies - brain failure on my part when looking at the article. No idea how that happened. Andreas 16:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Structure
I have changed the structure a bit, to allow for a more natural flow of the narrative:

1) Prelude, Dispositions, strength of forces involved 2) Chronological account of the battle 3) Aftermath 4) Detail of formations involved 5) Sources etc.

I hope this helps readability a bit. Andreas 10:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think the additional heading were necessary, but they do no harm. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

 * At this stage it is mostly to help me find my way through the article, and focus on particular sections I can add a bit too. Andreas 12:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

C&C
I don't think that the commands issued by Hitler are particularly relevent. Like the idea that there was going to be an airdrop to support the army group, it mixes up wishful thinking by the German high command with the reality of the situation. I think both tend to muddy this article rather than clarify it by giving the illusion that the Germans were more in control of events than they were. However if you think it important I won't remove it.

 * It maybe easiest to just drop all Hitler related info into a paragraph in the intro, stating that throughout the battle the aims of the German high command and the 12th and 9th Armies were diverging, and that high command could not exercise any control over them. Thereafter leave any reference to Berlin out. Andreas 14:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I thought that we already had that with the paragraph which starts "Although in Hitler's mind the 12th Army..." Philip Baird Shearer 19:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"General Busse has been accused of failing to exercise effective command and control of the encircled arm" is a weasel worded phrase It must have an attribution with specific names. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

 * If you only select the entry sentence, yes. But the following sentences in the paragraph outline in what way he is supposed to have failed, and the paragraph is sourced. But I shall elaborate on this in a footnote. Andreas 14:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

 * As you will see I have explicitly named Le Tissier in the text, I think that when a POV is expressed that it is better that the author of the POV is named. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Okay, I agree your version is better than the first. Andreas 19:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The spearhead for the 9th Army breakout plan on 29 April was to be 502nd SS heavy Panzer battalion with remaining elements is the date 29 April correct? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

 * No, I have corrected it to 28. Good catch. Andreas 08:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

OKW or OKH
Did Heinrici as commander of "Army Group Vistula" report to the OKW or directly to Hitler in his capacity of C-in-C OKH? Which Army Group was XII Army in and what was its chain of command? --Philip Baird Shearer

 * OKH was no longer functional, following the move north by Rybalko's tank army that overran Zossen. All reports were made directly to the Fuehrerbunker (not OKW).  12th Army was under Army Group Vistula, so while it had contact it reported to Heinrici, who then reported to the Fuehrerbunker. C&C had become de-institutionalised in those final days. Andreas 19:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Numbers
Either one of the other numbers is wrong or the 25,000 is wrong or there are 10,000 missing in action. If there were 80,000 in the pocket, it is sourced that 20,000 killed and 25,000 escaped, so that would leave 35,000 unaccounted for, presumably POWs, so were does the 25,000 POWs come from which has been inserted into the war box? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Fuhrerbunker
Away from the map room in the Berlin Führerbunker with its fantasy attacks of phantom divisions, the Soviets were getting on with winning the war.

This not only seems POV, but it appears to have little to do with what the article is discussing at that point. --DMAJohnson 03:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

 * It is relevant for the day, the Armies High Commands and the Army Group and Front involved in the Battle of Halbe. On the 21st Hitler ordered the 9th Army group to be prepared to attack north and south as parts of two pincer movements! The next day he is ordering the 9th to attack in a completely different direction (north west) to relieve Berlin. If it is an unbisased point of view what else would you call Hitler's orders to Steiner on the 21st and what else were the Soviets doing? Please can you tell me what the alterntive point of view is? --Philip Baird Shearer 21:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The article never goes though the trouble of pointing this out, however. Instead, whether intended or not, it simply paints a picture of senile Nazis playing war while the genius Russians march on forward. It also does this in an ackward place, between two paragraphs that are discussing the German's strategy. The same point can be made, I think, by moving it slightly further down in the article, and with rewording, along with proper context. --DMAJohnson 20:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The context is there. All that I have written above is in the preceding paragraph of the article (The command of the V Corps trapped ...). I think what you are doing is looking at the heading which was retrofitted onto the paragraphs after they were written.

 * The Germans had lost the war, only Hitler and his acolytes in their troglodyte world seem not to have understood this. They were playing war games while the Soviets followed their own war winning strategy. The point of the sentence is that despite the German High Command's attempt to gain control they were mealy reacting to Soviet initiatives, and there was no strategy open to the German High Command to turn the battle around, despite this up until the 22nd and then again afterwards Hitler was issuing orders as if the Germans could regain the strategic initiative. By this stage of the offensive, the Germans could possibly win small tactical victories to fend of the inevitable, but all that did was to cost even more lives and probably not extend the war by one day. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I am taking the entire article into account, not just the headings. Yes, Hitler and friends locked away in their bunker are unable to grasp what is going on around them, but besides that single sentance the article never gets around to pointing out to the reader why there was a problem with the strategy--It just explains what the general strategy was. In fact, from the way the article describes it, the plan would seem perfectly logical until the ackward mention of "phantom divisions" and the novel-esque "getting on with winning the war" line.

There are, I believe, better ways to get the point across in the article. --DMAJohnson 17:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Down to what level are we listing forces
The reason I ask this is that I did this article German_275th_Infantry_Division and noticed Halbe pocket and this were the same place. I believe the 275th was part of the 9th Army. Mark1800 05:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Critique

 * 1) The lead is nowhere near being an adequate summation of the article.
 * 2) The article is very detailed in what happened, but doesn't really say why. Why was it worth such fighting to be able to surrender to the Western allies and not the Soviets? (I can imagine the answer, but it would be nice if the article told me, probably in the Prelude section. --kingboyk 20:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Spree Forest and Mark

 * "The German troops in the huge Spree forest south east of Berlin ..."(Beevor 329)
 * "Busse's men were encircled in the pattern of lakes and forest south-east of Fürstenwalde by [Soviet] troops ... "(Beevor 330)

Spree Forest is where Beevor describes Ninth as being in a pocket and that they broke out through Halbe. Now it is possible that the start point could be the area north of the Lakes is the Spree Forest but if it does not include the area east of Halbe then what is that area called?

Beevor makes a destinction between Mark and Baruth he places Baruth slightly to the West of Mark and Mark on the crossroads. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

From my talk page:  Hi Philip, reading the article and the talk I assume you might be able to tell me where the place called "Mark" on the Strasse 96 is supposed to be - I'm under the impression there's no such place. KapHorn (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

My reply on KapHorn's talk page:
 * See Baruth [[Image:Baruth_street_sign.jpg|thumb|Mark/Baruth]]
 * According to Beevor the hamlet at the crossroads is Mark, Baruth is slightly to the west of the crossroad. Hope that helps. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. While I'm at it, thank you for the welcome and the links - am reading currently.

