Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Jimbo Wales

2011-12-13T12:50:54Z

Forteller: /* Alternate "Blanking" Proposal */

{{NOINDEX}}
{{usercomment}}
{{same page other wikis|commons|meta|message=Please choose the most relevant.}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 90
|minthreadsleft = 2
|algo = old(1d)
|archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive index|mask=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive <#>|indexhere=no|template=User:Jimbo Wales/indextemplate}}
{{archives|age=1|dounreplied=yes|index=./Archive index|bot=MiszaBot III|archivelist=User talk:Jimbo Wales/archivelist_manual|collapsed=yes|search=yes}}
{| align="right" style="clear:both"
|[[/archivelist manual|(Manual archive list)]]
|}

== Wikipedia spokespersons ==

Jimbo, I note in the BBC's [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16084861 coverage] of the Bell Pottinger affair that they quote ''"David Gerard, a UK-based spokesperson and volunteer for Wikipedia"''. This seems odd, considering the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=464450239#Advertise recent statement] made on this very talkpage by a WMF employee which states that David Gerard is not a WMF employee and appears to state that Gerard does not speak for the WMF. It might be helpful if you clarified who the WMF's spokespersons actually are. If Gerard is not a spokesperson, why does he continue to be credited as such? [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 14:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
:Since when did the press let facts get them in the way of a news story? If DG is listed in someone's rolodex under that heading, that's all the "fact checking" they need. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] [[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]] 15:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
::I think most organizations would take steps to correct any such misconception. They would contact the reporter to set them straight and ask for a correction. They would ask the person involved to stop speaking to the press unless they make it clear that they have no official capacity with the organization. It not clear to me who the spokepersons for the WMF actually are, or if Gerard is the de facto spokesperson, which is why I asked here. [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 15:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
:::As far as I know, David Gerard is still a UK press contact. We have many press contacts, volunteers, in many countries around the world. David's been doing that for years. Now that the UK chapter exists, has funding, and has started hiring people, I expect that role will eventually transition into the chapter, but for now, there's nothing at all unusual or wrong about this.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 15:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
::::This is pretty much the case. I started doing the volunteer press thing in 2005 because we needed someone to do it, and kept on doing it. As Wikipedia became ridiculously popular I cut back severely, as dealing with press storms and working a day job started to conflict badly, so WMUK do it and I'm backup. And my phone number is public so I still get calls, and stop by the OTRS queue every now and then, and so forth.
::::To answer what I suspect is Delicious' real concern, I try quite hard not to give my own personal views (you can get those on the mailing lists) but my estimate of community consensus and ideals. I also stress I don't work for the WMF and am speaking as a volunteer. So far I've yet to be lynched by the Wikipedians or hideously embarrass the Foundation - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 15:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::I wasn't questioning your ability or your impartiality, David, merely your status. [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 15:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::Yes, I'm sorry for being so touchy - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 21:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

:<s>Delicious, you have a woefully uninformed (though unfortunately common) perspective on the press, and clearly didn't read the comment already there on the page when you commented on my talk page. I'd have hoped you'd have paid more attention to detail were the matter as important as you consider it.</s> I must apologise, that's uncalled-for snappiness on my part and you really didn't deserve it. I'm sorry.
:To quote myself: "Press quotes may resemble words actually said by the person they're attributed to, in some circumstances. (This is then called "reliable", while the person's own words are called "COI".) That was a 20-minute phone call compressed to a sentence."
:FWIW, I gave my title (as I always do) as "volunteer media contact". The journalist then wrote something, the subeditors then edited it some way, and what ended up on the page bore a familial resemblance to anything I said. This is par for the course. The process is one of throwing out as robust soundbites as one can come up with on the fly and seeing just what the press can do with them ''that'' time - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 15:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
::I merely noted the apparent disconnect between the BBC article and the statement by a WMF employee, and asked who the spokespersons for the WMF are. I did not read the discussions on your talk page when I left you that message. I take it from Jimbo's answer that you are one of several "press contacts". Is there a list of these anywhere? [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 15:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
:::[http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Press_room David is listed here.]--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 15:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
:::: That's the UK list - the Foundation one is http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room#Regional_contacts - I'm there in "other regional contacts", and my phone number is in lots of lists and will probably be so for years (Alison Wheeler's no longer on that list but ''still'' gets calls) - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]])
::::: David's also listed on the UK list, under Wikimedia community volunteers. (David, I'm not sure we checked with you before adding you there - hope that was OK?) In general, all of David's comments here get a +1 from me - it's fantastic that he's doing this media communication. I think those that view media spokespeople as having to be from WMF or a chapter, rather than from the community, need to change their viewpoint - the community can (and should, for a number of reasons) always have its own spokespeople too. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 11:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::Mike, you have raised an interesting point. Anyone who edits Wikipedia should be free to give their opinions and impressions of what the community wants. A "community spokesperson" is by definition someone who speaks for the community. Surely that person should be chosen ''by'' the community? [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 12:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::That's more a shape of sentence that looks appealing on the surface than something that would actually get the job done. ''e.g.'' Volunteers for even quite important jobs on the wiki (e.g. arbcom) have a visible tendency to just vanish and become uncontactable as they will; the media ''always'' want to talk to someone locally by preference ("Is there anyone in XXX who can talk to YYY within the next hour?"; when most of WMUK lived oop north I did lots of the London radio/TV stuff just by virtue of actually living here); getting calls and saying "Sorry, not me any more, talk to ZZZ who's in a different time zone and won't be awake for eight hours" throws away the opportunity to deal with a story and try to somewhat alleviate someone writing complete rubbish; when a big media storm hits, it tends to be all-hands-in dealing with a flurry of calls. ''In practice'', finding volunteers who want to do the job (public person, real name, somewhat public phone number) and fit the "local" criteria is harder than your suggestion posits, which is why the job tends to fall to chapters. And the media are, IME, ''utterly unable'' to distinguish the various internal roles and see the whole vast complicated movement as just "Wikipedia"; editor, chapter, WMF, it's all the same to them. But perhaps I'm being unduly negative and you have a more detailed plan that would actually do the job of supplying reasonable-quality media input from us, whoever "us" is, given the amazing distortions that happen to quite simple sentences in practice - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 10:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::I was just responding to Mike's suggestion that there be a "community spokesperson". As you point out, there are very practical reasons why having "press contacts" is perhaps the most simple solution, but those press contacts have no status to speak for either the community or the WMF, apparently. If I felt there was any desire to change this arrangement, I would propose something, but despite the apparent inability of the press to accurately quote or credit you, everyone seems to be satisfied by the current state of affairs. My original question was an attempt to understand the disparity between what a WMF employee had stated and the credit most often used by the press. [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 17:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::I'd call it "better than nothing" rather than "satisfied", but I think it is better than nothing. The press have a hierarchical mental model of all organisations. Talking to them isn't necessarily actually a good idea at all times, but OTOH we are a top 10 website living off public donations so that we will talk to the world is not an unreasonable expectation. I think the idea is that somehow we'll get the ideas across if we keep pushing. Our media relations are mostly a lot more reactive than proactive. ("Our" there means the Wikimedia movement in all its sprawling glory.)
:::::::::If you (or anyone else) feel inspired to dive in talking to your media locally and explaining what on earth we all do here - which, and this is important, ''is largely a mystery to the general populace'' - do feel free to join in ad-hoc if you think you can. People who can explain stuff well in distortion-resistant soundbites are always good, as is making Wikipedia not mysterious to the general public - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 20:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::By the way, this is a useful illustration that Wikipedia does press the way it writes an encyclopedia: ad hoc, volunteer, and somehow more or less works with rough edges - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 15:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

::(e/c) Par for the course, like I said.I'm going to sing my one note song again and wonder aloud "When the ''hell'' are we going to stop pointing at news media as examples of reliable sources?" – they are ''barely'' adequate sources at the best of times. I know we're never going to wean the community away from those rags as sources, but can we at least stop pretending they are somehow venerable or exemplary? — [[User:Coren|Coren]] [[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]] 15:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
::: As a journalist I almost take offence to that ([[User talk:Bwilkins|talk→]]''' [[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]] '''[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|←track]]) 15:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
::::I'm not saying news media don't have their place, BWilkins, or that they are unreputable. But as ''encyclopedic'' sources, they suck. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] [[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]] 15:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::The point of Wikipedia, as opposed to something like the Encyclopaedia Britannica, was that "current events" could be covered in-depth and be kept more-or-less instantly up-to-date. That, generally, means news sources. If and when the facts change, we change our minds (articles). So what's your alternative to using the news media? [[Special:Contributions/75.59.206.69|75.59.206.69]] ([[User talk:75.59.206.69|talk]]) 18:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::Use them, don't canonise them (as WP:V does) - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 10:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::The worst thing is when the best books on a topic and a newspaper article disagree and an editor tries to use this one article to rewrite a page. --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] | [[User_talk:Guerillero|My Talk]] 17:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::[[User:Coren|Coren]] above makes a good point about "news media", a journalist output can vary from reliable to complete "work of fiction" presented as "factual". The real issue is that they are preceived on Wikipedia as a reliable source when they are little more then a well written blog done by someone who is under a deadline. Regards, [[User:SunCreator|SunCreator]] ([[User talk:SunCreator|talk]]) 14:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::"well written"? Cite? [[User:Tom Reedy|Tom Reedy]] ([[User talk:Tom Reedy|talk]]) 03:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Evidently, we as Wikipedians need to hold them to account to have better epistemology than we do ;-) - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 22:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

== Request for Comment: SOPA and a strike ==

{{rfc|rfcid=6DECC3D}}
(Please help me publicize this widely.)

A few months ago, the Italian Wikipedia community made a decision to blank all of Italian Wikipedia for a short period in order to protest a law which would infringe on their editorial independence. The Italian Parliament backed down immediately. As Wikipedians may or may not be aware, a much worse law going under the misleading title of "[[Stop Online Piracy Act]]' is working its way through Congress on a bit of a fast track. I may be attending a meeting at the White House on Monday (pending confirmation on a couple of fronts) along with executives from many other top Internet firms, and I thought this would be a good time to take a quick reading of the community feeling on this issue. My own view is that a community strike was very powerful and successful in Italy and could be even more powerful in this case. There are obviously many questions about whether the strike should be geotargetted (US-only), etc. (One possible view is that because the law would seriously impact the functioning of Wikipedia for everyone, a global strike of at least the English Wikipedia would put the maximum pressure on the US government.) At the same time, it's of course a very very big deal to do something like this, it is unprecedented for English Wikipedia.
— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jimbo Wales|contribs]]) 07:42, 10 December 2011‎

('''note''': I added the request for comment tag and signature for the bot [[User: Crazynas|Crazynas]] [[User_talk:Crazynas|t]] 09:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC))

So, this is a straw poll. Please !vote either 'support' or 'oppose' with a reason, and try to keep wide-ranging discussion to the section below the poll.

To be clear, this is '''NOT''' a vote on whether or not to have a strike. This is merely a straw poll to indicate overall interest. If this poll is firmly 'opposed' then I'll know that now. But even if this poll is firmly in 'support' we'd obviously go through a much longer process to get some kind of consensus around parameters, triggers, and timing.
: ''Before answering at '''Poll''', perhaps read below,'' '''[[#Discussion]]'''. -[[User talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 05:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

===Poll===
*'''Firmly Support''' -- This must be a public campaign to be successful. [[User:kgrindal|kgrindal]] 7:48, 13 December 2011 (EST)
*'''Firmly Support''' --[[User:Rusenski|Rusenski]] ([[User talk:Rusenski|talk]]) 12:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Firmly Support''' Wikipedia as a platform is allowed to be opinionated in its own affairs. WMF has objectives (e.g. disseminating knowledge and universal availability), and this act would support and protect WP as an agent in this effort. [[User:Hayesgm|Geoff]] ([[User talk:Hayesgm|talk]]) 11:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Firmly Support''' SOPA will have a big knock-on international effect. We should stop it now if possible. [[User:Geekdog|Geekdog]] ([[User talk:Geekdog|talk]]) 11:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Firmly Support''' Nothing to add to what others have said except my support. Steve Merrick. 13th December 2001.
*'''Firmly Support''' SOPA directly affects the survivability of Wikipedia, so it's not political, it runs in the same vein as requesting donations.[[Special:Contributions/192.17.179.116|192.17.179.116]] ([[User talk:192.17.179.116|talk]]) 11:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Firmly Support''' As i understand it, congress and the senate BOTH use Wikipedia quite often. This seems like a reasonable way to get some more attention on the issue.[[Special:Contributions/50.81.156.97|50.81.156.97]] ([[User talk:50.81.156.97|talk]]) 10:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Firmly Support''' This action would gain a great deal of publicity,. While causing only minor inconvenience, people in who require specialized knowledge have alternative sources, by its nature Wikipedia is a gloss for those who do not need those specialized sources, no one is going to fail their finals because they had no access to an explanation of Maslow's hierarchy of need but every one who has a casual encounter with thew term and wants to learn more will be confronted with the danger of SOPA. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:SimonW11|SimonW11]] ([[User talk:SimonW11|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SimonW11|contribs]]) 09:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 
*'''Firmly Support''' They are not going to listen until the true effects of such legislature are demonstrated to them. I am sorry it has come to this but we must do what we have done for many years; teach about the net and what it is, means and can be. -Miso Susanowa [[Special:Contributions/72.49.107.90|72.49.107.90]] ([[User talk:72.49.107.90|talk]]) 07:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Firmly Support''' Follow the Italian precedent. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Davedx|Davedx]] ([[User talk:Davedx|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Davedx|contribs]]) 07:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 
* '''Firmly Support''' SOPA and Protect IP are terrible bills that pose a real threat to Wikipedia and the overall health of the internet. This plan would draw attention to the seriousness of the issue. [[User:Renfrowk|Kevin Renfrow]] ([[User talk:Renfrowk|talk]]) 07:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Firmly Support''' SOPA is an existential threat to Wikipedia, not a political one. Would we warn people of a server outage because we can't pay the bills, or do we not get involved in economic issues either? [[User:Libertarian23423|Libertarian23423]] ([[User talk:Libertarian23423|talk]]) 07:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Firmly Support''' SOPA represents a real threat to Wikipedia's existence, and I think we have a duty to warn our readers that it is a real problem. [[User:Modrobene|Modrobene]] ([[User talk:Modrobene|talk]]) 06:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Weak Oppose''' A compromise: Add big SOPA warning headers to every article and shift the article content "below the fold" of the page. Please DO NOT block access to Wikipedia's content. [[User:Runtime|Runtime]] ([[User talk:Runtime|talk]]) 06:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Firmly Support''' Think of all the people in school and academics who use Wikipedia. A good portion of them probably have no clue about SOPA. It would obviously be a good wake up call if they go to research something and a black page was their result. It will open so many more eyes to this issue, an issue that mainstream media is not covering like it should.
* '''Firmly Support''' SOPA has not received enough attention in the popular media and most people (Americans) do not even know what it is. A black-out would raise awareness and force Congress to acknowledge that SOPA is, at best, a very questionable bill with harmful side-effects. [[Special:Contributions/99.50.225.62|99.50.225.62]] ([[User talk:99.50.225.62|talk]]) 05:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Firmly Support''' Wikipedia is known for neutrality, strong rules about editorializing, and a firmly encyclopedic approach. It is tottally understandable that some would ask "why not support other political actions" and oppose this. However SOPA would affect Wikipedia, and is firmly in opposition to everything the Wikimedia foundation stands for. This is not a time to blindly follow the principle of neutrality. We must accept that Wikipedia has grown to such a size and degree of influence that it cannot ignore threats such as this. --[[Special:Contributions/75.13.128.92|75.13.128.92]] ([[User talk:75.13.128.92|talk]]) 05:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Firmly Support''' SOPA is the Great Firewall of the US
* '''Firmly Support''' If you believe that there is no original thought but only a synthesis of thoughts based on the thoughts that precede them, then one can begin to realize that the corporate oligarchs are simply trying to control all our thoughts. Fight the power.[[User:Danthemaniam|Danthemaniam]] ([[User talk:Danthemaniam|talk]]) 05:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Firmly Support''' Living in China makes it clear why SOPA's such a bad thing. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/166.111.137.20|166.111.137.20]] ([[User talk:166.111.137.20|talk]]) 05:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 
* '''Firmly Support''' This is something that could affect everybody, not just Americans. It could pretty much shut down American sites like Youtube, Faceboook, and Wikipedia. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.205.232.209|72.205.232.209]] ([[User talk:72.205.232.209|talk]]) 05:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 
* '''Firmly Support''' This isn't about neutrality, it's about survival. The other side is well connected, well funded, and will never give up. The time to be political is when your own existence is threatened. [[User:Narf|narf]] ([[User talk:Narf|talk]]) 04:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose this parochial protest'''
We in the rest of the world are supposed to care about legistlation in ONE country of declining importance ? — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/101.161.138.113|101.161.138.113]] ([[User talk:101.161.138.113|talk]]) 04:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 
*'''Firmly Support''' Awareness is not being raised by conventional means. Wikipedia may not be a political entity but when misguided laws threaten the viability of the site, something must be done. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/66.11.168.150|66.11.168.150]] ([[User talk:66.11.168.150|talk]]) 03:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

* '''Firmly Support''' This is too important not to do. Total blackout please. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/27.50.50.157|27.50.50.157]] ([[User talk:27.50.50.157|talk]]) 04:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

* '''Firmly Support''' More specifically firmly support a US wide block. Just because Wikipedia is content neutral does not preclude it from having opinions on the laws that will effect it's governance. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/64.46.0.240|64.46.0.240]] ([[User talk:64.46.0.240|talk]]) 04:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

* '''Oppose''' SOPA bad. Wikipedia good. Don't go down the political path. It is a slippery slope. Once you start it is hard to stop. What will be the next political hot topic Wikipedia steps in on? One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is to stay neutral. Be strong, stay the way you are.
::Wikipedia may wish to be silent on politics, but the feeling is not mutual. It WILL adversely affect the site[[Special:Contributions/75.62.105.81|75.62.105.81]] ([[User talk:75.62.105.81|talk]]) 05:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

* '''Support''' It's a terrible law. This could change that. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/121.218.196.149|121.218.196.149]] ([[User talk:121.218.196.149|talk]]) 03:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mightythorton|Mightythorton]] ([[User talk:Mightythorton|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mightythorton|contribs]]) 03:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

*Firmly Support. The communicative power of a wikipedia blackout would be enourmous. People won't stand for SOPA id they know of it and understand its implications. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/137.113.246.169|137.113.246.169]] ([[User talk:137.113.246.169|talk]]) 02:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 
*'''Firmly Support'''. Pulling Wikipedia would have a profound effect and if websites such as Youtube join in SOPA will most likely be dead in its tracks. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.39.103.27|69.39.103.27]] ([[User talk:69.39.103.27|talk]]) 02:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

* '''Firmly Support''' Yes, sounds like a powerful message. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/64.254.170.49|64.254.170.49]] ([[User talk:64.254.170.49|talk]]) 02:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