Still disagree, but before I delve more deeply into the matter, I'll try and take a look at the book by Beevor. Anyhow, saying the battle occured in the Spreewald is like saying the Battle of Britain happened in the Cotswolds. Main fighting happened elsewhere, and Halbe is not in the Spreewald, either.

As to Baruth, the name of the town is Baruth/Mark, Baruth being the actual name, and "Mark" referring to Baruth being in the "Mark", namely the Mark Brandenburg. So, read: Baruth in the Mark. Google maps does not show it differently, either. I would suggest to correct the article, no matter what the source says. Unless there's further information to the contrary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margraviate_of_Brandenburg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruth KapHorn (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

KapHorn you write "I would suggest to correct the article, no matter what the source says." That is not the way it works on Wikipedia, (Please see WP:V). You need to find a reliable source that contradicts Beevor and then we can make an assessment on which is the better source or put both of them into the article as Beevor says ABC however ZYZ DEF. I am not defending Beevor as being correct, but as WP:V says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiability" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

In this case Beevor in the map section on page xxv clearly marks "Mark" as the village next to Baruth on the Junction of strasse 96 and L707.The same map also puts the Ninth Army rearguard just south of the Schweriner See with the vanguard just east of  Halbe. From Halbe the map has advance lines to where the Ninth linked up with the Twelfth Army north of Elsholz. The map carries the legend "Breakout of the Ninth Arny 26 April – 1 May". The breakout route is described as "westward through the tall pine forests south of Berlin (Beevor p. 330). There is no reason why that can not be added to the introduction but Beevor claims that the pocket started in the Spree Forest. This does not necessarily mean the area now designated as a "biosphere reserve by UNESCO in 1991" (Spreewald). I see no reason for not including the fact that the breakout took place from the Spree Forest west through the pine forests south of Berlin, but I think we should not change where the pocket was located unless there is another source that states it was not where Beevor places it. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Point taken - on WP:V as well as on content of article. Which is to say I'll try and find a reliable source, but since this even to me seems to be a rather minor issue, I will neither look too hard, nor keep pursuing it here should I find nothing I deem suitable. KapHorn (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I suggest that we alter the mention of Mark to the link Baruth/Mark then we cover both options for that one. But I think the mention of the Spree Forest should remain. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Ok, except I should rather like to see Mark omitted altogether, leaving the mentioning of this to the article on Baruth. This also would be in accordance with the text of the book itself - p. 331 mentions the Baruth-Zossen road twice. As to the map, I'm afraid I have to say it is faulty on that occasion - Baruth is where the map places the non-existent Mark, whereas in place of Baruth as on the map, there is the village of Paplitz. A look at GoogleMaps or any current road map should confirm this.

 * Your question: "Spree Forest is where Beevor describes Ninth as being in a pocket and that they broke out through Halbe. Now it is possible that the start point could be the area north of the Lakes is the Spree Forest but if it does not include the area east of Halbe then what is that area called?"

 * It seems to me that Beevor refers to the woodland area south east of Berlin as such as Spree Forest. In my understanding Spree forest is the english translation of Spreewald ( e. g. according to the english Wikipedia), a comparatively small area along the Spree, part of which was part of the pocket until about the 25th. Perhaps we should at first decide what the term implies. Wether it is supposed to be a translation for the german Spreewald, which would be Spree forest as well, or if it is a term that, say, an english military historian would understand to imply the complete woodland area south-east of Berlin. The first would make source, and article, imprecise, by indicating the complete pocket as such was in the Spreewald, while the latter simply would be different from what is the Spreewald according to german sources (german Wikipedia, map).
 * "Busse's men were encircled in the pattern of lakes and forest south-east of Fürstenwalde by [Soviet] troops ... "(Beevor 330) By reading the source I understood this to refer to the 25th of April, by which time the maiority of the german troops were well to the south-west of Fürstenwalde. In any case, troops and fighting in general happened south of the lakes, north of the actual Spreewald, of which about half of the smaller Lower Spreewald was only ever in the pocket.
 * (Lakowski, Richard; Der Kessel von Halbe, Brandenburgisches Verlags-Haus, 1997, ISBN 3-89488-112-7)
 * It should be mentioned that the Spreewald region today is understood to encompass more than just the actual Spreewald. As far as i can tell, this was not so in 1945. KapHorn (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I am not sure what you mean by "of which about half of the smaller Lower Spreewald was only ever in the pocket"

 * I check Beevor again. In the text he uses Baruth–Zossen road. I think that the map must contain a carographer's transcription error based on another map like this one: Google map which show Baruth/Mark and has been mistakenly taken to be two different places. So given that the text uses Baruth–Zossen road and other wikipedia sources like Bundesstraße 96 use Baruth I have altered the text to reflect that.

 * I have also altered the lead. See what you think -- comment welcome --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Think that absolutely does it, regarding the location of the pocket, and Baruth/Mark. Appreciate your trouble. Found the location of the pocket given as "in the area of Halbe and Märkisch Buchholz" in german sources. Don't know wether that's common denomination among peer group, and to the english reader, Spree Forest region is easier to place, I assume. That weird sentence about the Lower Spreewald - I apologize for deficiencies in language - was just to mention that only a part of the smaller part of the Spreewald (which contains the Upper and the Lower Spreewald) was part of the encircled area for a few days. The northern half of the latter was part of the pocket until the first breakout attempt. At 2400 on the 27th, germans had left the Spreewald altogether. Source same as above. Same source mentions Halbe as being "in the Dubrow", but I've found nothing further about it.Just 'cause you asked for name of region. KapHorn (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

casualties number
the number of soviet soldiers killed in the battle of halbe was much lower than 20,000. the 1st ukrainian front sufferd a total of 27,580 dead or missing (krivosheev) from april 16 to 8 may 1945. it's very unlikly that the front casualties during the battle of halbe were more then a third of it's total casualties in the berlin operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by איש שלום (talk • contribs) 13:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Question about exact date and place of encirclement
Hi! Can somebody please tell me where and when exactly was the German 9th Army encircled and by which Soviet units? I have read this and the Battle of Berlin article, but I still don't quite understand it. If I understood it well the 9th Army was encircled on 24 April (or earlier) in the forest area south-east of Berlin and west of Frankfurt by forces of both 1st Ukrainian and 1st Byelorussian Front? Is that correct or not? Thank you very much for help --81.233.145.252 (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Confusing passage
The Twelfth and Ninth Armies' remnants then fought a fighting retreat westwards towards the Elbe so that they could surrender to the Americans. Most of those that broke out were again surrounded west of Luckenwalde by the north-westerly thrust of the 4th Guards Tank Army, only 10 km away from German 12th Army troops, although unbeknown to them, the Ninth United States Army had already halted at Elbe.[citation needed]"

There are a number of confusing statements in this passage...

1) How is the Soviet 4th Guards 10 km away from the German 12th Army if they are surrounding them? 2) Unbeknownst to whom is the US 9th at the Elbe? 3) Why was this unknown if they were trying to reach the Elbe to meet them?

I believe this is trying to say something along the lines of...

The remains of the German 12th and 9th Armies then attempted to fight their way westward to the Elbe in order to link up with the US 9th Army. However, after having progressed only 10 km, they met units of the Soviet 4th Guards Tank Army, who had been moving north-west through the open areas south of the Heidehof-Golmberg. The 4th Guards surrounded the Germans once again west of Luckenwalde.

But I can't be sure of any of this. Perhaps the 10 km is the distance between the Germans and the US forces?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Battle of Halbe


text: User talk:70.18.78.19

title: User talk:70.18.78.19


text:
Escape of Charles II

[[File:Flight of the King, page 2.jpg|thumb|Map of the route taken:

• 1 Worcester • 2 Barbon Bridge • 3 Kinver Heath • 4 Stourbridge • 5 White Ladies • 6 Hobbal Grange • 7 Evelith • 8 Madeley • 9 Boscobel • 10 Pendeford • 11 Moseley • 12 Bentley • 13 Bromsgrove • 14 Wooton • 15 Stratford • 16 Long Marston • 17 Campden • 18 Cirencester • 19 Sodbury • 20 Bristol • 21 Abbots Leigh • 22 Burton • 23 Castle Cary • 24 Trent • 25 Charmouth • 26 Bridport • 27 Broadwindsor • 28 Trent • 29 Wincanton • 30 Mere • 31 Heale • 32 Stonehenge • 33 Heale • 34 Clarendon Park • 35 Warnford • 36 Old Winchester • 37 Broadhalfpenny • 38 Hambledon • 39 Arundel • 40 Houghton • 41 Bramber • 42 Beeding • 43 Brighton • 44 Shoreham ]] After the final defeat of Royalists in the English Civil War against Oliver Cromwell's New Model Army at the Battle of Worcester on 3 September 1651, the future Charles II of England (already by that time King of Scotland) was forced to flee England. With the support of a network of Royalist gentry, Charles first attempted to escape into Wales, then to Bristol disguised as a servant, then to the south coast at Charmouth. Finally, he rode east to Shoreham from where he sailed for France on 15 October 1651. During the six-week flight, he passed through numerous English counties, and at one point was forced to hide in an oak tree on the grounds of a house that was being searched by Parliamentarian soldiers. A £1000 reward had been offered for information leading to Charles's capture.

Flight from Worcester
After the Battle of Worcester on 3 September 1651, Charles returned to his lodgings in Worcester, escaping by the back door as the Parliamentary forces arrived. He fled the city by St Martin's Gate to the north, in the company of Lord Wilmot, Lord Derby, Charles Giffard (or Gifford), and others. Charles wanted to travel to London rather than Scotland, which was the preferred destination of the majority of the party. He told only Wilmot of his plan, arranging to meet at the Three Cranes Tavern. At this point, night was falling, he had no shelter, and he needed the support of his small band of loyal officers.

The royal party, in all about sixty mounted officers, initially headed north from Worcester, though their exact route is uncertain. The earliest written account is that of Blount, who mentions "Kinver Heath not far from Kidderminster" and Stourbridge. The group may have been the party of fugitives observed by Richard Baxter passing through Kidderminster. One interpretation identifies Kinver Heath as the heath of which Kinver Edge is a remnant, in which case the party would probably have crossed Cookley bridge and passed through Blakeshall. However, they would be unlikely to have gone from there to Stourbridge, as this would have involved them turning sharply east. An alternative explanation is that the heath in question was that in the eastern part of the parish of Kinver, east of Caunsall, Whittington, Dunsley, and including Iverley. This extends beyond the boundary towards, Hagley, Pedmore, Oldswinford, and Wollaston. Willis-Bund's interpretation was that they took the direct route to Stourbridge, though Hagley, but that would not have taken them through Kidderminster nor over anything that could be called Kinver Heath.

At Kinver Heath, the party conferred and Lord Derby suggested Boscobel House in Shropshire as a safe place of refuge. Derby had been sheltered there the previous week by the Catholic tenants, the five Pendrell brothers, after the Battle of Wigan Lane. The owner of Boscobel, Charles Giffard, who was himself accompanying the group, agreed but suggested that another house on his estate, White Ladies Priory, would be safer than Boscobel House itself.

Having agreed on this plan, the party diverted towards Stourbridge. The town was garrisoned by Parliamentary troops but Charles was able to pass without the alarm being sounded. Heading north again, the party stopped briefly at Wordsley before arriving at White Ladies in the early hours of 4 September.

Boscobel, and attempt to escape to Wales
At White Ladies, the King was met by George Pendrell. He contacted his brother Richard who farmed at Hobbal Grange, near Tong. Together, they disguised the King as a farm labourer, "in leather doublet, a pair of green breeches and a jump-coat ... of the same green, ... an old grey greasy hat without a lining [and] a noggen shirt, of the coarsest linen"; and Richard cut the King's hair, leaving it short on top but long at the sides. However, it was now felt that it would be safer for the King to travel almost alone and so all his followers, apart from Lord Wilmot, were persuaded to leave.

At dawn and in pouring rain, Charles was moved out of White Ladies into the nearby Spring Coppice on the estate, hiding there with Richard Pendrell. Shortly afterwards, a company of local militia stopped at White Ladies asking if the King had been seen. The soldiers were told he had journeyed on some time before; convinced, they passed on, but were seen by Charles as they rode by. Charles recalled: "In this wood I stayed all day without meat or drink and by great fortune it rained all the time which hindered them, as I believe, from coming into the wood to search for men that might be fled there".