*'''Support'''. Here is what I recommend: Facebook, google, youtube and wikipedia should take down their sites and replace them with a message about SOPA all on the same day. But it shouldn't end there. They should also personally attack each of the original progenators in the Senate/House of the bill. Their political careers need to end that day. It's not enough to simply stop this bill. If they do, another will be enacted pretty soon with pretty much the same problems. Politicians need to understand that if they take on the internet and choose record labels over their own constituents they cannot expect support from their own political base. [[User:Karlzt|Karlzt]] ([[User talk:Karlzt|talk]]) 02:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Only result will be ISYFM. Full stop. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.76.208.232|173.76.208.232]] ([[User talk:173.76.208.232|talk]]) 02:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 
* '''Firmly Support''' As an Aussie, we are locked into Free Trade agreements with the US. If this bill passes, it will absolutely be ratified into Australian legislation too. There is nothing good that can come from SOPA, and if the biggest sites 'strike' in protest, the entire world can see the damage it will cause to the Internet as we know it. [[Special:Contributions/121.209.32.154|121.209.32.154]] ([[User talk:121.209.32.154|talk]]) 02:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC) (formerly [[Special:Contributions/219.90.192.25|219.90.192.25]])
*'''Firmly Support''' From an occasional editor, frequent user and old man in awe of the energy needed to run Wikipedia, I say go large: minimum 12-16 hour blackout to make a real impact proportionate to Wikipedia's contributions, presenting objections to censorship and a presentation of the Open Source organizations also fighting for freedom. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.54.7.152|69.54.7.152]] ([[User talk:69.54.7.152|talk]]) 02:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 
* '''Firmly Support''' This bill has far-reaching implications, to the point of potentially adversely affecting the existence of Wikipedia itself. This isn't just about politics, this is about preserving the existence of an internet that has allowed for Wikipedia to exist in the form it does now. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/50.0.102.200|50.0.102.200]] ([[User talk:50.0.102.200|talk]]) 01:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 
* '''Firmly Support''' I understand the arguments made against a strike, but since SOPA could hurt/threaten Wikipedia itself, I think powerful action is warranted. [[User:Joetainment|Joetainment]] ([[User talk:Joetainment|talk]]) 07:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
* "'Firmly Support'" From a frequent user and college student. SOPA needs to be preempted, and only dire action will have success. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/204.140.149.197|204.140.149.197]] ([[User talk:204.140.149.197|talk]]) 01:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 
*'''Firmly Support''' From an occasional editor and very frequent user. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.204.40.125|72.204.40.125]] ([[User talk:72.204.40.125|talk]]) 01:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 
*'''Firmly Support''' SOPA opposes pretty much everything Wikipedia stands for. Now is an excellent time to make a stand. [[User:Jason.grossman|Jason Grossman]] ([[User talk:Jason.grossman|talk]]) 01:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Firmly Support''' SOPA must be stopped. A short term blackout of Wikipedia is a great idea that I fully support as a long time user, writer, editor and donor, and generally as a supporter of freedom, technology and the internet. -M.Sc., M.D. candidate [[User:Lenrodman|Lenrodman]] ([[User talk:Lenrodman|talk]]) 01:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Firmly Support''' This bill is a threat to the internet, and must be stopped. More discussion is needed however to decide how to implement this effectively. [[User:Dubk|Dubk]] ([[User talk:Dubk|talk]]) 00:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Firmly Support''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6 [[User:Vecter|Vecter]] ([[User talk:Vecter|talk]]) 00:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Firmly Support''' A site like Wikipedia will become unmaintanable should a law like SOPA be enacted. Imagine a rogue party trying to deliberately create difficulties for Wikipedia or block some content by sharing links to copyrighted material in the article edits. Wikipedia may wish to be silent on politics, but the feeling is not mutual.[[Special:Contributions/99.127.229.172|99.127.229.172]] ([[User talk:99.127.229.172|talk]]) 23:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Firmly Support''' talking about this in more detail, and likely support the actual strike, but that hinges more on details about how it will be executed. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Stevearm|Stevearm]] ([[User talk:Stevearm|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Stevearm|contribs]]) 23:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC) 
*'''Support''' Normally Wikipedia should stay out of politics, but this law threatens Wikipedia's basic premise. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.241.126.114|69.241.126.114]] ([[User talk:69.241.126.114|talk]]) 23:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC) 
*'''Support''' This needs stoped, thank god we have such a big power as wikipedia to help do so — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.16.67.78|82.16.67.78]] ([[User talk:82.16.67.78|talk]]) 23:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC) 
*'''Support''' This issue matters a great deal to Wikipedia. [[User:AaronSw|AaronSw]] ([[User talk:AaronSw|talk]]) 22:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Striking WP would be a very effective media stunt to bring the issue of the SOPA to the attention of the general public and not just the tech community. [[User:Plazmatyk|Plazmatyk]] ([[User talk:Plazmatyk|talk]]) 22:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Stay out of politics. Advocacy by WMF on issues that matter to wikipedia is fine; using wikipedia to do it isn't. If Congress feels like passing this law on behalf of the American people, that's its prerogative. Politicising wikipedia damages its reputation. --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 07:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strongly Support'''-- Many people don't understand how terrible this legislation is. Wikipedia is based on openness just like he web ... and using it as a platform to oppose SOPA and PIPA is a great idea. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.155.76.35|98.155.76.35]] ([[User talk:98.155.76.35|talk]]) 00:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 
::'''Note''' This would not be advocacy by the WMF. In the Italian case, the WMF was not even aware of it until very shortly before it began. It was implemented by the community.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 08:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::And for precisely that reason, it's a bad idea. I don't have a problem with you going to the White House and giving Mr O a piece of your mind. But we have to draw a line between the organisational advocacy of the WMF and inappropriate advocacy by the "community" which would impair the encylopaedia. What about members of the community who happen to agree with the bill? --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 08:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::The encyclopedia will be impaired by the bill! (unbeknownst to the oblivious users). US-only Block is a good way to inform them. [[User:Schalice|Schalice]] ([[User talk:Schalice|talk]]) 21:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Support''' My understanding is that SOPA, while not directly threatening the legality of Wikipedia would be seriously detrimental to the everyday operations of the site. Wikipedia is based in the USA and US citizens account for a large percentage of contributions. With this in mind I also believe any action (if deemed necessary) should be at least English language wide, the proposed law would have an impact reaching far beyond US borders (even without taking into account the likely influence this would have on other western governments) and the response should be equally far reaching. —[[User:Flooq|Flooq]] ([[User talk:Flooq|Talk]]) at 00:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
::::: Wikipedia may wish to be silent on politics, but the feeling is not mutual. The bill would materially affect operations of the site![[Special:Contributions/99.127.229.172|99.127.229.172]] ([[User talk:99.127.229.172|talk]]) 23:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - and note that, aside from corporate fatcats who have never heard of the concept of revolution, the American people don't want anything Congress is cranking out (they are approaching an approval rating of 0%). —''Jeremy'' v^_^v Components:[[User talk:Jéské Couriano|V]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|S]] [[User: Jéské Couriano|M]] 08:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Duh [[WP:NOTADVOCACY]]. [[User:Russavia|Y u no be Russavia]] [[User talk:Russavia|ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)]] 08:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support in principle''', though not sure exactly what it ''is'' we'd be planning to do. But this bill has the possibility to have a significantly damaging effect not just on Wikipedia but on the free and open Internet as a whole. I normally would never be in favor of Wikipedia taking a position as political issues go, but I've got to agree with the Italians here—this one's a special case because it's a direct threat. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] [[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] 08:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Confused''' - what are we supposed to be polling over? The acceptance of the bill, or the striking of WP because of the bill? If it's the acceptance then '''Strongly Oppose''', and if it's the striking of WP, then again '''Strongly Oppose''' as per [[WP:SOAP]] but also '''Support''' for the following reason: Think of it like this: The internet is a medium, as is a book. If an encyclopaedia can be written in a book, then why can't it be written on the internet? The law is not clear cut on these things at all. Just my 2 cents. [[User:Osarius|Osarius]] : [[User_talk:Osarius|T]] : [[Special:Contributions/Osarius|C]] : [[User:Osarius/CSD|Been CSD'd?]] 08:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The issue has not been well stated, the community has not been well informed, and if I am going to pick up pitchfork and torch, I'm going to pick the issue to do it on. Sorry.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 08:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[iff]] it eliminates the [[Safe_harbor#Internet|safe harbor]] provision of the DMCA, or sufficiently compromises it to jeopardize the Wikimedia mission of ''collecting and disseminating free information''. This isn't about advocacy, but about us being free to act as the largest repository of written information ever assembled. I feel that SOAP is fine for individual articles or policies, but when we're advocating for our right to '''exist''', <s>well</s> we '''all''' want to be able continuing to [[WP:IAR|improve the encyclopedia]] <s>don't we?</s> [[User: Crazynas|Crazynas]] [[User_talk:Crazynas|t]] 09:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Uneasy support''' if it drastically impacts the core mission or distrupt majorly wiki*dia operations then sure, some form of action might be reasonable. However I believe it's very important to use this only as a last resort, only if it's really needed. It's a powerful weapon, not to be wasted if it can be avoided. Also, it's a very polarizing issue, as we've seen with the itwiki, while the Italian community had a wide consensus, I've seen many others especially from this wikipedia be fiercely against it. I think thinks kind of action should be discussed on some kind of specific page on meta, to allow for input from all the diverse wikimedia projects. Obviously an enwiki strike would have to be discussed and decided on this project, but if the interest is in global actions or actions like this in general, it would be interesting to have input from other projects as well. An enwiki strike is very different, in my opinion, from an itwiki or any other project (except maybe for a commons strike that would disable image loading to the rest of the wikis), by its very nature, Enwiki is the showcase for the entire family, and is used in all countries, unlike a country specific issue, so if it would be an issue only affecting US, EU, Italian or Chinese editors, I would probably object to a strike here. However, if it would drastically affect the project itself, then some kind of action might be justified. However it's really important that it be a community driven initiative, not a wmf-driven one. I really think if the initiative would come from the wmf it might split the community, I fear. [[User:Snowolf|Snowolf]] [[User talk:Snowolf|How can I help?]] 09:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*:And it would need to have very, very broad consensus. [[User:Snowolf|Snowolf]] [[User talk:Snowolf|How can I help?]] 09:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support; however''' SOPA has holds in the Senate, so why not strike for [[Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States#Public_financing_of_campaigns|public campaign finance]] instead? That would remove the opposition to (1) reinstitution of the [[Glass-Steagall Act]], (2) fossil fuel and renewable energy subsidy reform, (3) return to the marginal tax rates of e.g. the 1950s when we paid down the debt from WWII (four times as large as a proportion of GDP than today's) without surpluses because the [http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/09/berg.htm greater income equality caused the economy to grow much faster], (4) universal health care, (5) sentencing reform, against the prison guards' unions, (6) patent and copyright duration reform, and many other beneficial reforms currently stalled by special interest campaign donations. Overturning ''Citizens United'' as several recently introduced constitutional amendments would do is not enough. We must not simply enable public campaign finance, we must institute it. [[Special:Contributions/67.6.163.68|67.6.163.68]] ([[User talk:67.6.163.68|talk]]) 10:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*:The problem with all those other causes is that they are US only and not immediately related to Wikipedia. Take me for example. As a German living in Austria and with much stronger ties to the UK than the US, I think all the other causes you mention are worthy, but it's not appropriate for a world-wide, community driven project to take a stand on them excep twhere they touch the core of the project's purpose. This is the case only for SOPA. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 10:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*::Wikipedia is hosted and the Foundation is located in the US. All project editors are directly affected by the length of US copyright terms which have been repeatedly lengthened by special interest lobbying money in the US, and you might have noticed over the past three years that your economy is somewhat dependent on the US economy, too. But Jimbo already mentioned that this might likely be geo-specific if it happens. I just hope we make the most of it. [[Special:Contributions/67.6.163.68|67.6.163.68]] ([[User talk:67.6.163.68|talk]]) 10:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' some form of dramatic protest, maybe something like the itwiki one, against [[Stop Online Piracy Act|SOPA]] and [[Protect IP Act|Protect IP]]. These bills make it possible for anyone who merely ''alleges'' copyright infringement to get a site shut down, pulled from search listings, DNS blacklisted, and its sources of funding cut off. Wikipedia has many enemies who would seek to exploit such a mechanism - besides the fact that the copyright infringement need not be proven, it is trivial to plant an infringement on Wikipedia that we cannot possibly detect (Alice writes article content in Word, sends it to Bob; Bob edits and adds it in). Moreover, Wikipedia may be required to remove links to accused sites, even if the sites did nothing wrong and such links are important for educational purposes. I would really appreciate Jimbo clarifying the actions under consideration however. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 10:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
** '''Note''': I was talking with some other users who suggested that we get a professional like Geoff Brigham to write a brief on the legal dangers SOPA/Protect IP pose to the project. His informed opinion would carry far more weight than armchair lawyers like myself. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 10:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I guess the practical implementation could be roughly as follows: (1) Gain a strong community-wide consensus that this is what we want to do, regardless of what the Foundation may say. (2) Create a template that explains the situation, to replace articles. (3) Make sure that no active anti-vandalism bot will revert edits that replace a page by this template. (4) On the correct date, run bots that replace articles with the template. (5) Based on the consensus, the community will handle premature restorations of articles in the same way that it usually deals with vandalism. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 10:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[WP:ADVOCACY]] is not relevant - except to reaffirm our dedication to the goals of the project. Goals which SOPA seems to threaten to put at risk. [[User: Unomi|u]][[Special:Contributions/Unomi|n☯]][[User talk:Unomi |mi]] 10:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' NOTADVOCACY isn't relevant here - we're not proposing to change our article content to advocate a point of view, it's entirely sensible to use Wikipedia to try to influence something of such huge importance to Wikipedia, and our normal article content policies aren't written with something like this in mind. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|Hut 8.5]]''''' 11:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. It will add to our costs, and make us vulnerable to summary sanctions. All bad. --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]]) 12:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''', but I think there would need to be a proposal and discussion regarding the exact mechanics. --[[User:FormerIP|FormerIP]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 13:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support only as last resort'''. Such kind of action works best only if exceptional, and thus should be implemented only in exceptional circumstances, that is, when the proposed law would greatly hamper the operations of Wikimedia projects (e.g. a US law removing the safe harbor status of hosting providers, and thus making the Foundation legally liable for any problem in Wikipedia content). [[User:David.Monniaux|David.Monniaux]] ([[User talk:David.Monniaux|talk]]) 14:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support legal action'''. On the plus side, America has a constitution to stop things like this - on the minus, our politicians ''never'' back down from a dumb idea because of protests. If (when) this thing is passed there will be a lawsuit - WMF, ''please'' join it as a plaintiff. I don't support a site-wide blackout, but a teach-in may be useful. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 14:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. A protest like this would be ''huge'' (many, many magnitudes larger than the it.wiki protest) and would surely get people to talk about the law, which I consider a good thing. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 14:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''; this law is destructive, and the general population isn't aware of how damaging it will be (the fact that it has been wilfully misnamed, and that public discussion of it is covered in lies and mischaracterisations does not help). Anything we ''can'' do to raise awareness of that law is a good thing, and even a brief "blackout" of the English Wikipedia is going to not only be directly noticeable, but is going to bring much-needed press attention to the issue. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] [[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]] 15:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''', but ideally keep it a US-based block. No need to block the rest of the world. [[User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry|The Cavalry]] ([[User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry|Message me]]) 15:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Fuck knows''' How are people around the world expected to know the details of a parochial piece of US legislation? That said, there are relatively few resources on Wikipedia dedicated to fixing copyvios and those who are involved are relatively unsupported. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive728#Deletions_by_involved_editor_under_claim_of_.22close_paraphrases.22.3B_Mkativerata_2] shows a POV-pusher being able to run a long-term programme of harassment against the COPYVIO project. Then [[User:Cptnono]] is able to engage in part of his own harassment programme against the blocking admin who soon after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=463916988 hands in the broom]. So, Jimmy, let's see you get your act together and engage in a proper effort to support those engaged in fixing copyvios and managing persistent violators before you complain about how unfair the law is.--[[User:Peter cohen|Peter cohen]] ([[User talk:Peter cohen|talk]]) 16:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strongest Possible Oppose'''. Although I oppose the legislation, this is the start of a slippery slope. If we allow Wikipedia to be used openly as a tool for promoting a specific political agenda, we're basically saying goodbye for [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:NOTADVOCACY]] for good. Let's be clear what it would mean if we did this: any user who wants to use Wikipedia for their own political advocacy would be entitled to do so as long as they could get a local consensus to support them. What would be able to say to stop them doing so? Yes, the law is dangerous and a bad idea; but please Jimbo, don't destroy Wikipedia for the sake of a single act of protest. [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish|talk]]) 16:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:* I am not sure why you would think that. Both NPOV and NOTADVOCACY deal with article contents - what we are talking about here is completely separate from article content. [[User: Unomi|u]][[Special:Contributions/Unomi|n☯]][[User talk:Unomi |mi]] 16:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::*While it's not clear how this 'strike' would be effected, it would presumably involve either blanking Wikipedia articles temporarily and replacing them with, or adding to them, a large notice informing users of the strike. That is, by definition, changing Wikipedia's content. Now, technically speaking the strike might not take place in the article namespace, but how many of our users can make that distinction? What they will find is that every Wikipedia article contains or has been replaced by a piece of political advocacy.