The Pendrells taught Charles how to speak with a local accent and how to walk like a labourer. They explained they knew no way to safely get him to London, but that they knew of a Francis Wolfe who lived near the River Severn, and whose house, Madeley Court, had several hiding places. After dark, Richard Pendrell took Charles to Hobball Grange, where he had a meal, then immediately set off for Madeley, hoping to cross the River Severn into Wales where the Royalists had strong support. At Evelith Mill, they were challenged by the local miller and the pair fled, though it later transpired that the miller was himself a Royalist who was hiding some members of the defeated army. Charles and Richard arrived at Madeley Court close to midnight on 5 September.

At Madeley, Wolfe told Richard and the King that his house was no longer safe, but he provided a barn for Charles to hide in while Richard and Wolfe scouted the Severn crossings. They found that the river was closely guarded, and Charles and Richard were forced to return to Boscobel, wading through a stream along the way and stopping at White Ladies where they learned Lord Wilmot was safe at nearby Moseley Hall. Progress was hampered by Charles' sore and bleeding feet, the shoes that had been provided for him being of coarse leather and far too small. They reached Boscobel House at close to 3 in the morning of 6 September, when Charles's feet were tended to.

Refuge in an oak tree

Colonel William Careless (or Carlis), who had fought at Worcester, had also arrived at Boscobel House. At Careless's suggestion, he and the King spent the day of 6 September hiding in a nearby oak tree (the Royal Oak), while Parliamentary troops searched the surrounding woodland. The exhausted King slept for some of the time, supported by Careless who, when his arms became tired, was "constrained...to pinch His Majesty to the end he might awaken him to prevent his present danger". They returned to Boscobel House that evening.

Meanwhile, another Pendrell brother, Humphrey, reported that while at the local militia headquarters he had been interrogated by a Parliamentary colonel, who questioned him about whether the King had been at White Ladies; however, Humphrey had convinced the officer he had never been there. The Colonel reminded Humphrey of the £1000 reward for information leading to the King's capture and of the "penalty for concealing the King, which was death without mercy". This further emphasized the importance of getting Charles out of the country as soon as possible. Charles spent the night in one of Boscobel's priest holes.

Moseley Hall
At the suggestion of Lord Wilmot, Charles left Boscobel for Moseley Hall late in the evening of 7 September, riding an old horse that had been provided by the miller, Humphrey Pendrell. The King was accompanied by all five Pendrell brothers and Francis Yates (servant to Charles Giffard and brother-in-law to the Pendrells). Soon after leaving Boscobel the horse stumbled, and Humphrey Pendrell joked that it was "not to be wondered at, for it had the weight of three Kingdoms upon its back". The party stopped at Pendeford Mill where Charles dismounted, it being unsafe to continue riding. Three of the brothers took the horse back, while Richard and John Pendrell along with Francis Yates continued with the King to Moseley Hall.

At Moseley, the home of Thomas Whitgrave, Charles was given a meal and dry clothes, and Whitgrave's Catholic priest, John Huddleston, bathed the King's bruised and bleeding feet. Touched, Charles told Huddleston, "If it please God I come to my crown, both you and all your persuasion shall have as much liberty as any of my subjects". Charles spent the night and the next two days hiding at Moseley Hall, sleeping in a bed for the first time since 3 September. Later that morning he saw some of his fleeing Scottish troops passing by.

When Parliamentary troops arrived at the Hall Charles was hurriedly hidden in a priest hole, secreted behind the wall of a bedroom. The troops accused Whitgrave of fighting for the King at Worcester (which he had not, though he had fought as a Royalist before being wounded and captured at Naseby in 1645). Whitgrave convinced the troops that he was too feeble to aid any Royalist fugitives, and they departed without searching the house.

Attempt to escape via Bristol
The King now no longer felt safe at Moseley Hall and Wilmot suggested that he should move on to Bentley Hall near Walsall, the residence of Colonel John Lane, a colonel in the Royalist Army since 1642, and his sister Jane Lane. Wilmot had learned that Jane had obtained a permit allowing herself and a servant to travel to Abbots Leigh in Somerset to visit a friend, Ellen Norton, who was expecting a baby. Abbots Leigh lay just across the Avon Gorge from the important seaport of Bristol, and Wilmot proposed that the King should take advantage of the permit, travel to Bristol disguised as Jane's servant, and from there take a ship to France. Shortly after midnight on 10 September the King left for Bentley Hall, arriving there in the early hours.

Charles was dressed as a tenant farmer's son and adopted the alias 'William Jackson' for the next part of his journey. The party set out, Charles riding the same horse as Jane Lane. They were accompanied by Withy Petre (Jane Lane's sister), her husband John Petre, and Henry Lascelles, another related Royalist officer. Wilmot refused to travel in disguise; he rode half a mile ahead of the party and said that if challenged he would claim to be out hunting. The party rode through Rowley Regis then Quinton to Bromsgrove. At Bromsgrove they found that the horse ridden by Charles and Jane had lost a shoe. The King, playing the role of servant, took the horse to a blacksmith. The King, when he later recounted his story to Samuel Pepys and others, said "As I was holding my horse's foot, I asked the smith what news. He told me that there was no news that he knew of, since the good news of the beating the rogues of the Scots. I asked him whether there was none of the English taken that joined with the Scots, He answered he did not hear if that rogue, Charles Stuart, were taken; but some of the others, he said, were taken. I told him that if that rogue were taken, he deserved to be hanged more than all the rest, for bringing in the Scots. Upon which he said I spoke like an honest man; and so we parted".

The party reached Wootton Wawen where cavalry of the New Model Army had gathered outside the inn. Here John and Withy Petre went ahead of the party. The King, Jane Lane and Henry Lascelles with great coolness rode through the troops. The party continued through Stratford-upon-Avon, and on to Long Marston where they spent the night of 10 September at the house of John Tomes, another relation of Jane's. Here, in keeping with his guise as a servant, the cook put him to work in the kitchen winding up the jack used to roast meat in the fireplace. Charles was clumsy at this, and the cook asked him, "What countryman are you that you know not how to wind up a jack?" Charles excused himself by saying that as the son of poor people he so rarely ate meat that he did not know how to use a roasting jack. His story was accepted and he was not identified.

On 11 September they continued through Chipping Campden and on to Cirencester, where they spent the night. The next morning they travelled on to Chipping Sodbury and then to Bristol, arriving at Leigh Court, the residence of George and Ellen Norton in Abbots Leigh, late on the afternoon of 12 September. The Nortons remained unaware of the King's identity during his three-day stay. However, the butler, Pope, who had been a Royalist soldier, immediately recognised him. Charles confirmed his identity to Pope, who later admitted Wilmot into the house unobserved. Pope also attempted to find a ship for the King at the port of Bristol, but discovered none would be sailing to France for another month. While at Abbots Leigh, Charles deflected suspicion by asking a servant, who had been in the King's personal guard at the Battle of Worcester, to describe the King's appearance and clothing at the battle. The man looked at Charles and said, "The King was at least three fingers taller than [you]".

Since no ships were to be found, Pope suggested the King find refuge at the home of Colonel Francis Wyndham, another Royalist officer, who lived forty miles away in the village of Trent near Sherborne on the Somerset/Dorset border. The Wyndham family were known to both Wilmot and Charles, as the daughter of the King's old nurse had married the elder Wyndham brother Edmund. Charles and Wilmot decided to make for the south coast with Jane. However, Mrs Norton suddenly went into labour and bore a stillborn infant. As Jane could not now leave Abbots Leigh without raising suspicion, Pope forged a letter to Jane informing her of her father's serious illness and stating that she was required at home.

On the morning of 16 September Charles set out for Castle Cary where he spent the night. The next day he arrived at Trent.

Trent to Charmouth and back – attempt to escape via Charmouth
The King spent the next few days at Trent House while Wyndham and Wilmot attempted to find a ship from Lyme Regis or Weymouth. Wyndham contacted Captain Ellesdon, a friend in Lyme Regis, one of whose tenants, Stephen Limbry, was sailing from Charmouth to Saint-Malo the following week. Charles and Wilmot, it was decided, could board the vessel in the guise of merchants travelling to recover money from a debtor.

At Charmouth, Charles waited at the Queen's Arms Inn for Wilmot to negotiate with Captain Limbry to take them to France. To explain the party's need to depart quietly at night, the landlady was told in confidence that her guests were an eloping couple (Wyndham's cousin and Wilmot posing respectively as bride and groom), with Charles as their manservant. Limbry did not appear, however, having (according to him) been locked in his bedroom by his wife, who was afraid for his safety.

Stranded on the beach at dawn, with no sign of the promised boat, Charles and Wyndham decided to head to nearby Bridport, hoping to find out there what had happened to Limbry. When they arrived they discovered that the town was filled with Parliamentary troops about to sail for Jersey. Charles boldly walked through the soldiers to the best inn and arranged for rooms. The ostler confronted the King, saying "Sure, Sir, I know your face", but Charles convinced him that he and the ostler had both been servants at the same time for a Mr Potter of Exeter.

Wilmot meanwhile had remained behind in Charmouth after his horse had lost a shoe. The inn's ostler, a veteran Parliamentary soldier, became suspicious – and had his suspicions confirmed when a blacksmith told him that one of the horse's shoes had been forged in Worcestershire. Learning that the "eloping couple" had departed for Bridport, the ostler informed his commanding officer, who rode after them. Wilmot, also trying to find the King in Bridport, had gone to the wrong inn. He sent a servant to find Charles and passed word that they should meet up outside the town. On meeting, they agreed that they should return to Trent in view of the considerable number of troops in the locality. Taking a small country road (Lee Lane) heading north they narrowly missed a party of troops who were riding from Charmouth. A modern memorial stone in Lee Lane commemorates the narrow escape.

Losing their way, Charles and Wilmot decided to stop overnight in the village of Broadwindsor, at The George Inn. That evening, the local constable arrived with forty soldiers who were to be billeted at the inn, en route to Jersey. Fortunately for Charles, attention was diverted by one of the women travelling with the soldiers going into labour, allowing the King to escape the next morning and return to Trent House.

Trent to Shoreham, and escape to France
Charles spent the next twelve nights at Trent House while a passage to France continued to be sought. The night of his return to the house, he had met a cousin of Edward Hyde's who knew Colonel Edward Phelips of Montacute House. Wyndham himself suggested the aid of his friend John Coventry, son of the former Lord Keeper of the Great Seal. Contacted by Wilmot, both Phelips and Coventry pledged themselves to Charles's service. Passage was booked on a ship from Southampton on 29 September, but that became impossible when the ship was commandeered to transport troops to Jersey. Phelips, Coventry and Doctor Henchman of Salisbury Cathedral decided to try the Sussex coast, and contacted Colonel George Gunter of Racton, between Havant and Chichester.

On 6 October the King, Julia Coningsby and Henry Peters (Wyndham's servant) left Trent for Heale House at Woodford, between Salisbury and Amesbury, the home of Katherine Hyde, widow of Lawrence Hyde MP. No sooner had Charles arrived than he pretended to leave permanently: riding about the district, visiting Stonehenge, and finally returning known only to Mrs Hyde. On 7 October Wilmot visited Colonel Gunter, who found a French merchant, Francis Mancell, now residing in Chichester. Together they made arrangements with Captain Nicholas Tattersell to carry the King and Wilmot from Shoreham in a coal boat Surprise for the sum of £80.

In the early hours of 13 October, the King and Phelips rode from Heale House to Warnford Down, where they met Wilmot and Gunter. From there, the party set out for Hambledon, where Gunter's sister lived and in whose house they stayed for the night. Next day, they rode to the fishing village of Brighthelmstone (now Brighton), fifty miles away, stopping at Houghton for a meal before riding to the village of Bramber, which was filled with soldiers. Gunter decided they would boldly ride through the village. As they were leaving, a party of around fifty soldiers rode rapidly towards them before dashing past and up a narrow lane, giving the travellers a severe fright. At the village of Beeding, Gunter left the group to ride on alone while the rest of the party continued by a different route, meeting Gunter at the George Inn at Brighthelmstone on the evening of 14 October.

Gunter knew that the George Inn was a safe place to spend the night. However, when Captain Tattersell arrived he recognised the King and was furious. His fury drew the attention of the inn-keeper, who also recognised Charles, having once been a servant to his father Charles I. Charles in his turn recognised the inn-keeper and remarked to Gunter that "the fellow knows me and I him; I hope he is an honest fellow". Meanwhile, the angry Tattersell demanded an additional £200 as danger-money. Once the King and Gunter had agreed, Tattersell unreservedly pledged himself to the King's service. The King rested briefly before setting out for the boat at Shoreham, a few miles west.

Around 2 am on 15 October, the King and Wilmot boarded the Surprise, which sailed on the high tide five hours later. Two hours after that, a troop of cavalry arrived in Shoreham to arrest the King, having been given orders to search for "a tall, black [haired] man, six feet two inches in height".

The King and Wilmot landed in France at Fécamp, near Le Havre, on the morning of 16 October 1651.