:::Wikipedia's greatest strength, along with the anyone-can-edit ethos, is its neutrality. This proposal would directly and completely undermine that. If it happens, I hope no one who supports it will complain when I tag [[WP:Neutral point of view]] with {{tl|historical}}. [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish|talk]]) 17:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::NPOV applies to articles, not this. There are many valid arguments to be made against community action on SOPA; I see no need to push a false claim that this is covered by NPOV. --[[User:JaGa|JaGa]][[User_talk:JaGa|talk]] 20:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::I think the point actually being made is not article POV, but public perception that as we support certain political causes (as some would have us do), we are biased on those issues, and possibly others. I am not an antique expert, but I now and then like to wander around antique fairs. If at a dealer's booth I spot one item of repro, I immediately stop shopping there. If he is selling one reproduced item, I really can't trust anything else he's selling.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 20:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::: Maybe, but a "strongest possible oppose" beginning with a "slippery slope" argument is not very convincing. Furthermore, as I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=465172388&oldid=465171273 note below], this confuses neutrality and NPOV. The very idea of Wikipedia is inherently political and not at all neutral. NPOV is a rather radical point of view, grounded in the principle that it is better to be informed and aware of all significant views on a topic than to suppress or ignore views which are not compatible with our own or some prevailing dogma. Where else but on Wikipedia is "writing for the enemy" encouraged?
:::::: Wikipedia has a political agenda, and one that needs to be promoted and defended. That is completely different from using Wikipedia as a political platform to support other political agendas, and is not a slippery slope at all. NPOV is biassed towards no other viewpoint than NPOV itself. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 22:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''' A political move that affects Wikipedia should be liable to action by Wikipedia. Consider the case with takedown notices. Wikipedia gets one, complies. Therefore it is abiding the law. People want more power to delete articles they don't like, and now the law allows them to do so in higher frequencies. Therefore, Wikipedia loses articles. So, Wikipedia abides by law and law is about to hurt Wikipedia. Wikipedia should try to at least maintain its current status.[[Special:Contributions/93.109.129.169|93.109.129.169]] ([[User talk:93.109.129.169|talk]]) 06:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''' Wikipedia is not Switzerland, I don't see any point in staying neutral if it is going to materially affect Wikipedia. -[[User:Kai445|Kai445]] ([[User talk:Kai445|talk]]) 17:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Weak support (only as last resort)''' It will be a good chance to let the US people aware of SOPA and also to make [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu_30-8ZlmQ everyone remember why they need us]. It should '''very''' clear that this is community driven rather than WMF decision. But this powerful tool, should only be used once, only if Wikipedia is in danger. This maybe too much, too soon. I think something like changing the Wikipedia logo for something else with a link to a statement is more appropriate.--[[User:Neo139|Neo139]] ([[User talk:Neo139|talk]]) 18:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Strong Support''' This bill would likely be the death of Wikipedia, as well as much of the rest of the Internet that is actually useful. I also agree with Seraphimblade's comment below that it would be even better if this could be coordinated with other major websites that would be affected by this. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 19:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' If SOPA passes, our ability to write an online encyclopedia could be greatly damaged, both short-term and long-term. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 19:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*I'm far from convinced the bill is going to have any significant effect on wikipedia even if it passes, despite the servers being located in the US as we already go to lengths to avoid contributory infrigement. While technically the bill could be intepreted as requiring us to avoid linking to sites like piratebay etc at all, I find it hard to believe that will survive on first amendment grounds. Therefore given that this isn't something that's we have any real reason to believe is going to affect all people visiting wikipedia, I would '''oppose''' if it's not effectively geotargeted. I'm '''Neutral''' if it is. Since as I'm not an American, I don't consider it my business what they do in cases like this. (I'm opposed to the bill BTW.) [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 19:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Copyright violation is not what we do. I don't see how this would affect us in any substantial way. [[User:Fred Bauder]] [[User talk:Fred Bauder|Talk]] 20:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:*You are aware that if the safe harbor provision is eliminated from the DMCA it would open WMF to possibly frivolous, but still finically crippling litigation? [[User: Crazynas|Crazynas]] [[User_talk:Crazynas|t]] 00:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' if we make it clear when blanking why and when it'll be over.<big>∞</big>[[User:Jinnai|陣]][[User talk:Jinnai|内]][[Special:Contributions/Jinnai|'''Jinnai''']] 20:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I think it's like spitting into the wind, but this does seem likely to be a potentially nasty swipe at crowd-sourced work. So much so that it's possible Wikipedia would be unable to continue in its current form. There are copyright problems here, and yes, they do get fixed (generally quite quickly) but the law might force us into pending revisions or something similar just so we are taking every step possible to avoid copyright violations. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 21:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
**I do think this should be US-only. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 22:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - The proposed law is yet another step down the slippery slope towards political censorship. If the WP community wants to make a statement, they should use whatever tools they have available. A strike is a good tool. --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 21:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Extremely Tentative Support''' 1. If it could be clearly demonstrated how the law would affect Wikipedia, and 2. if that were to be stated on the blanked pages. Then it could be an effective protest, and appropriate. [[User:First Light|First Light]] ([[User talk:First Light|talk]]) 21:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. While I'd never condone copyright infringement, or piracy .. A government that tries to take power away from the people, and give it to themselves is a very frightening thing. There are already mechanisms in place to deal with these issues. — [[User:Ched Davis|Ched]] : [[User_talk:Ched Davis| ? ]] 21:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Tentative support'''. Promoting and defending the neutral point of view, and our goal to make the sum of all human knowledge freely available, is central to what we do here — as I have noted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=465172388&oldid=465171273 below]. However, the case needs to made more clearly that SOPA threatens Wikipedia and our ability to do this before we consider taking action and/or what action to take. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 21:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Full Support''' - I was right behind it.wp when they held their strike, and I fully support en.wp doing precisely the same. It's a matter of principal to me, that governments should not interfere with peoples interests in a democracy - taking the power away from the people, and giving themselves more. It's nothing short of crazy. Go Wikipedia. [[User_talk:BarkingFish| '''BarkingFish''' ]] 21:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. To convey what I think, I'm afraid that I need to say this in a nuanced way, rather than saying support or oppose, because I'm actually somewhere in between. I very much support working to prevent the passage of any legislation that would hurt Wikipedia's mission. Therefore, I strongly support Jimbo speaking, with the backing of our community, against the legislation at the White House. Indeed, I think that a statement that a strike might occur will get attention in much the way (qualitatively, not quantitatively, in terms of the number of people reached) as would a strike itself. I would even support a press release from Jimbo and/or the WMF saying that a strike might occur. And I would strongly support WMF engaging as a legal party in litigation. But, on the other hand, I would oppose actually having such a strike. Our mission is to provide this encyclopedia, not to provide it only when we choose to. I agree with some of the editors above that this action could set a precedent in which editors might strike for reasons that become more partisan, and degrade Wikipedia's prestige. I would like our focus to be on fixing the legislation before it passes, rather than on reacting to it after. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
* {{ec|2}} '''Strong support''' If this is what we need to do to convince the public of the possibly drastic effects of SOPA, then so be it. I am all for this. [[User:Logan|Logan]] [[User_talk:Logan|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Logan|Contributions]] 22:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' developing options for en. domains. The [[anglosphere]] forms a cohesive political-economic unit, and regularly trial policies in one area for export to another cf the [[New Zealand experiment]]. About the only power which it is legitimate for the en wikipedia to use collectively, is to strike against attacks on the encyclopaedic process by outside forces. I'm not in favour of symbolic striking—the point is to disrupt the circulation of capital in a domain—if we strike, it has to be either for a set period (rolling set periods?) or indefinitely. One slightly more strategic plan would be to blank all US categories. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 22:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong support'''. Factual information should be free to access and learn from. Anything which eradicates access to knowledge is an abomination. SOPA goes well beyond its target of combating internet piracy; when it turns to shutting down or criminalizing what is currently free, legal access to knowledge, as is present on Wikipedia, it goes much too far. [[User:Melicans|Melicans]] ([[User talk:Melicans|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Melicans|contributions]]) 22:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' right now corporate complaints about wikipedia content do not have the capacity to strongly influence the site as a whole. We earned this independence through years of steadfast commitment to our principles and refusal to accept advertisements. All of that can (and will) be swept away by SOPA. The ''intent'' of the law may cover filesharing and other activities unrelated to wikipedia's focus but the letter will undoubtedly be used to demand the removal of critical material or documents (even where those documents are in the public domain or otherwise freely licensed). Imagine the [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/technology/internet/29inkblot.html?pagewanted=all Rorschach Cheat Sheet] scandal where SOPA was in place. The APA or the International Society of the Rorschach and Projective Methods could have easily filed a SOPA request (even a trivially false request) and attacked our fundraising sources and DNS routing. We see fraudulent DMCA takedown requests on youtube all the time so the paper penalties for lying on a SOPA request are likely to have the same deterrent effect (read: 0). We need to commit to the open web and explain to our readers that the english wikipedia is in danger should congress pass this bill. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 23:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - A few days without the sum of all human knowledge is worth it to send a message to keep the Internet safe. [[User:ZamorakO o|ZamorakO o]] ([[User talk:ZamorakO o|talk]]) 00:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I'm not interested in involving Wikipedia in politics, but as Trotsky said about the dialectic, politics is very interested in us. --[[User talk:Gwern |Gwern]] [[Special:Contributions/Gwern | (contribs)]] 02:13 13 December 2011 (GMT)

*'''Oppose, really bad idea.''' ''Blanking the site for a political purpose, even one that helps Wiki, is using power over content for advocacy. It's in the same class as deleting an article that might help a candidate or cause some subset of us don't like.'' Yes, not as egrigious...but in the same class. (And there will be some subset of Wikipedians that support SOPA. Heck, I hear they even let Republicans edit this site, occasionally.)
*'''Strong Support''' The block should only apply to the US. [[User:AlexTingle|AlexTingle]] ([[User talk:AlexTingle|talk]]) 23:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

:For that matter, I don't know the details of the law and many here don't (I expect, sure some do, but I'm not the only one, I bet). I'm not sure that the benefits from Wiki keeping it's legal fiction outweigh the benefits of stopping privacy. (And let's be real...it is big time fiction. This is an encyclopedia, not an ISP, not even a chat site.)

:Lastly, I don't like being polled on this without more work and presentation by the RFC submitter and the argument by Jimbo with first person not giving him the answer he wanted seemed both weak in sophistication and annoying in the manner of hassling an RFA opposer. It's also really bad form to be posting this on your user talk page, which has some tendancy to be populated by sycophants. It would show more respect to the group to have posted this on Village Pump or some central notice board. [[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|talk]]) 00:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

:P.s. That was the moral argument against (and I mean it). That said, if you just want to win a political battle, by all means use every weapon at your command (underhanded or not). And this is probably an excellent weapon in efficacy. I just hope you let me get my content off the site before downing it. (But in terms of efficacy, the shock tactic would be better.) Might even be good for keeping me away from this place (good for you and me). -TCO

::'''Comment'''. Since we created the content, why should we not use our power over it for advocacy or any other purpose if we decide to? --[[User:FormerIP|FormerIP]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 00:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

:::Because of that little message below the editing window, the part about " you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL". It is not ours anymore. We deny access only to the site (or rather, we make the site effectively a single page advocacy message). The information's out there on mirror sites. Which do you think more likely, Google will support us on a matter of principle, or they will anticipate customer needs by substituting into the first page of search results a mirror site?--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 01:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::Google's so far up our arse we can see them in our bathroom mirror. They are not suddenly going to start preferring mirror sites because we take a position they undoubtedly agree with. Plus, that doesn't address my point. It's our content, we are free to do as we choose with it. We are also free to make a really bad choice in terms of search engine visibility, if we want to. --[[User:FormerIP|FormerIP]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 01:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::'''Reply.''' We produced the content and donated it to a site that had 5 Principles, one of which was NPOV. Now we would be blowing that. Furthermore, it would become consensus on when we "strike", so that is one step to legitimizing consensus for which candidate we support or how we want to slant articles to win political battles. (I might be being dense and this was entirely your point?)[[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|talk]]) 01:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::FormerIP, I ran a google search for the subject of one of the articles I've helped out on, [[Murray Chotiner]]. We were the first site linked too, unsurprisingly. Then I ran the search [Murray Chotiner -wikipedia] which exluded pages with the word "Wikipedia" on it. A mirror site with our content was #8. So we can't deny access to the information.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 02:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::OK, so? I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of a strike. --[[User:FormerIP|FormerIP]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 02:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::Educate me.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 02:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::It's to bring to people's attention why you should be valued and what they will be missing. If they still have mirror sites, then they still have mirror sites. But I doubt many people will think: "Who cares? We've still got mirror sites". If an airline goes on strike, then of course there are other airlines. But that doesn't mean there is no point to the airline staff striking. --[[User:FormerIP|FormerIP]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 03:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, because they are generally striking about pay and conditions of employment, a dispute between them and the airline. Loss of business is a factor that both sides no doubt consider. However, here you would be striking for an ''external'' issue not within Wikipedia's control.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 13:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Moral support''' Since politicians aren't likely to listen to us, I'm not sure what this will do other than raise general awareness of an issue. But it is an issue that directly affects us in a negative way, and one that (IMO) needs greater public awareness. This being said, I'm a tad hesitant to get Wikipedia directly involved with any political issue, which may lead to accusations of bias. '''[[User:Themfromspace|Them]][[User talk:Themfromspace|From]][[Special:Contributions/themfromspace|Space]]''' 01:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''A "what the fuck?!?" Oppose'''. We're an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Did somebody forget this? The purpose of an Encyclopedia is to collect knowledge, not some kind of a means towards political advocacy. We are not a [[Political action committee]] and honestly, this whole proposal just illustrates how out of touch with the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia - to build an encyclopedia - a lot of editors here are, including apparently Jimbo himself. Of course anyone is free to support whatever kind of measures they wish on an individual level. So go strike yourself. Put up some infoboxes on your user pages. Stop editing for a month or two. But this whole proposal is just so fundamentally at odds of what this project is about that it's actually mind blowing that this is being proposed with a straight face. Wikipedia is NOT facebook. It is NOT a blog. It is NOT a crusading newspaper. It is NOT a lobbying organization. It is an encyclopedia. How about we go and at least try to get the "encyclopedia: a collection of knowledge" part right first (which, given the low quality of a lot of our content has some ways to go) and then maybe after we manage to get that part right we can give ourselves the latitude to go off on off-topic crusades. Stop trying to be cute, write or improve some articles first. That's what we're here for.

:And oh yeah. Why this particular cause and not some other?[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 01:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::Because it is said that it threatens wikipedia's existence. That's why "this cause". [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] [[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]] 01:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::It had to be said: {{cn}}--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 01:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::LOL. Thus my wording "it is said"; go ahead and accuse me of missing inline-citations, since the links are in the discussion below ;) [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] [[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]] 01:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::You'd fail at FAC, those links are hardly a comprehensive survey of the field. Might not even get to B class.:)--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 01:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::Marek, that's the most clearheaded thing I've read all afternoon. I've been sitting here watching arbs and people for whom my respect is slightly shaken support this thing and I was wondering if I've been ported into an alternate universe or something.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 01:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::Whether one supports or not, saying that this is "fundamentally at odds of what this project is about" is not clear-headed, but confused. Suppose the law was instead to ban the collection of knowledge? Would that have nothing to do with the "purpose of an encyclopedia"? ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 12:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::Oops. I just read TCO's first post. It's a tie.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 01:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:: I second [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] -- this is just crazy, and it's horrifying to me how many wikipedians are on board with this... I know I'm a wikipedia nobody, but I guess I just trusted that the community would ensure that it sticks to its ideals. I actually had just started preparing a few articles to replace some of the really bad ones in nephrology to give back to something I've used for years and years, but now I honestly really just not sure it's a good use of my time, and I can't help but believe that a whole lot of folks think the same thing. [[User:Karthik Sarma|Karthik Sarma]] ([[User talk:Karthik Sarma|talk]]) 00:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:::Sticking to ideals sometimes means defending them. That is a much more tricky proposition, as you have to understand what the ideals are, why they need to be defended, and how best to defend them. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 03:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:And more: seeing as we actually have an article on [[Stop_Online_Piracy_Act]], engaging in this kind of action would very obviously violate our core policies such as NPOV, not to mention guidelines like [[WP:COI]] (maybe someone could argue that it's okay to violate NPOV with regards to this subject in a "meta" kind of way while hypocritically making a pretense of observing "neutrality" on the actual article itself - but that shouldn't fly). We still have these "fundamental pillars" and this is still one of them, right? If so, why is this proposal even being taken seriously? Go away people. Find something better to do and stop trying to kiss Jimbo's (and at the end of the day he's just another editor just like me and he can make wrong headed proposals just as anyone else - but they're still wrong headed proposals) ass. And call me crazy but I happen to think that our core pillars take precedence over the "cause du jour", even if it is being pushed by the man himself.
:And in response to some of the more reasonable editors whom I respect who - in my opinion - jumped on this bandwagon for the wrong reasons: look, I think it's a stupid law myself. But it's not our job to fight it. Next time around, it's gonna be some different piece of political phenomenon, and one in which your personal opinion might agree with it. If this precedent - of Wikipedia getting into politics with both feet - gets set, then next time around you might find yourself at the losing end of community/Jimbo's proposals for political advocacy. Take a long term view and don't try to win a battle when you might lose a war.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 01:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::As above, this confuses NPOV with neutrality.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=465172388&oldid=465171273] If you think Wikipedia is "neutral", think again about the radical nature of its mission, and how unacceptable it is to some people, some societies, and some cultures to present viewpoints contrary to some prevailing dogma. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 12:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::: It really doesn't -- and you keep spouting the same thing over and over again without any real explanation. Sure, it's true that NPOV is not the same as neutrality. But in this case, wikipedia is taking a POV on an issue, and there's really just no way around that. The only difference, in my mind, between some sort of holocaust denier blanking all the WP pages in protest of wikipedia's affirmation of the holocaust and this proposed action is that most wikipedians seem to think *this* cause is right -- we don't get to make that choice! [[User:Karthik Sarma|Karthik Sarma]] ([[User talk:Karthik Sarma|talk]]) 00:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::I do not spout: I express my views clearly, and based on principles, and I have a long-standing reputation for doing so. You assert instead that "wikipedia is taking a POV on an issue" without explaining what you mean by "wikipedia", or what you mean by "POV". Have you not yet understood that NPOV is a point of view? ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 01:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::: Fair point -- I should have said 'wikipedia would be taking a POV on an issue if this proposal were to be enacted.' The issue is SOPA, the POV is 'SOPA is bad,' and 'wikipedia' would be whoever would enact the proposal (likely the community itself). NPOV is a protocol. If you mean that whether or not something is NPOV requires taking a POV, then sure, you're right. My POV is that a blackout due to the current wording of SOPA is a POV and constitutes a violation of NPOV ;) [[User:Karthik Sarma|Karthik Sarma]] ([[User talk:Karthik Sarma|talk]]) 01:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::: Thanks. I am also concerned that action might compromise our principles: however I think our principle to make knowledge freely available is more of an issue here than NPOV. When discussing politics it is all too easy to be naive. Politics has a bad name: our main exposure to it is through political corruption and career politicians. However, any activity involving more than two or three people is inherently political. This discussion is political and anyone contributing to it is engaging in politics. Wikipedia is political. Even the view that Wikipedia should seek to maintain its neutrality, as seen by the outside world, is political. The goal to make the sum of human knowledge freely available is political. NPOV itself is political. Wikipedia has values and principles which are political. The discussion here concerns the extent to which SOPA may or may not compromise or harm those principles. There are no easy answers, but pretending that this has nothing to do with us because "Wikipedia is neutral" completely misses the point. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 02:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::: In the spirit of fairness, I'll point out that I never said it has nothing to do with us -- I only said that the option presented here is not one that we should take. There are other options open to the community and to use as individuals. I won't claim to understand politics (since nobody truly can), but I am rather literate in the arena and I have been pursuing the problems with the current SOPA draft through the usual channels, and I have not yet seen any evidence that this approach will fail. Wikipedia is just not the right place to be staging a protest or a forced strike or whatever you want to call it... if individual wikipedians want to go on strike, that's fine. To black out everything is, however, simply too much a violation of the WP spirit. [[User:Karthik Sarma|Karthik Sarma]] ([[User talk:Karthik Sarma|talk]]) 03:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::: We are neither yet at that point, nor does the hat-text of this poll say that we are. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 03:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::: Erm -- that's *literally* what it says - a general strike a la it.wp [[User:Karthik Sarma|Karthik Sarma]] ([[User talk:Karthik Sarma|talk]]) 05:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*After hours of thinking: '''Support something''', pending specifics about the form the protest will take. [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] [[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]] 01:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*:(EC) To be perfectly honest I'm having trouble discerning the sarcastic from the fanatic comments at this point. Which actually says something about the proposal itself and the level of consideration. So I'll just leave that there.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 01:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' If necessary at a critical moment when it may actually help prevent legislation that would threaten this encyclopedia's future. Our policy against advocacy is not a suicide pact, and one legitimate exception, in my opinion, is to advocate for our continued existence. [[User:Cullen328|'''Cullen'''328]] [[User talk:Cullen328|''Let's discuss it'']] 02:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Wikipedia or the Commons actually being shut down by the government for alleged corporate copyright violations would bring down a hellstorm of public protest, far beyond what any local staged protest might do. We'd be back in a day or less, the feds would be backpedaling, and the corporation calling for the shutdown would be covering their asses at the speed of light. Such an event might very well lead to eventual repeal of the stupid law, and a career-ending calling out of every politician who voted for it.Also the whole thing is a very good reason for the world needing a "backup root DNS" that is not based in the USA, and which therefore is not under direct political control by the US government. [[User:DMahalko|DMahalko]] ([[User talk:DMahalko|talk]]) 02:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
* What the hell am I supporting? Are we going to wipe the servers for a week or something? If so, don't be so bloody stupid. — [[User talk:Fox|Joseph '''Fox''']] 02:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:: The [[Italian Wikipedia]] changed every page to edit as only "View source" for a few seconds before redirecting the page to a rant about why the website was blocking access to every page. Page source markup could only be copied by stopping the browser at "View source" and then just edit the text offline, until the Italian WP resumed access 3 days later. It was very frustrating, and pageview counts of most pages plummeted when people realized they would no longer see articles. -[[User talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 07:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' SOPA isn't the only act (of war) being taken against open and free dissemination of information online, though. It'd be good to attack the issues in other countries also. '''&tilde;[[User:Danjel|danjel]]''' [ [[User_talk:Danjel|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Danjel|contribs]] ] 02:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' If Wikipedia sleeps on this and it passes, it will irrepairably destroy what we are doing here and we'll not have a chance to have a voice then. In this case, sticking to WP:NOTADVOCACY is damaging to the 'pedia. This would be the only case I would support this sort of advocacy though.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 03:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' We seem to be putting the cart before the horse. Strikes are what you do when all else has failed and there are no other options. Even if (hypothetically) a strike was a good choice it wouldn't be a good first choice. [[User:Cloveapple|Cloveapple]] ([[User talk:Cloveapple|talk]]) 04:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I oppose the legislation, but that's a political view. I don't ever want Wikipedia to take a political view, no matter how much I agree with it. [[User:Ntsimp|Ntsimp]] ([[User talk:Ntsimp|talk]]) 05:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[User:Brad101|Brad]] ([[User talk:Brad101|talk]]) 05:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''' This is one of those cases where it's for Wikipedia's own survival. There is no slippery slope to boycotting for gay marriage or other things. Those things don't stop WikiMedia from hosting pictures of Eric Cartman with gray sideburns at a blackboard in the [[Dances with Smurfs]] article. SOPA jeopardizes all of our photographic and audio database because a few things are considered copyright by some company while we consider we have [[WP:Fairuse]]. Those things don't open up Wikipedia to blackmail by industries who have their employees non-stop post copyright material here and then threaten Wikimedia Foundation with a shut down if Wikimedia doesn't open up it's top banner to advertising. You believe that some business won't play underhanded? Just wait... SOPA will be the law that at best opens up the top banner to advertising to get concessions from the Wikimedia Foundation to keep it's doors open from non-stop litigation. [[User:Alatari|Alatari]] ([[User talk:Alatari|talk]]) 05:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Lobbyists and their politicians always overreach and try to do too much, and it falls upon those that would be affected to clearly draw attention to the problems ''in advance''. Editing some article does not cut it, while blanking Wikipedia would focus the minds of a large proportion of those who use the Internet. The outcomes of a bill like this are hard to predict, but the bill is intended to put the onus on websites to react to every kite-flying exercise and is not compatible with Wikipedia as it exists. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 06:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''': SOPA would cripple Wikipedia's ability to function. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] ([[User talk:Carnildo|talk]]) 06:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - [[User:Koko90|Koko90]] ([[User talk:Koko90|talk]]) 10:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
====Poll continued (break one)====
*'''Strongly support'''. Raising awareness about SOPA is critical before it's too late. As an internet-based tool, Wikipedia has a vested interest in fighting SOPA. Furthermore, the citizens that compose Wikipedia have a duty as citizens to prevent it. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/130.215.117.42|130.215.117.42]] ([[User talk:130.215.117.42|talk]]) 06:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 
*'''Weak oppose'''. I thing that SOPA is really horrible, but I do not believe that it would be that disastrous for Wikipedia; the worst thing would be to filter our external links for copyright-infringing websites (aren't they already against out policies?). If you do this, please at least make it much softer, maybe do just a warning instead of total boycott like it.wp did. [[User:VasilievVV|vvv]][[User talk:VasilievVV|t]] 08:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose''' The sense of entitlement reflected in this proposal is Occupy-grade obnoxious. If Wikipedia is really going to be this frightened by lawmakers' legitimate concerns about intellectual property rights, Wikipedia may as well put a big sign on the front door announcing it knows it will never be able to effectively police copyright, and it doesn't care. [[User:Townlake|Townlake]] ([[User talk:Townlake|talk]]) 08:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)</s> Change to '''Support'''. This will awaken the world to the heretofore little-known reality that Wikipedia is riddled with copyright violations. I'd be fascinated to see how publicly announcing this plays out. [[User:Townlake|Townlake]] ([[User talk:Townlake|talk]]) 04:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' this has nothing to do with Wikipedia - the US government is not going to shut down this project regardless of legislation - and to remain neutral we ''must'' avoid taking political stances.
* If you feel really strongly about this go and protest in your own time. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 08:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*: There appears to be disagreement as to whether this has something to do with Wikipedia. Whatever your view, however, please don't confuse NPOV with neutrality.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=465172388&oldid=465171273] Wikipedia is not neutral at all, but promotes a rather radical agenda to make the sum of human knowledge freely available to all. NPOV itself is far from neutral: many would regard it as harmful to present all significant views fairly and without bias. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 12:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
**:The appearance of neutrality is why we don't include ads - that appearance includes not making overt political stances on things which aren't obviously directly relevant to the project (e.g. the Italian thing) - this bill may be bad, but that's the job of American citizens to sort out - go and protest about it. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 14:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
**:: Some people think it is directly relevant, as, for example, it might force Wikipedia to check all contributions for copyvios ''before'' they are posted, thus compromising the principle that anyone can edit (as well as being completely impractical). ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 15:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC) PS. There are many reasons Wikipedia does not have ads (freedom, for example) - that's not the basis of an argument.
*:Of course I support NPOV. But the very idea of Wikipedia is ''not'' neutral: Wikipedia is an incredibly subversive idea when viewed in the context of human history. The fact that you might think that Wikipedia's mission could in any way be considered neutral shows what a wondrously privileged position you're able to speak from. Through most of human history— and in large parts of the world today— knowledge has been tightly regulated for a multitude of political, social, and economic purposes. In some circles, the very concept of NPOV is incredibly controversial, even sacrilegious. The basic fact is that neutrality is not neutral.
*:This is also all very much a real and direct issue for us in many ways. Consider: one of our other tenets is verifiability—but how can we uphold verifiability if truthful information can be suppressed elsewhere without even a reasonable lawful process? As I say in my support, if you erase something everywhere else, you erase it on Wikipedia too. Of course people can dodge the law, but underground sites don't make for good citations. We depend on the freedom of others even more than we depend on our own. We're able to adopt a very narrow copyright policy and maximize the freeness of our works precisely because there are ''other'' people to distribute the questionable stuff. It may be the case that "the US government is not going to shut down this project regardless of legislation", but that privilege means that the free speech of an entire nation would be our moral burden. Taking a stand here and now will simply be less costly than dealing with the consequences of not doing so. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell|talk]]) 02:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''' I would have suggested a site-wide blanking of content like the Italian Wikipedia back in November had I not look like the lone crazy suggesting it. I withheld my opinion because ''I thought'' the U.S. government was smart enough to shoot this proposed bill down, but obviously I was wrong. This bill would subject websites to censorship akin to The People's Republic of China, Iran and North Korea, and it would not only have an effect in the United States, but globally. It effects Wikipedia, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter, and any other website which a corporation or the government itself felt the need to have information purged from it and blacklisted to prohibit copyright infringement. This isn't just for what's good for Wikipedia, this is for the good of the internet, because this bill will make it unable for us to keep it the way it is. A temporary redirect can always be taken off and reverted back once it's over. Allowing the government to blacklist and change our content because they want to protect copyright, is not fixable and shouldn't be allowable. — [[User:Moe Epsilon|Moe]] [[User talk:Moe Epsilon|ε]] 09:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strongest support in the world''' This is a direct threat to Wikipedia's mission, to provide the best knowledge to anyone free of charge. [[User:PaoloNapolitano|Paolo]][[User talk:PaoloNapolitano|Napolitano]] 11:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''LOL''' How about instead, the WMF puts some of its skyrocketing budget into paying some professionals to make sure that Commons and WP don't contain any material that could be interpreted as violating copyright? Then you wouldn't need to worry about this bill. If WP has its house in order, you don't have to worry about the lawman. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 11:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''; until such a time as someone with proper legal training can explain, cogently, whether and to what extent this will affect Wikipedia in a material way. --'''[[user:ErrantX|Errant]]''' ([[User_talk:ErrantX|chat!]]) 11:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::Errant, don't have legal training but I've researched this. The primary concern for Wikipedia is: a number of legal commentators say it would make sites whose users post content research their posts to make sure that they do not infringe copyright. Under current law, the safe harbor provisions of DMCA say that if someone posts copyrighted material Wikipedia must take it down as soon as it is notified of the violation, but so long as it does do that, it cannot be sued for a copyright violation. There's much more, but that is the part most pertinent to Wikipedia vs anyone else. It mandates high-stakes user moderation, on steroids. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 14:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::'''Comment''' - ErrantX, maybe it would be a good idea to ask Geoff (WMF Counsel) to study the text of the bill, and get a clear explanation from him as to the effects that SOPA would have on Wikipedia. Any thoughts from others? [[User_talk:BarkingFish| '''BarkingFish''' ]] 19:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': as a citizen of another country. This is a international site ([[.org]], [[.com]]), not a [[United States]] site ([[.us]]). ~~[[User:Ebe123|Ebe123]]~~ → [[User talk:Ebe123|report]] on my [[Special:Contributions/Ebe123|contribs]]. 12:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' The unfortunate reality is that US governmental actions affect us all. My country (Australia) follows the US slavishly, particularly in regards to IP legislation and I don't doubt that we'll follow along this time as well. '''&tilde;[[User:Danjel|danjel]]''' [ [[User_talk:Danjel|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Danjel|contribs]] ] 13:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::I would not advise you to tell your MHR and your state's senators (or territory's) that they are slaves to the United States. Certainly not in person, from my studies of Whitlam, I understand Aussie politicians are pretty feisty.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 13:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::I like the Aussies--they come to all our wars. {{=)|wink}}
:::::Whitlam is a completely different species of politician against the gang we have in power at the moment. On one side of politics we have the "Liberals" (capital-L liberals) who are exploring new territory on the conservative/right side of politics. On the other, we have the ALP who, for the most part, are pretending to be Liberals. Seriously. We practically have a one-party system, and they're both in a completely sychopantic relationship with the US. '''&tilde;[[User:Danjel|danjel]]''' [ [[User_talk:Danjel|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Danjel|contribs]] ] 14:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::Ebe123 — .com, .org, and .net are U.S. domains. [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] [[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]] 14:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' This argument is completely invalid due to the fact that Verisign controls the com, net, and org registries. The US gov't considers these domains to be under their control no matter which registrar they are purchased through, and no matter where the registrant is located. [[User:Jasonid|Jasonid]] ([[User talk:Jasonid|talk]]) 00:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' as a British Wikipedian: that it's only a US bill is irrelevant, as it will have measurable repurcussions on the rest of the world. And "only wrongdoers have to be concerned" is a shitty reason that has historically being used by authoritarian governments to roll back civil liberties. The fact of the matter is, it'll only be copyright problems at first that'll be blocked, then anything else The Powers That Be dislike that'll be blocked next. As much as I risk pulling a Godwin, [[First they came|first they came for the communists]]... this bill threatens the entire project, and the entire internet. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 13:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
** Then go and protest about it in your own time. -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 14:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
**: By posting a support comment here, at the weekend, that is almost certainly what Sceptre is doing! :) ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 15:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
***[[Hilary Benn|My MP]] (for the past year and a bit) is anti-FOI, pro-[[control order]], so I don't think writing him would do any good... although I remain a member of [[Lib Dem|the party]] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/aug/02/vince-cable-government-plans-filesharing?CMP=twt_gu that is using some clout to loosen up copyright legislation wrt: fair use]. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]]) 16:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''', although if there comes to be a poll on striking I would like the implications of the bill for Wikipedia to be made clear to everyone who is voting. '''[[User:It Is Me Here|It Is Me Here]]''' '''[[User_talk:It Is Me Here|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/It Is Me Here|c]]''' 14:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:Scratch the future tense:
:*[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/rootkit-brouhaha/ CarrierIQ Nov 2011]
:*[http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/_improper_use_of_copyright.php Cryptome Feb 2010]
:*[http://www.divms.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/dieboldftp.html Black Box Voting 2003]
:[[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 14:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose,''' per ErrantX: I have not yet seen a clear explanation, by a competent lawyer, of how exactly this bill would impair the operation of Wikipedia. If there is a convincing case that it would, I would support some form of protest. [[User:Sandstein|''' Sandstein ''']] 14:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''LOL''' per Cla68. Watch out for that boomerang. --[[User talk:SB_Johnny|'''SB_Johnny''']] | [[User_talk:SB_Johnny|talk]] 14:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''', this threatens the very existence and survival of Wikipedia. One day is more than enough to get the message across then to spend several months teaching users how to get around US's version of Great Firewall of China. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 14:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''', because desperate times call for desperate measures, and hurts the entire internet community even if wikipedia comes out unscathed. In addition, Wikimedia and wikipedia are community organizations, however they are allowed to have an agenda. When that agenda is the freedom of information and citizens, why stop them from pursuing it? I fully support it. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.160.27.174|70.160.27.174]] ([[User talk:70.160.27.174|talk]]) 22:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC) 
*'''Conditional Oppose''' If I saw a clear explanation by wikimedia counsel or a group of legally qualified wikipedians that this law would harm the legitimate operation of wikipedia, then I would change my view to '''support'''ing any and all measures to oppose the bill. However, like several others above I have not seen that at the moment. From the very limited amount I have read on SOPA, although I consider it an odious piece of legislation, I have not seen anything that indicates it would harm wikipedia. [[User:Ajbp|Ajbp]] ([[User talk:Ajbp|talk]]) 15:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': As what I consider myself to be a netizen first and a US citizen second, I consider having sites that have committed to me (the average user) of being up and not being hijacked for every single political movement or money grab that comes across the owner's plate. Has the leadership or the Foundation considered the negative effects of the en community organizing a "Taking our toys and going home" temper tantrum on the largest wiki, one of the top informative repositories of data, and the reputation hit to the "Encyclopedia that anybody can edit" if we go through this? What about the editors in other regions of the world that use the EN wikipedia? If, next month Australia or New Zealand start the process that would put a great firewall in place will we issue another general strike? I'm sorry, but between this idea and the "Game Theory" research survey I ponder the need for a EN steering committee for the purposes of vetting proposed ideas that will effect the entire community. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 16:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support Alternative''' Wikipedia's job is to '''explain''' SOPA (and the Senate's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act PIPA]) so people can make up their own minds. Instead of a strike, which would '''remove''' all information, we should be focusing on providing as much information about these bills as possible - for, against, and otherwise. Going on strike would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. It would be an own goal. Currently, the article has three very limited [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#External_Links External links]. Not even the Official [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.03261: THOMAS] site is included. I would include in-depth reports such as [http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/sopa-internet-censorship-anti-piracy-bills-congress/story?id=15108326 ABC News]. I'm also confused by why PIPA has the Network Neutrality template, but SOPA does not. I suggest we get our own house in order rather than strike. [[Special:Contributions/75.59.206.69|75.59.206.69]] ([[User talk:75.59.206.69|talk]]) 17:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' —There are conflicting goals here. The side of opposition to this proposal is that our goals of neutrality and encyclopedism should not be compromised. The side of support is that SOPA's implementation could cause dramatic harm to the function or even existence of the Wikimedia projects. These are both reasonable points that I think can be broadly agreed upon. Where people disagree is in ''how'' we may go about minimizing the risk. Our position as a provider of neutral information precludes us from generally taking advocative positions: Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. However, I do think it's reasonable to advocate on issues that affect the project: if SOPA is implemented, Wikimedia might face trouble—so we can justify advocacy on the principle of the preservation and advancement of Wikimedia, rather than merely using our prominence to advocate unrelated changes. On the other hand, the proposed method of advocacy—effectively shutting down Wikipedia for some length of time—seems to go too far. It directly compromises our goal of encyclopedism: while the advocacy is in effect, we would be completely failing our goals. To be sure, it is a highly effective means of protest; but it is not justified when there are lesser methods that could provide nearly as much visibility for our issue without compromising other goals. For example, has anyone considered a simple click-through rather than an outright blackout? Has anyone considered US-geolocated banners in the style of the fundraiser banners, urging people to contact their local political representatives in opposition to the bill? There are partway measures that can be taken before the need for Italian-style drama. We should save that method for a case where we are more directly threatened: Wikipedia would fare comparatively better than many other social-media sites under SOPA because we already do extensive monitoring for and removal of illegitimately used content. While SOPA is still definitely to be strongly opposed (I personally think it's idiotic in many ways), it doesn't directly threaten us, as far as I can tell (I'm not a lawyer). Save the big guns for the really scary cases. :P {{[[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]]|[[User talk:Nihiltres|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Nihiltres|edits]]|[[WP:03|⚡]]}} 18:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*: Thanks for writing a comment that is worthy of attention from all points of view. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 23:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] | [[User_talk:Guerillero|My Talk]] 18:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' do what you think is best. [[User:Gerardw|Gerardw]] ([[User talk:Gerardw|talk]]) 19:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*The WMF doesn't give a shit about all the copyright violations sitting on its servers. We can go on strike ''after'' the WMF takes immediate action regarding the thousands of copyvios on Commons and the two-year backlog at [[WP:CCI]]. That this is even being proposed is completely hypocritical and disgusting. Why the hell are we protesting anti-piracy legislation when we're hosting illegal content on our own site??? '''/[[User:Fetchcomms|ƒETCH]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|COMMS]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|/]]''' 20:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
: I've got nothing but scorn and crocodile tears for CCI for running Richard Norton through a multi-week long proctologists exam. Seriously, CCI has nothing to do with anything in this department... Their purported "2 year backlog" is a product of their own making. And those people secretly love it. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 02:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::CCI is irrelevant. The fact is that the WMF is not actively or aggressively taking steps to address the numerous copyright violations it is hosting. It was at one point unwilling to even add a "not sure" license option to Commons' UploadWizard, because immediately putting a speedy deletion notice on copyright violations was too unfriendly to new users. '''/[[User:Fetchcomms|ƒETCH]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|COMMS]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|/]]''' 03:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::As one of the old-hand proponents of strict and narrow lawful behavior WRT copyright I find your position perplexing. The Wikimedia sites have the strongest free content requirements of any popular community contributed content site that I'm aware of by a long shot. Everywhere else makes you use a DMCA takedown to get rid of even the most obvious copyright violations. It was always my position that the fact that there were ''other'' sites that were willing to host the questionable stuff was a big reason that we could get away with being as strict as we are, otherwise our refusals to host things we weren't ''sure'' were free would intellectually impoverish mankind. Think of how much harder removing non-free content will be if Wikipedia is one of the few sites that can get away with hosting it? --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell|talk]]) 03:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' a US-only block, but '''oppose''' blocking access to the rest of the world, since it's a US-specific issue.—[[User:S Marshall|'''S Marshall''']] [[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]] 20:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Oh I love this idea. SOPA goes against Wikipedia ideals. Blanking would be a stunning event. [[User:Artem Karimov|Artem Karimov]] ([[User talk:Artem Karimov|talk]]) 21:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''', I think I don't have to repeat the reasoning for it, but I'd even make it world-wide, because the US position matters for many other nations in the world. People should be seeing that the passing of the bill has consequences around the whole globe. --[[User:The Evil IP address|The Evil IP address]] ([[User talk:The Evil IP address|talk]]) 21:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. While I can see why many people would want to do this, I'd like to remind everyone of the consequences of both types of actions. If we go ahead and blank the site temporarily in an act of protest, we lose our standing in the eyes of many as a neutral encyclopedia, and become closer and closer to a POV-pushing PAC. As some might remember, one of the reasons for the [[Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español|Spanish Wikipedia]] split was because of the possibility of ads coming, and many felt betrayed at writing content that they thought was for non-commercial purposes, only to have their trust seemingly betrayed. If we want to risk editors fleeing Wikipedia because they thought they were contributing to a nonpartisan encyclopedia, then go right ahead- but we'll be making a huge mistake. Also, I don't see how such an action on our part is even necessary. Does anyone here honestly think that the US government will be able to pummel us out of existence with lawsuits? The public outrage on any serious attack on Wikipedia by the government would be enough to make every legislator deeply worried about his reelection chances. Unless someone can tell me, with absolute honesty and certainty, that SOPA will destroy Wikipedia and that any inaction on our part will lead to certain doom, I will remain in strong opposition to this proposal.--[[User:Slon02|Slon02]] ([[User talk:Slon02|talk]]) 21:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' – As he has stated above, Jimbo already has enough influence to visit the White House. He doesn't need the the strike in order to speak to politicians, advisers, and the media. I'm not convinced that a strike would be the best way to attract the attention of the media and politicians. The Italian Wikipedia situation is different since they didn't have an Italian version of Jimbo to speak for them. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 22:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
** '''Strongly support.''' Media and politicians aren't the primary target; this is about Wikipedia's ten million daily visitors. We need a groundswell of opposition to shout down these noxious bills, and it's damn hard to make the average person care about some blandly titled legislation having something to do with "rogue websites". Slapping ten million people in the face with a warning just might turn the popular conversation around to what those in power are about to get away with. [[Special:Contributions/134.117.137.79|134.117.137.79]] ([[User talk:134.117.137.79|talk]]) 11:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I would like to better understand how this bill would affect us, specifically. I know that the [[DMCA]] grants us "safe harbor" against copyvio infringement lawsuits - that is, as long as we are reasonably vigilant about removing copyvio content upon discovery, we're safe from being sued by copyright holders. Fine and good. From what I've been reading, I gather that the SOPA legislation removes that safe harbor, and puts the onus of copyvio policing onto the content providers. So I wonder, could we continue to operate as we do in this brave new SOPA world? Or would we be required to fundamentally change our operating model? Would a level 2 across-the-board [[Wikipedia:Pending changes|pending changes]] implementation do the trick, or would even more stringent controls be necessary? I don't know. I would love to hear some specifics from our resident copyright law experts, or WMF legal counsel. --[[User:JaGa|JaGa]][[User_talk:JaGa|talk]] 23:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' SOPA could very well have horrible consequences for Wikipedia, possibly because some Government official feels threatened by our commitment to free access of information. Access to potentially damaging information about persons in Government, as well as information about Radical political theory, could be blocked as subversive under the guise of protecting copyright. I could see it getting very messy for Wikipedia, and I believe we should take a stand. Wikipedia has been successful due to the web's open interface; anything attempting to impede the free-flow of information is inherently against Wikipedia's ideals. Perhaps we could institute a day of protest, where Wikipedia is inaccessible and instead replaced with information about SOPA? [[Special:Contributions/68.195.21.220|68.195.21.220]] ([[User talk:68.195.21.220|talk]]) 23:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I'd like more attention on this issue, especially because, as a Canadian citizen, I have no way of expressing my discontent to any political leaders in the U.S. Wikipedia taking a stand on a bill this Draconian is only fair if said bill could cripple us. [[User talk:Master of Puppets|m.o.p]] 23:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Assume what I've seen of the bill is accurate, it would allow others to shut down (or ban from US-based DNS tables) Wikipedia entirely. It is something the ''community'' should take a stand on. (Wikimedia might take a stand on it, as well, but that's ''their'' decision. This is ''ours'', as the community.) — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 02:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Technical Neutral''' Not an oppose because I don't want to stand in the way if this is what the majority want however moving this direction from encyclopedia to political advocacy will affect my personal enthusiasm for the project.--[[User:Cube lurker|Cube lurker]] ([[User talk:Cube lurker|talk]]) 02:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - No sense getting worked up over every crap election-year proposal. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 02:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose'''. We're a public charity and aren't allowed to engage in political advocacy. This would be a good way to endanger our status as a charity, I think. And I'm skeptical that the United States government would pass a law that shuts down the Wikipedia. They're not fools. And if they did pass such a law, it'd probably be corrected quickly enough. And if it wasn't corrected quickly, that would mean the United States government is willing to accept the loss of the Wikipedia as collateral damage. And if they're willing to accept the loss of the Wikipedia, then going on strike is not going to change their minds about anything. --[[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 03:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)</s> After looking into this law some more, I now '''support''' any reasonable action including a strike or blanking, if this will help. This really is a pretty problematical law, and if I understand aright it really will likely cause the Wikipedia to be shut down pretty quickly. I'm still somewhat confident that this would be corrected, but my confidence is shaken somewhat, and even if corrected this might take too long. So it's a question of blanking now as a protest, or blanking later under duress for a long time if not forever. I'd prefer the former. I still think this could possibly cause problems for our status as a charity, but this would be preferable to not existing at all, I would say. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 05:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Strongly Oppose'''. Wikipedia is not a [[WP:CRYSTAL]]ball and cannot post [[WP:OR]] original-research statements, including hypothetical-danger comments to defend a strike. WP does not allow gossip or pet theories to even flood talk-pages. Plus, the proposed [[SOPA]] law does NOT seem to apply to Wikipedia [[file server]]s within the U.S. and so move or keep WP file-servers within U.S. borders, where the article "[[Stop Online Piracy Act]]" emphasizes the intent of the proposed law is to allow the U.S. Feds to prosecute violations of U.S. [[intellectual-property]] rights when violated by other nations, as if being violations of U.S. organizations. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 06:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
**That really doesn't make sense. The rules you cite apply to articles. [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] [[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]] 06:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::: The rules for [[WP:CRYSTAL]] and [[WP:OR]] also apply to talk-pages, where editors should not post unverifiable predictions (or product claims, "I bought one and it even ran 100 times better") on the talk-pages, so that covers most pages in Wikipedia (plus WP should not rely on ''[[argument to authority]]'' with claims that some dire event will happen, but instead have [[corroborating evidence]] as verifiable for the claim). As for the implementation of U.S. laws, there is usually a long delay between the passing of a law and the [[effective date]], which allows time to restructure to avoid many problems. I hope that clarifies the issues. -[[User talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 08:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::If [[WP:CRYSTAL]] and [[WP:OR]] apply to talk pages, then please provide a citation for that assertion to a reliable secondary source. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 21:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Temporary whiteout now is better then permanent struggle in future. — [[User:Czarkoff|Dmitrij D. Czarkoff]] ([[User talk:Czarkoff|talk]]) 07:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Wikipedia is a "free encyclopedia", not a lobbying tool. Incidentally, if we really want to use it for lobbying, there are countries where freedom on internet is seriously more threatened than in the USA or in Italy. [[User:French Tourist|French Tourist]] ([[User talk:French Tourist|talk]]) 08:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strongly Oppose'''. Do we really need to ''fork'' Wikipedia to ensure we keep a free encyclopedia available to anyone that cannot be used for lobbying? — [[User:Arkanosis|Arkanosis]] [[User talk:Arkanosis|✉]] 09:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' - I'm all for WMF or individual editors advocating free speech, but this should not be done in the name of the encyclopedia or its entire community, or at the expense of every reader and editor. We serve our readers by providing content, not by advocacy. [[User:Wctaiwan|wctaiwan]] ([[User talk:Wctaiwan|talk]]) 10:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Though the extent of my support may just be me complaining loudly on Facebook. [[User:Marcus Qwertyus|'''Marcus''']] [[User talk:Marcus Qwertyus|'''Qwertyus''']] 11:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - [[user:PatternSpider|PatternSpider]] ([[user tak:PatternSpider|talk]]) 12:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Uncertain''' I may be wrong, but I do not think this law would harm any of our [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pilars]]. In fact, it would only cause a reinforcement of the third pillar : Wikipedia shall become a completely free encyclopedia without any copyrighted content (no fair use…). Yet, I remain puzzled by the radical provisions implied : a single misunderstanding on copyright issues would be enough to bring the encyclopedia into serious troubles. [[User:Alexander Doria|Alexander Doria]] ([[User talk:Alexander Doria|talk]]) 13:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. SOPA would almost certainly cause problems for Wikipedia now. What's more, it probably would have killed Wikipedia and its open model at the beginning, before it had the clout it has now. A reasonably open and free internet is the environment projects like Wikipedia need to develop and flourish. This is not a generic lobbying attempt against a generic law - it's a limited action intended to draw attention to the fact that this law, as it is, threatens free content creation, free and open websites, and hence the free exchange of information. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 15:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. While I agree that this legislation would negatively impact Wikipedia and should be opposed, I am not convinced that a drastic step like blanking the site is the correct way to proceed. It could very well backfire. I agree with those who say that the mission of the site is to educate, so let's educate people about the legislation, and have a protest against it ''on'' the site, but not ''instead of'' the site. [[User:Neutron|Neutron]] ([[User talk:Neutron|talk]]) 15:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Blank the pages. We live in a world of rules and governments on power trips. Don't let them have ours. [[User:Mr little irish|Mr]][[user_talk:Mr little irish|little]][[Special:Contributions/Mr little irish|irish]] 16:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - SOPA gives the corporate world legal leverage to impinge the free flow of information on the web. WP is all about the making knowledge easily accessible to all. As such, the act runs counter to WP's "raison d'etre". Even without being well versed as to the details of this bill, it's pretty evident that WP has more to lose than gain with its passage. [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 16:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. For info only, I count 63 in support and 28 opposing to this point. I did it on my fingers, though and I only have ten, so please feel free to check, anyone. --[[User:FormerIP|FormerIP]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 17:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::I had 61-29, but it may be hard to get an exact count because many of the supports and opposes are very nuanced.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 17:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*I really, really, really hate to '''support''' bold and aggressive action here. That said, whatever happens, happens, and if Congress passes SOPA as law, and BHO doesn't veto, I oppose any subsequent civil disobedience. [[User:CharlieEchoTango|CharlieEchoTango]] ([[User talk:CharlieEchoTango#top|contact]]) 17:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - SOPA and similar legislation will be the end of the internet and as far as i am concerned the end of the internet at this point is the end of the world as we know it. Do WHATEVER will help stop it. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Shinigamidono|Shinigamidono]] ([[User talk:Shinigamidono|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Shinigamidono|contribs]]) 21:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC) 
*'''Strong Support''', even as a non-US user. SOPA is a threat to the very existence of wikipedia and similar websites. It would be naive to think that not taking real and direct action will somehow convince congress to drop the bill in the face of all the corporate lobbying. The US already tries to control what should be the nation-blind internet. Fight SOPA, fight for internet freedom. --[[User:AndrewTindall|AndrewTindall]] ([[User talk:AndrewTindall|talk]]) 21:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support'''. As many users have pointed out, Wikipedia is not a political tool. But if the people supporting Wikipedia (all those who have said '''support'''), those same people who stand against SOPA, want to express their voice in some way; why lot let them do so. [[User:Pjrobertson|Pjrobertson]] ([[User talk:Pjrobertson|talk]]) 21:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' This is not what Wikipedia is for. Jimmy Wales may wish to make a protest, but he can do it himself with his own resources, not suborn Wikipedia to be his puppet. The cause may be just, but this is just reaching out to use the most convenient, closest tool at hand rather than the most appropriate. Wikipedia does not belong to Jimmy Wales. Whatever happened to NPOV? [[User:Kodabar|Kodabar]] ([[User talk:Kodabar|talk]]) 21:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*:If anyone was under the impression that Wikipedia belonged to Jimmy there would be no question here! If this happens it would because the community supports it. In my view, the support here is overwhelming. I also don't think there is any conflict with NPOV (please search this page for my comments on that). --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell|talk]]) 03:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''' - This is legislation that would potentially shut wikipedia down. It would mean that edits would have to be PRE-APPROVED before they can show up, which is against the fundamental core principle of what makes wikipedia... wikipedia! The world must know that their beloved encyclopedia (and yes, wikipedia BELONGS to the world) is in danger! Blank it! Blank it for a day, or a week if you must, but blank it! [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] ([[User talk:Fieari|talk]]) 21:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''' - This is essential for the long-term survival of projects like Wikipedia. -- '''[[User:M2Ys4U|M2Ys4U]]''' ([[User talk:M2Ys4U|talk]]) 21:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I'm not sure blanking the pages is the best possible system, though. Personally, I'd display links to impartial, well-reasoned explanations of why SOPA shouldn't become law. For example, [[Laurence Tribe]]'s [http://www.net-coalition.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/tribe-legis-memo-on-SOPA-12-6-11-1.pdf letter] explaining how SOPA would violate the [[First Amendment]]. [[User:Orihalcon28|Orihalcon28]] ([[User talk:Orihalcon28|talk]]) 21:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Uncertain''' Protesting by advertisement, open letters in very available newspaper and magazin, and personal letters to everybody possibly involved, might be a good idea. But blanking WP for a certain time would not be effective. But the foundation should consider moving its legal registration and offices outside the USA [[User:Night of the Big Wind|Night of the Big Wind]] [[User talk:Night of the Big Wind|talk]] 22:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC) May I suggest Ireland?
*'''Support'''. The threat to Wikipedia's editorial independence is strong enough, outside of the threat to the Internet as a whole, to warrant this action. Were it "just" the Internet at risk, but Wikipedia were excluded, I would argue it was unwarranted. As Wikipedia itself may be affected by this legislation and how the powers it grants might be used, taking a stand is warranted. [[User:Throwaway85|Throwaway85]] ([[User talk:Throwaway85|talk]]) 22:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support'''. This legislation threatens the legal framework (DMCA Safe Harbor) under which Wikipedia operates. Under it, Wikipedia and countless other user generated media sites would be shut down. [[User:Dpemmons|Dpemmons]] ([[User talk:Dpemmons|talk]]) 22:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I have been growing concerned with the requests by law enforcement and private interest groups to abolish and/or erode civil liberties (or my personal life's activities period) before any crime has even been proven. [[User:Wsoder|wsoder]] ([[User talk:Wsoder|talk]]) 22:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''', because I believe that SOPA would seriously damage our ability to work towards our core project goals. —[[User:TheDJ|TheDJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 22:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support'''. Any legislation in any nation which has jurisdiction over all of Wikipedia's operations (and not just enWP), should be of interest and concern to this community. Especially one that folks feel "would seriously impact the functioning of Wikipedia for everyone" and possibly even put an end to open-source projects like MediaWiki and Mozilla. As a nonprofit in the US, it is WMF's legal right to do this and that exists for a reason. Saying it's only Wikipedia's job to profile this legislation would be like saying it's only the New York Time's job to report on an effort to end freedom of the press in the US - it's absurd and unrealistic. Maybe if we lived on Planet Utopia where projects and the laws which govern them didn't have to be concerned about each other - but that's simply not the world we live in. Covering our ears and saying "lalalalalala" hoping it will just go away or not happen is not an appropriate response for a mature and capable community such as Wikipedia. --[[User:Varnent|Varnent]] ([[User talk:Varnent|talk]]) 22:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Support''' with a clear plan of what to do if/when the actual law passes. --[[User:Quasipalm|Quasipalm]] ([[User talk:Quasipalm|talk]]) 22:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Support''' The legislation is overly broad, my personal feelings is that the response should be as overly broad. [[Special:Contributions/109.153.0.232|109.153.0.232]] ([[User talk:109.153.0.232|talk]]) 22:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Support''' Good idea. --[[User:EvanProdromou|ESP]] ([[User talk:EvanProdromou|talk]]) 22:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Support, but remember Protect IP''' SOPA will break the internet, so blanking Wikipedia is just a taste of what might come on a lot of sites if it goes trough. It's a good way to warn the general public about the dagers facing the internet. But if this is done I really hope that the message explaining why will include information about the [[Protect IP]], which is almost just as bad, but even more likely to pass! --[[User:Forteller|Forteller]] ([[User talk:Forteller|talk]]) 23:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