France, and eventual return to England
The next day Charles went to Rouen and then on to Paris to stay with his mother, Queen Henrietta Maria. He was not to return to England for nine years.

The death of Oliver Cromwell in 1658 was followed by two years of political confusion, leading to the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. On his return to England in 1660 the King granted a variety of annuities and gifts to some of the people who had aided him, including the Pendrell brothers and Jane Lane. Thomas Whitgrave and Richard Pendrell received annual pensions of £200, with £100 to be paid to the descendants of Richard Pendrell in perpetuity. The other Pendrell brothers received lesser pensions. Pensions to the Penderels (an alternate spelling of Pendrell) are still being paid to a number of descendants today. At some point the Whitgrave pension lapsed (it may never have actually been paid), as did that of Jane Lane.

Some families who helped the King were awarded coats of arms, or augmentations to existing arms. The arms awarded to Colonel Careless were an oak tree on a gold field with a red fess bearing three royal crowns; the crowns representing the three Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland. The crest is distinguished by a civic crown of oakleaves, encircling a crossed sword and sceptre. The Penderels employed identical arms, differentiated by colour: a field of silver and a fess of black, the crest incorporating a royal crown in place of the civic crown. The Lanes' coat of arms was augmented with the addition of a canton bearing the three lions of England.

Aftermath
In later years Charles loved to recount the exact details of his escape. The Earl of Clarendon, Charles' doctor George Bate, and Samuel Pepys each recorded what they were told.

During his escape Charles had been brought into intimate terms with ordinary people with whom he would otherwise have had no interaction. The help of the common people seems to have given him a sense that he was genuinely loved, something he would rarely have experienced in his court under normal circumstances.

As Charles II lay dying on the evening of 5 February 1685, his brother and heir the Duke of York brought Father John Huddleston, whom the King had spent time with at Moseley Hall and who was then residing at Somerset House, to his bedside, saying, "Sire, this good man once saved your life. He now comes to save your soul." Charles confirmed that he wished to die in the Roman Catholic Church, and Huddleston heard the King's confession and administered Extreme Unction and the Viaticum. On the accession of James II, Huddleston continued to stay with the Queen Catherine at Somerset House.

Charles purchased the Surprise, the ship he had crossed the Channel on, naming her HMY (Her Majesty's Yacht) Royal Escape. She was moored in the Thames off the Palace of Whitehall.

Commemorations and memorials

 * Shortly after the Restoration, Isaac Fuller was commissioned to produce a series of five paintings dealing with the early days of the escape. They record, somewhat imaginatively, The King at Whiteladies, The King in Boscobel Wood, The King and Colonel Careless in the oak tree, King Charles II on Humphrey Penderel's mill horse and King Charles II and Jane Lane riding to Bristol. These were purchased by the National Portrait Gallery, London in 1979.
 * In 1664, the King's birthday of 29 May was designated Oak Apple Day, by Act of Parliament and a special service was inserted in the Book of Common Prayer. For over 200 years the King's birthday was celebrated by the wearing of a sprig of oak leaves in remembrance of the events. The tradition is no longer widely observed.
 * Hundreds of inns and public houses throughout the country are called 'The Royal Oak', as were eight ships of the Royal Navy.
 * The escape from England is commemorated around Oak Apple Day each year with a yacht race from Brighton to Fecamp called The Royal Escape Race and organised by the Sussex Yacht Club.
 * Another commemoration takes place each year at the Royal Hospital Chelsea on Founder's Day which takes place close to Oak Apple Day. On Founder's Day, in-pensioners of the Royal Hospital are reviewed by a member of the British Royal Family.
 * The Monarch's Way is a 625-mile waymarked footpath which approximately follows the escape route starting at the battlefield at Worcester and finishing at Shoreham.
 * The escape is the subject of William Harrison Ainsworth's 1871 novel Boscobel, or, The Royal Oak.
 * In 2018, the pop band Barnstormer 1649, headed by Attila the Stockbroker, released a song called "Monarch's Way", based on the events of 1651 from an anti-Royalist viewpoint.
 * Georgette Heyer's novel, Royal Escape, published in 1938 is also based on the story.
 * Gillian Bagwell's 2011 novel The September Queen recounts the part that Jane Lane played in Charles's escape. The book was released in the United Kingdom 2012 under the title The King's Mistress.
 * The Moonraker, a 1958 British swashbuckler film, loosely based on the later days of the escape, was directed by David MacDonald.

References and bibliography

 * — Available in various formats at Internet Archive, this is the earliest, not entirely reliable account, of the escape of Charles II, first published shortly after the Restoration in 1660.
 * Fea, A. (1897, second ed. 1908) The Flight of the King, London.
 * — Presents Pepys's transcription of Charles's account and his edited version side by side, as well as other contemporary accounts.
 * Uglow, J. (2009) A Gambling Man: Charles II and the Restoration, Faber and Faber
 * — Presents Pepys's transcription of Charles's account and his edited version side by side, as well as other contemporary accounts.
 * Uglow, J. (2009) A Gambling Man: Charles II and the Restoration, Faber and Faber
 * — Presents Pepys's transcription of Charles's account and his edited version side by side, as well as other contemporary accounts.
 * Uglow, J. (2009) A Gambling Man: Charles II and the Restoration, Faber and Faber
 * — Presents Pepys's transcription of Charles's account and his edited version side by side, as well as other contemporary accounts.
 * Uglow, J. (2009) A Gambling Man: Charles II and the Restoration, Faber and Faber
 * — Presents Pepys's transcription of Charles's account and his edited version side by side, as well as other contemporary accounts.
 * Uglow, J. (2009) A Gambling Man: Charles II and the Restoration, Faber and Faber
 * Uglow, J. (2009) A Gambling Man: Charles II and the Restoration, Faber and Faber
 * Uglow, J. (2009) A Gambling Man: Charles II and the Restoration, Faber and Faber
 * Uglow, J. (2009) A Gambling Man: Charles II and the Restoration, Faber and Faber
 * Uglow, J. (2009) A Gambling Man: Charles II and the Restoration, Faber and Faber
 * Uglow, J. (2009) A Gambling Man: Charles II and the Restoration, Faber and Faber
 * Uglow, J. (2009) A Gambling Man: Charles II and the Restoration, Faber and Faber

 * —This also chronicles the delightfully daffy 1911 re-enactment of the events.
 * H.P. Kingston. "The Wanderings of Charles II in Staffordshire and Shropshire"
 * Jean Gordon Hughes. "A King in the Oak Tree"
 * H.P. Kingston. "The Wanderings of Charles II in Staffordshire and Shropshire"
 * Jean Gordon Hughes. "A King in the Oak Tree"
 * Jean Gordon Hughes. "A King in the Oak Tree"

title: Escape of Charles II


text:
Vithura

Vithura, also known as the Hill City Of Trivandrum, is located 36 km from Thiruvananthapuram capital of the Kerala state in India. Vithura is the culmination of the crossroads to many tourist, cultural, and religious centres. Surrounded by the Western Ghats (Sahyadris), Vithura is a tourist spot. The village has a good climate year-round. The Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Thiruvananthapuram campus is situated here.