* '''Strong Support''' Its a great idea to stop a ridiculous law from being enacted. This would work great and really show how a community can band together to stop these politicians. [[User:Wmcscrooge|Wmcscrooge]] ([[User talk:Wmcscrooge|talk]]) 22:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

'''Support''' I'm in favor of this, but maybe in stend of blanking all the artcles you should use [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IPRC_Seized_2010_11.jpg ICE domain seizure waring], except in instead of "This domain as been seized by ICE" it should say something like {{Pre2|This domain as been seized by the United States Attorney Michael Doe pursuant to a seizure warrant issued by, the United States District Court under the authority of the Stop Online Piracy Act.

''The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of copyrighted works is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000.''
}}

and the should be a big button on the that links to the [https://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8336 EFF's page on SOPA] and says "halt web censorship based on unverified allegations of copyright infringement". [[User:Icedog|Icedog]] ([[User talk:Icedog|talk]]) 22:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:: This is a nice idea: see also [[User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Alternate_.22Blanking.22_Proposal]] below. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 23:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::I don't believe that Wikipedia should employ deceptive messages. The WMF shouldn't trick its readership into believing that Wikipedia really is the victim of SOPA. Also, that message would direct all of the readership's anger on an Attorney General who didn't really shut down Wikipedia; the outcry should be directed at the lawmakers and lobbyists responsible for SOPA instead. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 01:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
::::I agree with you that pointing the finger (especially inaccurately) would not be helpful. I wanted to draw attention to this idea not as an ideal, but as a contribution to further discussion on how we might take effective action (if we have to) without causing harm. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 02:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Strongest Possible Support''' SOPA is a direct threat to Wikipedia, among many other things. This action is more than warranted. [[User:Digitiki|Digitiki]] ([[User talk:Digitiki|talk]]) 22:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Support''' Very good idea. [[User:Chico75|Chico75]] ([[User talk:Chico75|talk]]) 23:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Support (with reservations)''' - I'm with the crowd who is leery of what this kind of political advocacy would mean for Wikipedia, but considering the circumstances, I think it is justified. SOPA is a huge threat to some pretty fundamental freedoms, and would almost certainly represent a threat to Wikipedia itself. [[User:Sprhodes|Sprhodes]] ([[User talk:Sprhodes|talk]]) 23:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

* '''Strong Support''' This law is not only dangerous to wikipedia, it dangerous to the entire internet. It encourages other governments to take a censorship approach to the internet. Most people will not be aware of this until it is too late. This will make people who otherwise would be unaware, at least aware of the discussion. I fully support this action. -[[User:Tracer9999|Tracer9999]] ([[User talk:Tracer9999|talk]]) 23:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

* '''Strong support with comments''' I'd support this during 24h, world-wide. However, since I think Wikipedia is a public service (not as in state-owned, but as ''commons''), I'd prefer that, instead of blanking all articles, every page is substituted by a message against SOPA, then let the user go through to the article after clicking a link. A cookie could be used to show the anti-SOPA message only once for each user/IP. Anyway, I'd support this strike even if the community decide it's better to to a full blanking. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:ColdWind|ColdWind]] ([[User talk:ColdWind|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ColdWind|contribs]]) 23:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC) 

* '''Strongest possible support in the world''' The permanent passage of SOPA is a greater threat to Wikipedia's neutrality than temporarily advocating against it, and advocating against it has a substantial chance to be a deciding factor in preventing its passage (although if Google or some other company with lots of eyeballs does something big, then maybe not). --[[user:Michael A. White|Michael White]][[User_talk:Michael A. White|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Michael A. White|C]] 23:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

* '''Support''' The threat posed by SOPA to both Wikipedia and the Internet as a whole outweighs the downsides here. --[[User:Trevor Johns|Trevor Johns]] [[User_talk:Trevor Johns | ✎]] 23:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

* '''Only this is an existential threat''' I think this is only appropriate if we truly believe that passage of this law would prevent Wikipedia from continuing in it's current form. The Italian law from my understanding would have make the site liable for content generated by users and forced the removal of *true* facts. I don't see this with SOPA, but if you believe that if SOPA passes you would have to discontinue Wikipedia forever, then yes blanking it is acceptable.[[User:Lotu|Lotu]] ([[User talk:Lotu|talk]]) 23:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Firmly Support''' Jimmy, this is the right way to go. Please do follow through on your plan. The politicians who have been bought and paid for by the media companies need to know that the people who they 'represent' will not go quietly into the good night. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/207.171.191.60|207.171.191.60]] ([[User talk:207.171.191.60|talk]]) 23:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC) 

*'''Strong Support''' The American people are oblivious that this is happening. Many of my friends have never heard of NDAA, SOPA, PIPA, etc. We '''need''' to do this. --[[User:Boywonder2|Boywonder2]] ([[User talk:Boywonder2|talk]]) 23:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' This is basically an issue of survival for WMF, so yes, absolute support. [[Special:Contributions/24.80.164.171|24.80.164.171]] ([[User talk:24.80.164.171|talk]]) 00:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support''' When SOPA passes, articles with a NPOV may have to be rewritten in order to comply. Though the WMF shouldn't take a political stance, after SOPA passes, it will have no choice. Blanking seems a bit extreme (much like SOPA)...perhaps a click-through message + banner + logo + background change would suffice over blanking. '''Blanking will render wikipedia useless for a day'''...this probably won't help donations and it'll lose a day worth of edits...but it would elicit the strongest negative response.[[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] ([[User talk:Smallman12q|talk]]) 00:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

====Poll continued (break #2)====
*'''Tenative Support'''. I would prefer if any such formalized strike discussion would occur closer to when the finalized version of the bill is finished, as it is about to undergo [[markup (legislation)|markup]]. Currently, it is only a draft. But as it is written now, the threat the bill poses to the project is thus far, quite real. It seems likely that Wikipedia would be the recipient of frivolous lawsuits over the copyrighted content that already resides on Wikipedia in addition to new copyrighted content that is uploaded everyday. Furthermore, websites are at a clear disadvantage when a claim is filed by a copyright holder-- all a copyright holder needs is a "reasonable belief" to sue, whereas the allegedly infringing website needs to show that the claimant "knowingly" and "materially" misrepresented the website's activity. [[User:I Jethrobot|I, Jethrobot]][[User talk:I Jethrobot| drop me a line]] (note: not a [[WP:BOT|bot]]!) 23:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strongly Support'''. I completely your idea and your call, Jimmy. [[User:Cdinesh|Dinesh Cyanam]] ([[User talk:Cdinesh|talk]]) 00:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Really Strong Support''' Anything could threaten Wikipedia '''must''' be protested. Anything. They know they can't live without Wikipedia a single month, every political uses the Wikipedia every day for them speeches. Everyone uses. They have to know how important we are for them before trying destroy us. [[User:MetalBrasil|MetalBrasil]] ([[User talk:MetalBrasil|talk]]) 00:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strongly Support'''. SOPA is much worse than many non-net citizens would like to believe. --[[User:Kampfers|Kampfers]] ([[User talk:Kampfers|talk]]) 00:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strongly Support'''. Any question of what might happen to Wikipedia as a result of a protest MUST be contrasted with the fact that, if this bill passes, there may very well not BE a Wikipedia to worry about. Regardless of what your position may be on Wikipedia getting involved in politics, existential threats are ALWAYS worth getting involved in. [[User:Glenn Willen]] ([[User talk:Glenn Willen|Talk]]) 00:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This is a dagger aimed at our heart. We must dodge before the thrust. [[User:Spot|Spot]] ([[User talk:Spot|talk]]) 00:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Absolute Support'''. Wikipedia must be active in opposing this new law, as it could affect any site to which content is posted by users. The common carrier protections must be defended, and it is time for Wikipedia to act in the strongest manner possible... or Wikipedia will cease to be the open website we need. People must be free to edit and contribute! [[User:Jasonid|Jasonid]] ([[User talk:Jasonid|talk]]) 00:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support with Reservations''' - This seems a little bold, and slightly against the open nature of Wikipedia, but, if it passes, Wikipedia is going to have a lot of crap to deal with, and the open nature may go away slightly anyway, so...--[[User:Unionhawk|Unionhawk]] [[User talk:Unionhawk|Talk]] [[Special:EmailUser/Unionhawk|E-mail]] 00:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support'''. Even if it is only taken down for an afternoon, this will send an unmistakable message that will resonate across the globe. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.102.253.12|81.102.253.12]] ([[User talk:81.102.253.12|talk]]) 00:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 
*'''Strongly Oppose'''. This is really not a good idea. I understand where it's coming from, I really do, and to some degree I agree with the anti-SOPA concerns. However, I think the idea that this is the 'end' of WP/WPF is a little overblown. The consequences on the American public will be significant and I do not think that most people are going to think 'oh, good for them -- standing up for their political ideals.' What *will* happen is that the media will make the WP community look like a bunch of whiny communists and most of america will simply assume that they're right, because they're angry that there's no more wikipedia for them. In the meantime, some big player will put up a replacement site and will win market share. I'd also point out that taking down WP, even temporarily, is screwing many of us contributors that spent time working on articles on the assumption that they'd be available free to the world without a political bent (and, though I'm not one of them, I know there are many contributors on the right who are probably more pro-SOPA). When the day comes that congress decides to outlaw free speech, then by all means take things down in protest. Taking the site down because you are concerned that a *draft* of a bill is going to give the justice department carte blanche to take down WP is absurd.
:Bottom line: This draft of legislation is not an existential threat. WP:ADVOCACY *does* apply in spirit -- blanking WP is akin to simply deleting all content. Blocking the site, even for a little while, will slam WP's reputation in the public and likely reduce our ability to respond to *actual* existential threats. And, most importantly of all, we do not ever get to choose sides! We can't decide to change the rules just because we don't like the way things are going any more than republicans or democrats can choose to ignore free speech when it becomes inconvenient. The moment this starts happening is the moment we become a political party that blackmails politicians into doing our bidding (which, by the way, won't work -- you don't think corporate america is dying for the day that wikipedia starts losing and they can get that juicy, juicy market share?)
:Please don't do this guys -- this is a bad, bad idea. [[User:Karthik Sarma|Karthik Sarma]] ([[User talk:Karthik Sarma|talk]]) 00:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Full Support''' - This is just the sort of thing that will change the game. [[User:VoodooKobra|Kobra]] ([[User talk:VoodooKobra|talk]]) 00:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Wholeheartedly support''' --[[User:EEMIV|EEMIV]] ([[User talk:EEMIV|talk]]) 00:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*Coming out of retirement to '''Strongly support''' this... --[[User talk:Vandalism destroyer|'''Vandalism destroyer''']] 00:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Firmly Support'''.
*'''Strong Support'''. This clearly threatens the existence of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia should be extremely clear in opposing the legislation. [[User:Larstebil|Larstebil]] ([[User talk:Larstebil|talk]]) 01:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support'''. This will make the average Joe realize what this bill can do. We humans tend not to care about what we are losing until we no longer have it. [[User:Gamerzworld|Gamerzworld]] ([[User talk:Gamerzworld|talk]]) 01:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong support'''. I agree with those who say that this is a matter of survival. This bill would (sooner or later) mean the end of user-generated content, which is Wikipedia's entire foundation. As for "not engaging in politics", that's all well and good, but when politics begins to threaten your very existence, it is time to get involved. One caveat: the rationale for why Wikipedia is doing this should be made ''very clear'' to any visitors to the site. There needs to be a simply-stated but well-referenced, bulletproof essay. [[User:Esn|Esn]] ([[User talk:Esn|talk]]) 01:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as this would impact our operations. - '''''[[User:Hydroxonium|Hydroxonium]]''''' ([[User talk:Hydroxonium|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Hydroxonium|C]]•[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Hydroxonium V]) 01:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support'''. We are an encyclopedia, but this insane law would severely interfere with the way we work. WMF would need thousands of employees to even start to attempt to obey this law, effectively killing Wikipedia. WMF should therefore oppose the law by the most effective means possible, not on moral or political grounds, but on narrow practical grounds. -[[User:Arch dude|Arch dude]] ([[User talk:Arch dude|talk]]) 01:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support'''. While I do not think that Wikipedia would be a likely target of SOPA/PIPA, I believe that a statement must be made, and WP has enough of a viewing group to make it. 01:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support.''' SOPA threatens the very fundamental aspects of the Internet as we know it. It will kill innovation and free speech. If we as Americans think internet filters in Iran and China are bad, this is right there with them in terms of impact and censorship. —[[User:Tony Webster|Tony Webster]] ([[User talk:Tony Webster|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Tony Webster|contribs]]) 01:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support.''' The mass opposition to SOPA is a strong sign, and I would applaud Wikipedia's bold move against. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.17.82.247|24.17.82.247]] ([[User talk:24.17.82.247|talk]]) 01:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

*'''Support'''. I support a strike by Wikipedia to help educate fellow U.S. voters about SOPA. [[User:MichaelLeonhard|MichaelLeonhard]] ([[User talk:MichaelLeonhard|talk]]) 01:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support'''. Do it right now while college papers are being written in the US. [[User:Scott Ritchie|Scott Ritchie]] ([[User talk:Scott Ritchie|talk]]) 01:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong support''' I doubt the feds would be stupid enough to allow all of Wikipedia to be taken down, or all of YouTube, etc. The backlash would be overwhelming. However they would not oppose taking down the next web innovation, known only to a bunch of geeks. The next YouTube, the next awesome WP-like project, the next Facebook, is what is at risk. A blackout can call attention to the loss of valuable resources which the public was unaware of ten years ago but now relies on daily. That's what we risk losing. --[[User:TeaDrinker|TeaDrinker]] ([[User talk:TeaDrinker|talk]]) 01:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support'''. This needs to be done and this is the right place to do it. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/128.222.37.58|128.222.37.58]] ([[User talk:128.222.37.58|talk]]) 01:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

*'''Strong support''' - I don't contribute as much as I view wikipedia, but I'd rather see it go down for a day, then it and half the internet go down for good! — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/199.21.200.124|199.21.200.124]] ([[User talk:199.21.200.124|talk]]) 01:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

*'''Strong support''' - Political arguments aside, this will reach the most people and carry the most impact. After all, what site do most people use at least once a day? We no longer have the luxury of being impartial. We are already on a side. The side that supports a free and open internet, accessible to all. [[User:Zenimpulse|Zenimpulse]] ([[User talk:Zenimpulse|talk]]) 02:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Definitely support''' - The broader public needs to be more educated about this issue.. Wikipedia is a great avenue to reach the general public. This trumps political issues. 21:08, 12 December 2011 (EST) — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/38.97.113.62|38.97.113.62]] ([[User talk:38.97.113.62|talk]])  

*'''Support''' doing something powerful. I blackout would be that. I do have some reticence though. Making the knowledge in English Wikipedia and maybe other sites inaccessible feels a bit like protestors who destroy their own neighborhood. Sometimes necessary to gain attention and perhaps justice in the long run, but always painful and with collateral victims. Sure, visitors to Wikipedia sites can come back later or find a mirror, but just as surely, the neighborhood will recover. Maybe. Admittedly the analogy is far from perfect, but I wish there were something the Wikimedia movement could do that would have power analogous to a mass physical action, but avoid costs analogous to the same. Long term, I think fulfilling the Wikimedia vision is exactly that. In the short term, maybe a total blackout is necessary, though if there's a a way to equally powerfully present to viewers what SOPA means, then let them access the knowledge, I'd prefer that. UI challenge? Surely some A:B testing is in order for this important action. I'd hope that at least some messages tested convey not only the threat SOPA poses to Wikimedia, but the long-term threat the Wikimedia movement poses to censorship. --[[User:Mike Linksvayer|Mike Linksvayer]] ([[User talk:Mike Linksvayer|talk]]) 02:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support''' — Some comments have suggested we needed proof that this would directly impact Wikipedia. I don't agree with the view any more than I'd agree with a view that since only .COM and .NET domains have been seized so far that a .ORG shouldn't care. SOPA will indirectly affect Wikipedia by changing the climate we operate in: Today, we're free to make the ''right'' decisions, free to abide by NPOV, and free to use our best editorial judgment because we operate in an environment where our freedoms are strongly preserved (and we're also free to make bold mistakes, the value of which can not be overstated), and we benefit greatly from others having the same freedoms. Even if Wikipedia's size grants it political protection from the direct effects of the law, our work and content also serve many people who don't have our voice. These reusers are a part of our mission too. Our work also depends on the writings of many people outside the projects: we shy away from 'original research' for good verifiability reasons, so if you silence something everywhere ''except'' Wikipedia you silence it on Wikipedia too. Moreover, the freedom to speak freely outside of Wikipedia is critical to our ability to make a quality verifiable encyclopedia in another way: by allowing us to ''exclude'' things in good conscience that our decision will not erase them completely. For these reasons, and many more, I support taking a stand here. Besides, I've found bold statements to be pretty effective myself. :) --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell|talk]]) 02:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - I fully support using the encyclopedia to fight against something that could frivolously shut it down or cost it money. --'''[[User:PresN|Pres]][[User talk:PresN|N]]''' 02:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support strongly''' - SOPA and PIPA are an existential threat to Wikipedia. They are the antithesis of what free information sharing is all about. At the word of one single complainant, without verification or corroboration, without any adversarial hearing or any determination by a judicial authority of any fault or guilt, all of Wikipedia could be shut down permanently. All it would take, literally, is one seller of widgets who doesn't like the (truthful) bad analysis of his company on his Wikipedia page. If that seller initiates an action, then on his say-so alone, ALL of Wikipedia could be shut down, with no recourse and no alternative. It is only fair for Wikipedia, as a community and as an organization, to show our displeasure at this sort of censorship and corporate control. As for NPOV, that's for what goes in an article. It has little to do with how the community and the organization themselves should behave. Taken to its logical extreme, the NPOV argument would suggest that NO Wikipedia editor should EVER get involved in anything controversial because that might call their neutrality into question. Hogwash on its face. [[User:Macoukji|Macoukji]] ([[User talk:Macoukji|talk]]) 02:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support strongly''' and NOT just for USA users, on the back of [http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93326/new-zealands-three-strikes-law-was-pushed-bought-and-paid-for-by-the-us-wikileaks/ US offering to author NZ ISP-copyright law] which directly ties US objectionable direct meddling with freedom of the pipes, to US objectionable meddling in 3rd country freedom to write their own legislation. For me, any perceived threat to WP directly is somewhat beside the point - it's about having the kind of internet which fosters, rather than frightens off, the ability of humans to share human culture, and thus could bring WP into being. ‒ [[User Talk:Jaymax|Jaymax✍]] 02:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' - PIPA/SOPA threaten Wikipedia and every other website that can be considered "controversial" by anyone. '''[[User:Oroso|Oroso]] '''[[User talk:Oroso|(talk)]] 02:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support strongly''' - This bill is not only a threat to Wikipedia, but to the entire internet itself. Please get this issue the attention it needs. There is going to be such great fallout and many ramifications if this bill passes. Make a stand, or forever wish that you did something. A site with such traffic and influence in public life will shake Congress and the pro-copyright-lobby to its core. This is the time to stand up, Wikipedia. [[User:Infernoapple|Infernoapple]] ([[User talk:Infernoapple|talk]]) 02:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Support strongly'''. Historically if laws exists, they get used; it must be assumed this law, like many others before it, will be used a given way if it is capable of being used that way ([http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaking-news-feds-falsely-censor-popular-blog-over-year-deny-all-due-process-hide-all-details.shtml eg]). Today it's "only" for IP protection. Tomorrow and elsewhere free speech gets killed and whittled down country by country under threat of litigation and criminality. Current laws related to carrier immunity got it right. I support the overriding right to access content even if deemed undesirable, even if much of the content would be problematic under US or another country's legal system, because other countries would feel justified in blocking content we see as important for humanity following our example. It's far too massively open to abuse, for the most powerful country on the net to declare war on net rights. Sorry, no. This is bigger than Wikipedia and directly contradicts what we most deeply believe in, which is free global access to all knowledge, a reliable neutral medium in which completeness of information can be relied upon, and trust that humanity will benefit more in the long run than if gates are closed and barriers established. Would be proud to support action if deemed necessary, to send that message. [[user:FT2|FT2]] ([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]]) 02:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' - while the idea of a strike on Wikipedia may be "fun" or an event to many, I believe this is an extremely bad idea. As a long-time lurker on Wikipedia, I too fear that SOPA could damage the project and/or raise the maintenance burden and discourage "anyone editing". However, I fear that striking on Wikipedia in any visible manner on the article space will damage our reputation as a reliable data source and cause many readers and editors to leave. I do not wish Wikipedia to have a political agenda to push -- People will either fail to understand or misconstrue our intentions. As an observer of many less technical people using the Internet, I notice people will come across a page that's not their article and ask themselves, "Why won't my Wikipedia work?" This is usually followed up by trying to refresh the page and when that fails they will either try searching the for the page again or stop using Wikipedia (for the time being). My point being: For those who don't know what SOPA is about: We can link them and try to make them aware, but it's not their article. They won't look. On the other hand, if we're trying to get the media's attention (and we would with a stunt like this), we will be unable to edit their articles and news segments; whatever ideas they are able to work out of our strike will be aired and read nationally. This will again push the wrong ideas to the general public. I can imagine the headline now: "The online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, has gone on strike today in protest of the US SOPA act. Wikipedia is well known for its neutral point of view and encyclopedic content." While I perfectly understand that WP:NPOV and all of our pillars do not apply to this issue, the news and general public might not quite get that point and we won't all be there to explain it to them. -- [[User:SnoFox|SnoFox]]([[User talk:SnoFox|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/SnoFox|c]]) 03:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:*A follow up thought, I would support something drastic and suicidal such as a strike if SOPA was slated to pass. For example, if vetoed and going back for the re-vote, feel free to strike. I'd even help. That would likely prevent the 2/3rds from getting there. I just think it's way too early to strike. As seen [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3261 here], it still has a while to go. -- [[User:SnoFox|SnoFox]]([[User talk:SnoFox|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/SnoFox|c]]) 03:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

====Poll continued (break #3)====
*'''Strong Oppose''' - Jimmy please do stop playing policy with this project. Did [[Eric Schmidt]] from Google call you up? This Bill pushes Google but it does not affect us as we play by the rules. The whole idea to black out Wikipedia is banana. :))) Let's wait until the Government blacks us out. :))) What won't happen. We are the least affected web project on earth. Let's not misuse our project for policy reasons that do benefit other web companies and let's go back to what we can do best - writing an encyclopedia. We do not need to get involved in policy that effects a lot of our big donors but has little affect on us. [[Special:Contributions/46.4.28.81|46.4.28.81]] ([[User talk:46.4.28.81|talk]]) 02:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' - The bill gives copyright owners too much power; it does not have accountability. [[User:WhereAmI|WhereAmI]] ([[User talk:WhereAmI|talk]]) 06:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Not to push an agenda, but to inform everyone about SOPA, and the effect of SOPA on the Internet. --[[User:Raul1231|Raul1231]] ([[User talk:Raul1231|talk]]) 03:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' - That being said, I think a rolling blackout (a few hours a day) will be just as effective but will be less disruptive to the site itself (continuing to be updated with new events and continuing to be a popular resource for information). [[User:Rdhettinger|Rdhettinger]] ([[User talk:Rdhettinger|talk]]) 03:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Oppose''' - Jimmy please do stop playing policy with this project. Did [[Eric Schmidt]] from Google call you up? This Bill pushes Google but it does not affect us as we play by the rules. The whole idea to black out Wikipedia is banana. :))) Let's wait until the Government blacks us out. :))) What won't happen. We are the least affected web project on earth. Let's not misuse our project for policy reasons that do benefit other web companies and let's go back to what we can do best - writing an encyclopedia. We do not need to get involved in policy that effects a lot of our big donors but has little affect on us. [[Special:Contributions/46.4.28.81|46.4.28.81]] ([[User talk:46.4.28.81|talk]]) 02:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' - --[[User:The.dvincent|The.dvincent]] ([[User talk:The.dvincent|talk]]) 02:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Conditional Support''' This action threatens NPOV/NOADVOCACY. The only way around it is if it's an action not by the users of wikipedia, but by the WMF itself, which is the right organization to do this.[[User:Takometer|Takometer]] ([[User talk:Takometer|talk]]) 02:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support'''. My understanding of this proposed legislation is very limited, but if I understand it correctly, this legislation will remove the safe harbour provisions of the DMCA. I have serious concerns of the effect that this may have on Wikipedia, which have already been expressed by FT2 and Macoukji. I feel the same way. I feel that this (a Wikipedia blackout) is an extreme measure, but as they say, desperate times call for desperate measures. [[User:Steven Zhang|Steven]] [[User talk:Steven Zhang|Zhang]] [[WP:DRP|Join the DR army!]] 02:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Absolutely. This law is unbelievably dangerous and we need to let people know what it's consequences will be. This website is the fifth most visited in the world and we will be massively impacted if this law passes. We need to do everything in our power to oppose this terrible piece of legislation. [[User:Thingg|Thingg]][[User talk:Thingg|⊕]][[Special:Contributions/Thingg|⊗]] 03:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strongly Oppose''' - Jimmy- this is a commerce issue, which has NOTHING TO DO WITH WIKIPEDIA. Let's stop pretending that piracy isn't an issue, and leave the laws up to the government. Read the new mark-up, only lawbreakers will be affected. Wikipedia getting involved in this will permanently soil its reputation. 03:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.12.52.213|24.12.52.213]] ([[User talk:24.12.52.213|talk]])  

*'''Strong Support''' If SOPA gets past the judiciary committee I think some action of this type is warranted. Wikipedia has always been a bellwether of the open culture movement, we shouldn't allow legislation which threatens the culture Wikipedia is a part of to pass without our voices being heard. [[User:Polyquest|Polyquest]] ([[User talk:Polyquest|talk]]) 03:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Weak Oppose''' for this proposal but '''Support''' for doing *something*. I do not feel there is consensus here for this kind of tactic. This won't be the last time this kind of action will need to be taken, either, perhaps next time there will be more clarity. [[User:Themusicgod1|Themusicgod1]] ([[User talk:Themusicgod1|talk]]) 03:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Opppose'''. Wikipedia's copyright stance is enough to avoid problems, and guess what? I actually ''believe'' that YouTube needs to reform its business practices or be forcibly shut down.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 03:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' for this proposal. As far as I am concerned, this would be the most visible stand that Wikipedia could take against this moronic law. In fact, I propose (if others haven't) that the shutdown be for a minimum of 24 hours, and during the week when it would be the most felt.