Demography
Vithura is a town located in Nedumangad Taluk of Thiruvananthapuram district, Kerala with total 5163 families residing. Population of Vithura counts 18437 persons of which 8680 are males while 9757 are females as per Population Census 2011. Vithura village has lower literacy rate compared to Kerala. In 2011, literacy rate of Vithura village was 88.64% compared to 94.00% of Kerala. Here, male literacy stands at 92.18% while female literacy rate was 85.54%. Schedule Tribe (ST) constitutes 18.17% while Schedule Caste (SC) were 12.37% of total population here. The 2001 census reported a population of 26,927.

Places of worship
The following are some of the places of worship in Vithura:
 * Sri Mahadeva Devi Temple, at Sivan Kovil Vithura
 * Sri Mudipura Bhadrakali Devi Temple at Sivan Covil Jn
 * Sri Muthumariyamman Kovil, at Memala, Vithura
 * Vellamkanni Matha church Vithura
 * Divine Providence Latin Catholic Church Vithura
 * CSI CHURCH Vithura
 * Sri Mahaganapathi Temple Maruthamala Vithura
 * Makki Sri Dharmasastha Kshethram Vithura
 * The Pentecostal Mission Vithura (TPM)
 * Sree Krishnaswami Temple
 * Sri Bhadrakali Devi Temple, at Chayam Vithura
 * All Saints Syro Malabar Church, at Koppam Vithura
 * St. Mary's Malankara Catholic Church Vithura
 * St. Joseph Latin Catholic Church Vithura
 * Sri Bhadrakali Devi Temple (Kulamancode), at Pulichamala
 * Sri Subhramanya kshethram chayam Vithura
 * Muhiyudheen Jumah Masjid
 * St. George Orthodox Church
 * Sri Mariyamman Devi Temple, Kallar
 * CSI Church Chayam

Educational institutions
There are a large number of government schools and other educational institutions in the area. These include campuses of the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Thiruvananthapuram and the Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology Valiyamala near Vithura.

Tourist spots
There are several rubber plantations throughout the area. Prominent tourist spots include Ponmudi, Peppara Dam, Meenmutty Falls, Bonacaud and Agastyakoodam. A stone's throw away from Vithura lies Iruthalamoola Junction in the Tholicode Panchayath. Iru in Malayalam means two, thala means head and moola means corner, suggesting that the place gets its name from the two roads from Trivandrum to Ponmudi and Vithura to Aryanad meeting here. Perched on a hill very close to Iruthalamoola stands a magnificently massive rock called Chittiparra, frequented by adrenaline junkies keen on the challenges of rock climbing. Lush green paddy fields, rubber plantations, and coconut gardens abound in scenic Vithura make it a classic, ideal Kerala hot spot, apart from the hundreds of tea plantation workers who work in the hills. A visit to the local kalaris (Traditional Martial Arts Schools) in the region is a must to every first time tourist.
 * Ponmudi Hill Resorts
 * Bonacaud Tea Gardens
 * Vazhventhole Water Falls
 * Lower Meenmutty dam
 * Thavakkal Water Fall
 * Peppara Dam
 * Peppara Hydro Electric Power Station
 * Thavakkal Waterfall
 * Golden Valley
 * Kallar River
 * Pandi pathu
 * Agastyarkoodam Trekking
 * Athirumala Base Camp
 * Attayar
 * Vamanapuram River

title: Vithura


text:
Talk:Mazda Z engine

Ford Ecoboost 1.6 is Sigma based not Mazda Z based
Ecoboost is belt driven like Sigma, it's not updated Z engine!!! Sigma is Ti-VCT, DOHC, 16v, all aluminium engine, is updated by new ECU, turbo, DI etc. and you get Ecoboost! 2.0 EB is based on 2.0 Duratec which is Mazda engine! check out this info: PAGE 5 http://www.api.org/certifications/engineoil/new/upload/1_Customer_Focused_Technology_Transition_BSamardizich_Ford_DAP_Forum_April_20_2010.pdf is says 1.6L 1.6L Sigma I4 EcoBoost

ford duratec is mada based engine http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=13626 ZunaOFP (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)ZunaOFP

Actually, he is correct as the 1.6L EcoBoost is not Z engine based. The 1.6L EcoBoost is based on the 1.6L Duratec, which is in turn a rebadged 1.6L Sigma/Zetec SE engine. The larger 2.0L Duratec is indeed based on a Mazda design, but the 1.6L Duratec and 2.0L Duratec are not related so this has no relevance to this article. Ironically this relationship is properly described in other articles on Wikipedia but not here. All Ford 1.6L engine applications are, and have for some time, been Sigma based. As such I'm going to correct the article by removing the reference suggesting Ford does still employ this design unless and until somebody can produce a proper reference stating otherwise, which obviously won't be possible since that isn't the case. Syr74 (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Z6/M Timing chain.
An edit war appears to have broken out about the subject of the Z6 being timing or belt driven.

I purchased a Mazda3 2004 1.6 TS2, UK spec. It is timing chain driven. This article was actually the source of much confusion, as I asked about the cambelt history and was humbled when I discovered upon examination that this was not the case, and other websites and pictures of the engine corroborate it being chain based - there is no exposed casing for the belt, but an enclosed engine casing which the chain is hidden in.

I appreciate this is original research, but the original article stating that they are all chain driven is correct, and the information to the contrary under the Z6 section is plainly wrong.

To the person that edited it to say this was a drive belt, under the basis that you own the vehicle - either you have a different engine, or are mistaken. There possibly exists a 115hp Mazda 1.6 engine, a version I believe uses a belt. The 105hp categorically does not, and a visual examination of any Z6 for sale online demonstrates this.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.38.147 (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mazda Z engine


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous rivals

 * 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. --18:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

List of famous rivals
Irredeemably POV and unmaintainable. DS 13:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Don't know about POV, but certainly virtually infinite. --Last Malthusian 13:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No POV problem, but pointless and unmanageable.  Logophile 14:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with Logophile. Tintin 15:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Unmaintainable, trivial. Xoloz 14:36, 13 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:
Mount Owen (Tasmania)

Mount Owen is a mountain directly east of the town of Queenstown on the West Coast Range in Western Tasmania, Australia.