*'''Support''' Im just a guy whos been using wikipedia pretty much every day for years, and who has also been following the creeping death of the copyright industries endless demands for years too. I completely support the idea of using wikipedias considerable public exposure to bring the issue of the hateful SOPA bill to light, as the vanguard of the future of human knowledge we and WMF would be remiss if it didnt use this capability at such an opportune time, especially since the alternative of the influence the average citizen has on its government has never been lower than it is now. Its not just about downloading films and music, its about the whole INTERNET for gods sake, our culture, our commons, our privacy and our freedom. They want it all, and the US govt wants to give it to them. The line must be drawn here, this far and NO FURTHER. It has to stop! — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/213.107.5.93|213.107.5.93]] ([[User talk:213.107.5.93|talk]]) 03:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

*'''Strong Support''' This is the best way to educate people about SOPA. [[User:man with one red shoe|man with one red shoe]] 03:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

* First they came for the pirates, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a pirate. Then they came for the blogs, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a blogger. Then they came for the social networks, and I didn't speak out because I didn't use any social networking site. Then they came for me (Wikipedian), and there was no one left to speak out for me. ('''Support''') [[User:Yamamoto Ichiro|山本一郎]] ([[User talk:Yamamoto Ichiro|会話]]) 03:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - I say we set a precedent here. If Wikipedia is threatened with censure by law, it will oppose it using non-violent means within its power. Wikipedia will not remain neutral and will defend itself if when some force, regardless of other politics or agendas, threatens its mission or objective. -[[Special:Contributions/68.159.32.170|68.159.32.170]] ([[User talk:68.159.32.170|talk]]) 03:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong support'''- SOPA is both stupid and evil. It has the potential to seriously damage the internet, and will not be even remotely effective in its stated aims. Vocally opposing it is the right thing to do. [[User:Reyk|'''Reyk''']] [[User talk:Reyk|'''YO!''']] 03:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' I do think that it's important to keep Wikipedia neutral on a wide variety of topics, even ones that I myself consider crucially important. But Wikipedia is one of the pillars of the Internet and it is, by far and away, the most visible and influential not-for-profit, grass-roots, and free Internet institution. It has a duty to weigh in on SOPA in the strongest possible terms not just for its own constituency but to stand up for its fundamental principles of free, open, transparent and uncensored access to know for everyone. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rettkent|Rettkent]] ([[User talk:Rettkent|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rettkent|contribs]]) 03:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

*'''Support''' some sort of coordinated and targeted action that doesn't take the rest of the world hostage. Redirect all visits from Capitol Hill to eff.org for 24 hours instead? If Google, Facebook and so on did the same thing it would send a clear and targeted message. Have you spoken to Google, Facebook etc about this? The rest of the world did not elect your politicians and though I support what you're trying to achieve here, what do expect those of us outside the US to do about it? [[User:Vyvyan Ade Basterd|Vyvyan Basterd]] ([[User talk:Vyvyan Ade Basterd|talk]]) 03:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' It's a perfect demonstration of what will happen with just this one site should SOPA pass. SOPA will cause irreparable harm. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.50.60.85|69.50.60.85]] ([[User talk:69.50.60.85|talk]]) 03:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

*'''Strong Support''' The only thing that will stop SOPA is mass awareness. Not enough is being done as it is.

*'''Support'''. There has been very little attention paid to this issue by the media. This should fix that problem nicely :) — [[User:RockMFR|RockMFR]] 03:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*"'Strong Support'". Without action like this, there is a very strong likelihood that SOPA will pass despite the fact that much of the public would be against it if they only knew it were on the table. Wikipedia's strike would change this.[[Special:Contributions/70.53.104.243|70.53.104.243]] ([[User talk:70.53.104.243|talk]]) 04:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support''', although I doubt it will do any good, since Wikipedia doesn't have a PAC and money seems to be the only thing politicians listen to anymore. [[User:Tom Reedy|Tom Reedy]] ([[User talk:Tom Reedy|talk]]) 04:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - seems guaranteed to get publicity in the mainstream media. Mitigate harmful effects by providing links to mirrors. [[User Talk:Stevage|Stevage]] 04:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support.''' When I first read about the Italian Wikipedia's actions, my gut reaction was highly negative. The idea of exploiting/withholding a Wikipedia as a means of political protest didn't sit well with me, nor did the conflation of a language and a country. But when I read the various arguments and became aware of the extent to which the Italian Wikipedia and other Italian-language knowledge sources would have been adversely affected, I came to realize that desperate times called for desperate measures (and the protest's swift success bolstered the sentiment). I'm as strong a proponent of Wikipedia's neutrality as anyone, but when something threatens its very existence, we're forced to either fight back or become an encyclopedia that remained neutral until fading into history. Our mission, first and foremost, is to deliver free knowledge to the world. We mustn't lose sight of that. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 04:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - while i agree that wikipedia should remain neutral and avoid politics in nearly every situation, this is about freedom of information. all of the information is on wikipedia. and no one in america is paying attention. they need to know what is at stake. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.15.193.193|76.15.193.193]] ([[User talk:76.15.193.193|talk]]) 04:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

* '''Firmly Support''' We need to send a strong message to the government. This is an excellent way to do it, particularly if this is coordinated across a lot of different sites. While Wikipedia is neutral, this is an attack on neutrality itself (how can we have a neutral encyclopedia if some entertainment agency decides it doesn't like it and has it shut down). [[User:Cypher3c|Cypher3c]] ([[User talk:Cypher3c|talk]]) 04:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support'''. I don't know enough about the law to say that it's definitely a good idea, but I have no objection in principle. It's political, yes, but we have skin in the game. It's potentially damaging, yes, but the fact that it's a sacrifice makes it a more powerful statement. The Foundation should seriously consider action, and it should keep this option open. [[User:Melchoir|Melchoir]] ([[User talk:Melchoir|talk]]) 04:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - it's a matter of importance to the running of Wikipedia itself, rather than any particular editorial content (thus NPOV and NOTAVOCACY don't really apply) [[User:Erp Erpington|Erp Erpington]] ([[User talk:Erp Erpington|talk]]) 04:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Total Unyielding Support'''. Take it all down for a straight 24 hours but display information for how users can contact their representatives and Senators. This bill (well, technically, the House and Senate companion bills) is rotten to the core and must be destroyed, buried and the earth salted. This is absolutely not a partisan issue. It's about freedom of speech on the web, pure and simple. I took down my discussion board for 24 hours last week, without notice, to show what it would be like for the site to go down. Doing this won't cause any lasting damage, but will make a real, lasting statement that will have impact. [[User:Stevietheman|'''Stevie is the man!''']] [[User talk:Stevietheman|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Stevietheman|Work]] 05:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' - People complain about NPOV and such, but Wikipedia's mere existence is a political stance for the ability of the average person to have a voice in the world and for the idea that knowledge belongs to people, not businesses or governments. [[User:Acjohnson55|Acjohnson55]] ([[User talk:Acjohnson55|talk]]) 05:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - This is an atrocious, offensive, and anti-democratic piece of legislation indeed. In itself, that is not remarkable nor cause enough for Wikipedia to take a stance in protest. However, since this particular piece of legislation impacts Wikipedia directly, I think a protest is appropriate. Let's just remember to take seriously the concerns from those who are weary of the Wikipedia project being turned into a political action committee. That said: do the right thing here, Jimbo! Make us proud. [[User:Star shaped|Star shaped]] ([[User talk:Star shaped|talk]]) 05:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - Raising awareness about this can at least allow users to make their own informed decision, if nothing else. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.38.27.114|72.38.27.114]] ([[User talk:72.38.27.114|talk]]) 05:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

*'''Strong support'''. That Wikipedia—a nonprofit, noncommercial Web site—is one of the most successful sites in the world is a bit miraculous in this age of corporate hegemony. And make no mistake: the proposed legislation is designed to allow corporate interests to consolidate even more power, money, and control, leaving individuals (e.g., Wikipedians) with fewer options to make a mark in the world. Even if the proposed legislation wouldn't directly and immediately affect WP—which it well might—it would pose significant risks for the future of free inquiry and expression on the Web as a whole. It is entirely appropriate for Wikipedians to unite and make a stand on this issue, and I find myself surprised and gladdened to see Jimbo taking the lead and soliciting community input. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 05:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' - I will miss having access to Wikipedia for the duration of the blackout, but it is an excellent way to raise awareness about this important issue. [[User:Microbat|Microbat]] ([[User talk:Microbat|talk]]) 05:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Weak Support''' - SOPA needs to be fought and this is a better cause than is served by dumb policies such as [[WP:PED]], on the other hand editors would be infringed on their right to non-mutilation as guaranteed by http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works/Articles_1_to_21#Article_6bis --[[Special:Contributions/79.205.94.24|79.205.94.24]] ([[User talk:79.205.94.24|talk]]) 05:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' - Not only will this bill compromise Wikipedia, but it will eliminate the internet as one of the few places left for people to voice their opinions and I think that blanking a high profile site like Wikipedia is the best, most effective way to the get the message out there to the masses. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Benjw90|Benjw90]] ([[User talk:Benjw90|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Benjw90|contribs]]) 05:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

*'''Strong Support''' - I support blocking in the US only. There really isn't anything most other countries will be able to do about this, given how powerful America is politically. I also suggest that WMF seriously considers moving out of the US, in case it is passed. Even if this bill does not pass, there are going to be more attempts like this further down the line. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rdnetto|Rdnetto]] ([[User talk:Rdnetto|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rdnetto|contribs]]) 05:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

*'''Strong Support''' - This will make an amazing statement. I don't believe it violates any article level activism issues because it effects wikipedia directly and not a topic. --'''Zac'''''Bowling'' ([[User:ZacBowling|user]]|[[User_talk:ZacBowling|talk]]) 05:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' - I concur with the previous statements that this will make a strong protest against SOPA. While it does transgress [[WP:NPOV]], I think when issues like this come to discussion, its safe to [[WP:IAR]]. This is the fate of the internet we're dealing with, and if people can't see a world without our services, they'll never see the truth behind SOPA. ''' [[User:Marlith|Marlith]][[User talk:Marlith| (Talk)]] ''' 05:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' - I think that SOPA could have negative consequences for Wikipedia and is worth fighting against --'''[[User:Unicityd|Unicityd]] ([[User talk:Unicityd|talk]]) 05:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' - This just serves as an another example of the growing ineptitude of politicians worldwide. The SOPA and Protect IP Acts will destroy the very principles upon which the United States was founded, should they be passed the United States will have lost the last vestiges of its already tattered integrity and reputation. —'''[[User:M.O.X|James]] ([[User talk:M.O.X|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/M.O.X|Contribs]]) • 4:04pm''' • 06:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

* '''This is not political, so Firmly Support''' To those who say something like this would be political in nature, you might look at it another way. The SOPA issue is not political. At least, it's not political in the same way that endorsing a Democrat or a Republican would be. To those who agree that SOPA represents a fundamental threat to the Internet as we know it, Wikipedia's public opposition to the bill would be in its own interest, in its users' interest, and in the interest of the very ecosystem which allows it to exist. [[Special:Contributions/155.41.19.231|155.41.19.231]] ([[User talk:155.41.19.231|talk]]) 06:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

* '''Supporting the hell out of this!''' History has shown that big media companies have accused new media of piracy ([http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NewMediaAreEvil There's a trope for that too], given I am a troper): the early VCR, the early MP3 player, and now this! It may have gathered bipartisan support among the small group of politicians and lobbyists, but at the same time, the various political groups who would otherwise not look each other in the eye stand united in opposing the draconian bills such as this. To have either of the bills passed will have all sorts of implications for international internet, and even further tarnish American reputation. It doesn't help that law experts consider this blatantly unconstitutional. So do it! Do it! --[[User:MrBiggles42|MrBiggles42]] ([[User talk:MrBiggles42|talk]]) 06:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Very Strongly Support''' With much lobbying on the other side; the people need a way of finding out about SOPA and contacting their representatives... drastic times call for drastic measures — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.91.232.84|99.91.232.84]] ([[User talk:99.91.232.84|talk]]) 06:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

*'''Strongly Support''' I'll spare the details, since they're listed multiple times already. There's an opportunity for a significant impact on every day people here -- do it. [[Special:Contributions/98.110.53.87|98.110.53.87]] ([[User talk:98.110.53.87|talk]]) 06:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' - SOPA is a direct threat to Wikipedia and the rest of the Wikimedia projects themselves. In doing that, SOPA is a threat to the free exchange of ideas itself, and the free speech of the WMF. From a practical standpoint, under SOPA, one allegation of copyright infringement could result in crippling litigation against the WMF. As such, full scale resistance is called for. A strike is warranted and should proceed posthaste.[[User:Katana0182|Katana0182]] ([[User talk:Katana0182|talk]]) 06:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' - These bills have too many bad side effects. [[User:Wxidea|Wxidea]] ([[User talk:Wxidea|talk]]) 06:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This is an ill-conceived and poorly-written law that could significantly impact the operation of the encyclopedia, making it appropriate for us to publicly voice our collective opposition. This particular way of voicing it would be extreme, but effective. --[[User:Cybercobra|Cybercobra]] [[User talk:Cybercobra|(talk)]] 06:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support''', SOPA is a threat to the free internet. – [[User:Acdx|Acdx]] ([[User_talk:Acdx|talk]]) 06:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - Though, if we ever do this, we must be sure to only use this method to protest against bills and laws that threaten the use of wikipedia (as done in the Italian case). As wikipedia is currently deeply dependent of US legislation, why not make it global too, every wikipedians worldwide is somehow unknowingly involved. But anyway this would need a formal vote rather than a poll.  --[[User:FoeNyx|FoeNyx]] ([[User talk:FoeNyx|talk]]) 06:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' - SOPA is a bill that will destroy the internet as we know it, and all websites, including Wikipedia, will be effect by SOPA if it becomes law. Right now SOPA is too esoteric for many casual computer and internet users to understand, but a temporary blank of one of the most popular websites on the internet would help people to understand the gravity of what passing this law would mean. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.179.134.138|24.179.134.138]] ([[User talk:24.179.134.138|talk]]) 06:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

*'''Support''' - I think this kind of kick in the pants is what's needed. It's clear that drastic action is necessary. [[User:Cdrdude|CDRdude]] ([[User talk:Cdrdude|talk]]) 06:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support'''' - SOPA is a bill that will negatively affect Wikipedia, and the community built around Wikipedia. A full-blackout would help users who otherwise wouldn't be aware of the adverse affect SOPA would have on a resource they commonly use. [[User:ncallaway|ncallaway]] ([[User talk:ncallaway|talk]]) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 06:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC). 