With an elevation of 1146 m above sea level, like most of the mountains in the West Coast Range, it was named by the geologist Charles Gould after Richard Owen. The taller mountains were named after opponents or critics of Charles Darwin, the smaller after his supporters. The north western slopes are clearly seen from Gormanston and the Linda Valley 'Long Spur'.

Features and access
Historically, the tree line on Mount Owen was to a high level. However, timber on the slopes was used by the local mining operations. In the early days of settlement, fires started on the slopes destroyed housing in Queenstown and threatened the North Mount Lyell Railway.

By the early twentieth century, the slopes of Mount Owen were denuded and had limited remnant vegetation.

A map in Geoffrey Blainey's The Peaks of Lyell, sourced from 1900–1910, calls the north west peak the 'North Spur'. The northern slopes, clearly visible from the Lyell Highway passing through the Linda Valley, show the extent of degradation due to fire, smelter fumes and heavy rainfall. It has small glacial lakes on its upper eastern slope, indicating the extent of glaciation in the King River valley. The western slopes loom over Queenstown and in winter are regularly covered in snow. The eastern wall to its north eastern peak hangs over the western shore of Lake Burbury and, in earlier times, the North Mount Lyell Railway which passed beneath.

In the late 1890s a number of mining ventures that utilized proximity to mining leases with the name Mount Lyell as an attractor of investment, tried to elicit interest in leases on the lower slope of Mount Owen.

Current conditions
There are TV and communications towers on its north west peak (North Spur), which has been used a vehicle access track. Other geological features near Mount Owen include Mount Lyell to the north and Mount Huxley to the south.

Mount Owen is accessible on foot along a formed four wheel track. As early as 1938 suggestions were made to create a formed track for tourists and visitors.

The surface is gravel and rocks. It is a moderate to hard walk and takes about 4 hours including the return trip. The walk starts at Karlson's Gap, the saddle between Gormanston and Mt Owen.

title: Mount Owen (Tasmania)


text:
Cyrus Poncha

Cyrus Poncha is an Indian squash administrator and coach. Born in Mumbai, he is currently based out of Chennai, and coaches at the ICL-TNSRA Squash Academy. Presently, he is the Secretary General of Squash Rackets Federation of India. He is a Dronacharya Awardee. He was adjudged Asian Squash Federation Coach of the Year six times. He has coached several squash players such as Joshna Chinappa, Dipika Pallikal Karthik, Saurav Ghoshal and Velavan Senthilkumar.

Early life and career
Cyrus was born in Mumbai. Cyrus was a nationally ranked junior plater but took up coaching instead of becoming a professional on the squash circuit. However, he started coaching other squash players at the age of 18. He moved to Chennai to work under S. Maniam, a Malaysian coach in ICL-TNSRA Squash Academy in 2000. Soon after, he became the national head coach of Squash Rackets Federation of India (SRFI), which is the governing body of squash in India. In 2005, he was awarded the Dronacharya Award, the highest honour for sport coaches in India by then Indian President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam. He has also won the 'Coach of the Year' from Asian Squash Federation award six times in 2016, 2004, 2009, 2012, 2014 and 2016.

He has obtained WSF level-III coaching certificate and coached players both the junior squash and senior circuits. Players he has coached include Joshna Chinappa, Dipika Pallikal Karthik, Saurav Ghoshal, Anaka Alankamony, Kush Kumar, Harinder Pal Sandhu and Velavan Senthilkumar among others. Joshna Chinappa and Dipika Pallikal Karthik have won gold in 2014 Commonwealth games and are in the top 20 of Women's Squash World Ranking.

In June 2019, he was elected as the new Secretary General of SRFI. He will hold the position for four years, until 2023.

Awards

 * Dronacharya Award, 2005
 * Asian Squash Federation 'Coach of the Year' award, 2016, 2004, 2009, 2012, 2014 (as team coach), 2016

title: Cyrus Poncha


text:
Apprehension (understanding)

In psychology, apprehension (Lat. ad, "to"; prehendere, "to seize") is a term applied to a model of consciousness in which nothing is affirmed or denied of the object in question, but the mind is merely aware of ("seizes") it.

"Judgment" (says Reid, ed. Hamilton, i. p. 414) "is an act of the mind, specifically different from simple apprehension or the bare conception of a thing". "Simple apprehension or conception can neither be true nor false." This distinction provides for the large class of mental acts in which we are simply aware of, or "take in" a number of familiar objects, about which we in general make no judgment, unless our attention is suddenly called by a new feature. Or again, two alternatives may be apprehended without any resultant judgment as to their respective merits.

Similarly, G.F. Stout stated that while we have a very vivid idea of a character or an incident in a work of fiction, we can hardly be said in any real sense to have any belief or to make any judgment as to its existence or truth. With this mental state may be compared the purely aesthetic contemplation of music, wherein apart from, say, a false note, the faculty of judgment is for the time inoperative. To these examples may be added the fact that one can fully understand an argument in all its bearings, without in any way judging its validity. Without going into the question fully, it may be pointed out that the distinction between judgment and apprehension is relative. In every kind of thought, there is judgment of some sort in a greater or less degree of prominence.

Judgment and thought are in fact psychologically distinguishable merely as different, though correlative, activities of consciousness. Professor Stout further investigates the phenomena of apprehension, and comes to the conclusion that "it is possible to distinguish and identify a whole without apprehending any of its constituent details." On the other hand, if the attention focuses itself for a time on the apprehended object, there is an expectation that such details will, as it were, emerge into consciousness. Hence, he describes such apprehension as "implicit", and insofar as the implicit apprehension determines the order of such emergence, he describes it as "schematic".

A good example of this process is the use of formulae in calculations; ordinarily the formula is used without question; if attention is fixed upon it, the steps by which it is shown to be universally applicable emerge, and the "schema " is complete in detail. With this result may be compared Kant's theory of apprehension as a synthetic act (the "synthesis of apprehension") by which the sensory elements of a perception are subjected to the formal conditions of time and space.

title: Apprehension (understanding)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purwell

 * 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 Speedy Delete - A1/G1 Ryan Norton T 14:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Purwell
Speedy Delete Nonsence and vandalism. Mylakovich 13:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. You can use a speedy delete tag like for this kind of thing, instead of AFD. Kappa 13:50, 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.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purwell