*'''Firmly Support''', We cannot let those that the American public trusts less than telemarketers and car salesmen right now block our only real free speech area. On the internet, one soul can express themselves and be heard by a million people in hours. There are no permits, no censorship, no propaganda, no social mores. There's no shame. People need to know what SOPA is trying to do. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/66.26.225.64|66.26.225.64]] ([[User talk:66.26.225.64|talk]]) 07:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

*'''Firmly Support''', At least people should be aware what is SOPA and why it's bad. It doesn't matter if it starts in one country, if it succeeds it can very easily be accepted by other governments as well, it's a very convinient law for them.. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/66.26.225.64|66.26.225.64]] ([[User talk:66.26.225.64|talk]]) 07:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Slider88slider|Slider88slider]] ([[User talk:Slider88slider|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Slider88slider|contribs]])  

*'''Firmly Support''', The bill will not only negatively affect Wikipedia, but the English-speaking digital world around which this version of Wikipedia exists. Whatever our opinions about the United States, there are real people living there who are not in the slightest way responsible for the poor behavior of their government and the vocal majority we see in media. I supported the idea for the Italians and I support the idea for Americans. A country doesn't need to be of worldwide significance to merit protest on its behalf, so the argument that the United State of of "declining importance" and we shouldn't protest their censorship because of that is fairly disturbing. Do what you can to defend the rights of our species, regardless of which portion of the planet he happens to walk upon. If Wikipedia can make a difference by protesting this bill, do it. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.104.176.201|75.104.176.201]] ([[User talk:75.104.176.201|talk]]) 07:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

*'''Support''' - The action is justified given the scale of the threat. Action should be coordinated with other stakeholders to the extent possible. [[User:Estevezj|Estevezj]] ([[User talk:Estevezj|talk]]) 07:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' - Imagine if you didn't do anything, and the law gets passed, and 10-years from now the Internet as we know it is no longer. And you would look back on this day, and think if only.[[User:QuangV|QuangV]] ([[User talk:QuangV|talk]]) 08:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/66.189.107.254|66.189.107.254]] ([[User talk:66.189.107.254|talk]])  

*'''Firmly Support''' - This is a great idea in my opinion. So glad to see that there are many people who won't just sit idly by as special interests run the world. [[User:ElentariAchaea|ElentariAchaea]] ([[User talk:ElentariAchaea|talk]]) 08:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' - SOPA is the first steps at possible widespread internet censorship. It is a dangerous precedent for the government to interfere with the workings of the internet to then lead to censorship of free speech. Also it is a direct threat to wikipedia as well so I don't think of action against SOPA as being arbitrarily political without good cause. With SOPA and NDAA and other bills, as well as the pressure against wikileaks we are in a fight for our rights and freedom so I consider this vital. I think blanking on all languages is good to raise awareness and make more effective. (First time contributing here... hopefully I did it right) [[Special:Contributions/75.80.134.61|75.80.134.61]] ([[User talk:75.80.134.61|talk]]) 08:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' - Unfortunately, it seems precipitous action is sometimes required to get the attention of people who are otherwise too easily distracted by shopping malls and American Idol. SOPA is a very bad bill, and this would be effective in generating media attention that would help raise awareness of the issue and bring about debate. Censorship is a slippery slope, and so Wikipedia has a moral duty to show solidarity with those who would stand to be more directly affected by SOPA. [[User:Arjuna909|Arjuna]] ([[User talk:Arjuna909|talk]]) 08:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support without hesitation''' Anything to help support the project against this terrible new law. [[User:Doktorbuk|doktorb]] [[User talk:Doktorbuk|words]][[Special:Contributions/Doktorbuk|deeds]] 09:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support'''. Although I agree with many above who point out that this does negatively effect Wikipedia's neutrality and could be a slippery slope, it's worth noting that SOPA and various other legislative acts and treaties (ACTA, for instance) pose a real and grave '''existential threat''' to Wikipedia and to the free flow of knowledge and information in general. If it is a slippery slope, then it is a slope set up by those who would limit the flow of knowledge. If we are to slip down it, I believe it is worth doing so with as much grace and fortitude as we can. It's very simple: If we do ''not'' take action when our existence is threatened, we will not be able to take action when the threat comes to bear. --[[User:Spm|Smári McCarthy]] ([[User talk:Spm|talk]]) 09:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Firmly Support''' The potential impact on wikipedia, if not from this then from the next Big Brother enactment, is too troubling to ignore. A week would be a minimum. [[User:Ysth|Ysth]] ([[User talk:Ysth|talk]]) 09:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' - As a UK resident I am all too aware how US policy is used as a justification for policy elsewhere. [[User:Malak1000|Malak1000]] ([[User talk:Malak1000|talk]]) 09:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' - But only because I vehemently disagree with SOPA and would be happy to see any nonviolent protests against it. I also don't think that objections along the lines of the protest violating Wikipedia's founding principle are valid. The existence of wikipedia is a strong statement in favor of the freedom of information in a very general sense. Taking some time to show the world what that freedom has given humanity in reaction to proposed legislation that threatens it is simply a more direct and useful version of the continued existence of Wikipedia. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/128.61.120.254|128.61.120.254]] ([[User talk:128.61.120.254|talk]]) 09:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

*'''Oppose''', while I root for the oponents to SOPA, I don't think Wikipedia (the international website) should get their hands on local politics. A banner would be an acceptable middle ground, something stronger (a complete block) would penalize people all around the world for something they can't do anything about. -- [[User:Luk|Luk]] [[User talk:Luk|talk]] 09:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' - I support this completely. I have read some of the reservations of others about Wikipedia's neutrality, but I think they are clinging too strongly to the "pillars" here. This should not be a slippery slope because there is really only ONE issue ever where it makes sense for Wikipedia to do something like this and that issue is censorship. Advocating doing nothing in this specific instance is completely impractical and, in my opinion, shows a lack of total understanding of the situation and consequences of inaction. This '''IS''' our fight. I see it as an obligation actually. Wikipedia and its supporters are obligated to protect the conditions that allowed Wikipedia to thrive. Of course this community should protect the foundation it is based on. Suggesting otherwise is similar to a bank neglecting its security because "it's not their job to deal with the locks." All parties, neutral or not, owe it to the future of the internet to prevent legislation like SOPA from becoming law. [[User:Heeerrresjonny|Heeerrresjonny]] ([[User talk:Heeerrresjonny|talk]]) 09:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' - SOPA is a clear threat to Wikipedia. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 10:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strongly Oppose''' Jimmy- have you read the new mark up on this bill? It won't affect you or any other American or legal site. The fear-mongering is really reaching a fascist peak here- very frightening. If you fail to stand your ground against this tech lobby peer pressure, your reputation will never be the same. Just sayin, because I love this place. Peace. 10:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.59.84.114|99.59.84.114]] ([[User talk:99.59.84.114|talk]])  

* '''Full Support'''. Stop the crazy! Citizens of the USA, please take your country back; it's embarrassing for the rest of us, and now our governments are getting funny ideas. [[User:Jonathanischoice|Jon]] ([[User talk:Jonathanischoice|talk]]) 10:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

* '''Strong Support''' - SOPA is a threat to freedom on the Internet. Such legislation must be stopped in any country. But in the US it is especially important, since a lot of governments are still following US examples on Internet legislation. [[User:René|rené]] ([[User talk:René|talk]]) 10:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

* '''Strong Oppose''' - Wikipedia should not go any political [[User:Roman 92|Roman 92]] ([[User talk:Roman 92|talk]]) 10:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''', SOPA is an incredibly stupid law, but inconveniencing the entire world because of a piece of legislative stupidity in one country would be an overreaction. [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] ([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]]) 10:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC).

*'''Oppose''' - Wikipedia cannot hold democratically elected law makers to ransom every time that they do something that wikipedians don't like. [[User:Jamie Kitson|Jamie Kitson]] ([[User talk:Jamie Kitson|talk]]) 10:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - SOPA will make impact on all the Internet. So, Wikipedia just can't be a silent watcher. [[User:Veryblackraven|Veryblackraven]] ([[User talk:Veryblackraven|talk]]) 10:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' - --[[User:Texaner|Texaner]] ([[User talk:Texaner|talk]]) 10:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support''' - Important we do this for everyone, not just the US. 10:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/195.212.29.92|195.212.29.92]] ([[User talk:195.212.29.92|talk]])  

*'''Strong Support''' - The driving force between the internet has some downsides as with every revolutionary new phenomenon. We'll have to accept new paradigms instead of fighting them. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/167.202.201.5|167.202.201.5]] ([[User talk:167.202.201.5|talk]]) 11:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

*'''Support strike in US'''. Switzerland has an army for a reason: even neutral parties are entitled to take action to preserve their very existence, and SOPA is a clear threat to not only Wikipedia, but every site with user-generated content on the Internet. It's essential that Americans be made aware of what their lawmakers are doing, and be "inconvenienced," as others are wont to say, enough that they are encouraged to act to prevent it. I think the full blanking for people outside the United States is overkill, however. There are too few things that non-Americans can do to affect our political process to make it worthwhile to inconvenience them. A nice, large sitenotice to let them know what us crazies in America are doing THIS time is certainly warranted, however. [[User:JSarek|jSarek]] ([[User talk:JSarek|talk]]) 10:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

*'''Opppose'''. Before protest action is taken, I would like to see a better solution proposed by those that are against SOPA instead of a knee-jerk reaction to any kind of actions taken to fight cyber-crime. To those who think the Internet should be a totally free flow of information, that is to say, it is equivalent to free speech and should be protected with the same ferocity, and therefore unregulated, I would ask the following. Imagine that you are a person holding down a dreary 40 hour per week job, and in your spare time, like J.K. Rowling, you manage to write a potential best-selling novel. But some smart-ass hacks the publisher's computer systems before it can be published, puts it on-line, and your future income dematerializes because now anyone can get it for free. How would you feel toward those people downloading and enjoying your work of thousands of hours for free? What would you think the government should do about it, if anything? Another scenario: your on-line bank account is hacked, and a good chunk of your savings is stolen. Hackers have set up websites to freely exchange toolkits for doing exactly this. How would you respond if the bank just told you, sorry no refund, and the law enforcement authorities responded with 'Sorry, but there's nothing we can do.'? Another scenario: a malicious group of hackers decides to take down Wikipedia just for fun, and starts a huge DoS attack with a mega bot-net. Some command and control servers are found to be located on a server in a foreign country run by a company with a policy of renting to anyone for anything and refusing any sort of regulation. Coincidentally, they also might be hosting websites by banned groups opposed to some authoritarian government. Do you just put down having to live with the DoS attacks as the price of free speech? SOPA may be bad legislation for various reasons -- overly broad language, or inadvisable or ineffectual technical solutions -- but some of the claims I've heard against it seem to me to be exaggerated and/or equally lacking in rigorous technical analysis. For example, the claim that ISP's might be forced to inspect all IP packets to prevent access to some domain. Well duh. This is hardly a gargantuan burden. Packet addresses get inspected all the time, because the packets have to be routed. Big websites have front-end servers which have to do load distribution and also try to ameliorate DoS attacks. Firewalls the world over have to inspect packets to try to block hackers. SOPA may or may not endanger the freedom of information flow. I say that a bigger danger is to capitulate to the cyber-criminals and do nothing. At some point, the criminals will make the Internet unusable for anything important. SPAM has caused me to stop using e-mail addresses I would have liked to keep. I refuse to use on-line banking at all because I know that there is no absolute security and it is not worth risking my savings. I had to take down the forums I tried to run because spammers filled them up with garbage. I can't let the public register on the Wiki that I now run, which sort of ruins the point of it and just turns it into a cheap CMS for me, because the same thing would happen. I wonder if those opposing any action to regulate the Internet simply don't have anything to lose. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/217.162.1.16|217.162.1.16]] ([[User talk:217.162.1.16|talk]]) 11:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 
:'''Support''' in the US only, and ideally just a click-through for now. -- [[User:SamJohnston|samj]] [[User talk:Samj|in]][[Special:Contributions/SamJohnston|out]] 11:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I believe that lobbying on this topic '''is''' part of our mission. At the same time "striking" by taking down the English Wikipedia does not fit well with the rest of our mission or values. Even if such an action were to be limited to the USA this is likely to damage the development of the encyclopaedia during that time. If other countries, such as the UK, were to have an outage, I would start to struggle to justify this action as a response to non-domestic legislation. Now, if we were to have a targeted outage that took out Wikipedia articles of all American politicians and pundits for a week, that might be felt by the right people without having unintended consequences for other parts of our open knowledge mission. ;-D --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Firmly Support''' - This will not tarnish Wikipedia's reputation. There are people that already think it has a liberal bias, and that will not change. If anything, using Wikipedia's strong reputation will only make this act more effective and give people a pause and a lot to think of. As long as Wikipedia keeps up their great work, their reputation will remain solid. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.99.12.233|99.99.12.233]] ([[User talk:99.99.12.233|talk]]) 11:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

*'''Weak support''' (with some conditions), but: 1. Start with side-wide banners. 2. If no reaction, take another step. First: I agree with the calls to separate NPOV/neutrality in articles from NPOV/neutrality of the community as a community. The only place, in this question, I can see the community taking an NPOV position would be to the question "Should Wikimedia exist?", and that, frankly, scares me. If the editing community of Wikimedia doesn't support the survival of Wikimedia, then who should? Second: Improving the articles on SOPA and its ilk is of course important (necessary), but not sufficient. IME 99% (conservative count) of the readers won't know about the existence of these proposals, and a "write it, and they will [all] read it" take on the issue seems to me to be akin to putting one's head in the sand and hope that the problem will go away on its own. Third: I would like to reiterate the need for an explanation from someone with legal knowledge and understanding of the question - thus my condition above. If this is as it has been made out to be, then yes, I'll definitely support action out of self-preservation. Fourth: As for Wikimedia not being political: True, but there has to be a limit to how far one withdraws from the surrounding society. Just imagine what would happen if an expressedly apolitical religious organization/congregation were faced with the prospect of being effectively outlawed: would they silently accept that? Should they? Yes, I know I'm pulling it now, but I couldn't come up with a better comparison. [[User:Mike|Mike]] ([[User talk:Mike|talk]]) 11:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

* '''Very Strong Support''' #sopa is a nightmare. We should oppose it. I am a spanish wikipedia contributor, but as our wiki is also hosted in the US, I would suggest extending the strike to all the wikipedias hosted in the US that certainly will be affected by #SOPA and ProtectIP. --[[User:MotherForker|MotherForker]] ([[User talk:MotherForker|talk]]) 11:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
* '''Very Strong Support''' This affects us as internet citizens. The core of the internet runs on the US, and if this passes, it sets a precedent that other countries will follow. It reminds me of Asimov's very first book of the Foundation series. The Encyclopedists were arguing whether they should stick to their scholar work at the Galactic Encyclopedia or become a stronger force in the history of mankind. I think that decision has come to Wikipedia. -- [[User:Eordano|eordano]] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 12:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC). 
*'''Firmly Support''' - This law directly affects Wikipedia and its credibility as a source of information. This and similar laws elsewhere must be opposed. [[User:Rammer|Rammer]] ([[User talk:Rammer|talk]]) 12:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' although I have misgivings on whether this will actually change anything. At the very least, however, it should inform a lot more people about SOPA.--[[User:MithrandirAgain|Mithrandir∞]][[User talk:MithrandirAgain| (Talk!)]][[Special:Contributions/MithrandirAgain| (Opus Operis)]] 12:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

===Discussion===
*Jimbo, can you clarify this? I'm not sure that I'd be supporting or opposing; it needs some clear statement. I'm "interested", sure; I think it's an important issue. But how can I express that? I can't support/oppose because you haven't said what I'd be supporting. [[User:Chzz|''' Chzz ''']][[User talk:Chzz| ► ]] 07:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Supporting the bill? Supporting "some action"? [[User:Chzz|''' Chzz ''']][[User talk:Chzz| ► ]] 08:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:: Noting "Support" means to support the content-blanking. For the [[Italian Wikipedia]], the "community strike" (made by admins) changed every page (articles, talk-pages...) to edit as only "View source" for a few seconds before redirecting the page to a rant about why the website was blocking access to every page. Page source markup could only be copied by stopping the browser at "View source" and then just edit the text offline, until the Italian WP resumed access 3 days later. It was very frustrating, and pageview counts of most pages fell sharply, when people realized they would no longer see articles. -[[User talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 08:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::But it says, "{{xt|To be clear, this is NOT a vote on whether or not to have a strike}}" - so I still don't know what we'd be "support"ing. [[User:Chzz|''' Chzz ''']][[User talk:Chzz| ► ]] 05:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
* Ok, great, let's go with it. Then after we run that, can we have a "Support gay marriage in Australia" type shutdown, to put pressure on politicians down here to finally do the right thing? Then let's not forget about people who have a problem with prostitution being illegal. Perhaps we can do something for them too. And then there is pot, let's not forget the potheads. Where will it end. Read [[WP:NOTADVOCACY]]. [[User:Russavia|Y u no be Russavia]] [[User talk:Russavia|ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)]] 08:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
*:Irrelevant comparisons. SOPA '''directly affects ''all languages'' of Wikipedia.''' —''Jeremy'' v^_^v Components:[[User talk:Jéské Couriano|V]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|S]] [[User: Jéské Couriano|M]] 08:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::So you are telling me that my right to marry whoever I please is irrelevant? Thanks for your support. lol [[User:Russavia|Y u no be Russavia]] [[User talk:Russavia|ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)]] 08:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::No, I'm saying that in this case, your comparison is invalid. Gay marriage bills in Australia do not affect the Wikimedia Foundation's operations. SOPA does. —''Jeremy'' v^_^v Components:[[User talk:Jéské Couriano|V]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|S]] [[User: Jéské Couriano|M]] 08:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::If there was community consensus to strike for gay marriage in Australia, then why not? It might be a difficult consensus to achieve, but... --[[User:FormerIP|FormerIP]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 13:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::Why not was stated already above. It doesn't directly affect the goal of Wikipedia. One of Wikipedia's rules is to remain neutral. The debate here is whether it still remains neutral when its main goal may become impossible due to pending legislation. If you can explain to me how gay marriage in Australia can directly affect the goal of Wikipedia only then would it be valid. -[[Special:Contributions/68.159.32.170|68.159.32.170]] ([[User talk:68.159.32.170|talk]]) 03:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
::::EXACTLY, and neither does this, because we have policies in place that prevent unlicenced, copyrighted materials to be used on Wikipedia. '''Nothing''' has been shown that demonstrates how WP would be affected. So let's drop silly ideas such as this. [[User:Russavia|Y u no be Russavia]] [[User talk:Russavia|ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)]] 08:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::That we say we have policies is one thing, but are we helpful enough when someone asks for information to help them track down an individual who they purport to have infringed on them? Also - why do you keep repeating [[WP:ADVOCACY]] / [[WP:NOTADVOCACY]]? - they aren't relevant. [[User: Unomi|u]][[Special:Contributions/Unomi|n☯]][[User talk:Unomi |mi]] 10:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Why would WMF treat such requests differently from how they treat requests for information at present? I do not know what that policy is, but I imagine that they would reassess it if there is a change in law. Are you suggesting that WMF help will cause UN troops and black helicopters to show up at editor doors?--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 10:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Where will it end then? If they keep passing legislation like this they will keep taking chunks out of the vast knowledge painstakingly collected here. Does Wikipedia sit on the sidelines and just let itself get censored like this? -[[Special:Contributions/68.159.32.170|68.159.32.170]] ([[User talk:68.159.32.170|talk]]) 03:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:On a side note Jimmy, if you want this publicised widely, why not hire [[Bell Pottinger]] to run a successful PR campaign in relation to it. You could organise this when you do the chat to them. Of course, this is a total cynical comment, but is intended to draw the parallel of us looking idiotic for using WP at a tool for advocacy, only a matter of days after busting the balls of a firm for doing exactly the same thing. [[User:Russavia|Y u no be Russavia]] [[User talk:Russavia|ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)]] 08:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:*Crazynas: Could you take a second look at your post? The "don't we" phrasing comes across as patronizing, though no doubt that was not your intent. And Snowolf is correct, and I do not believe any such consensus will be forthcoming. Wikipedia editors tend to be individualists, and I think you'd see a sizable minority try to edit ''more'' on a day of action. Unless Jimbo proposes to shut down the site, in which case I guess we are all along for the ride, like it or not.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 09:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::*I don't think there is consensus either, from what I gathered at the time of itwiki actions, mainly from what I've seen on IRC, a significant if not majoritary part of the English-speaking community feels very strongly against this. [[User:Snowolf|Snowolf]] [[User talk:Snowolf|How can I help?]] 10:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::*Is that better? Yes, if the proposal (that this proposal is attempting to determine is necessary) passed (not commenting either way on that) the database would be ''locked'' as in... no edits, and every page would redirect to a single page about the issue (at least that's how the Italians did it) [[User: Crazynas|Crazynas]] [[User_talk:Crazynas|t]] 10:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::*If we take a position on an issue like that, we will raise doubts in people's minds as to whether we are in fact neutral. Shall we become Conservapedia-light? People would be entitled to worry not only about our coverage of ''that'' issue, but of ''every'' issue. As for the Italian job, I am not certain the Italians are a guide to us in anything except football. I think doing that would be ill-advised, forcing people to "join" the protest whether they like it or not. Maybe we could all block K Street while we are at it.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 10:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::*By the same kind of argument, nobody can ever go on strike for their own pay. Most people are quite good at distinguishing between political agitation for the sake of it and exceptional action when the core of an organisation is under extreme pressure. SOPA would open WMF up to censorship by the US government. Relocating the WMF and its servers to a more appropriate place such as Iceland is extremely expensive and could not cure the danger that our content becomes inaccessible to Americans. Once you have laws in place such as SOPA, which make it possible to shut down practically all media (I am using this word in a loose sense that includes Wikipedia) depending on the discretion of government institutions, the media are at the mercy of the government and will comply with any hints about what will or will not lead to them being closed. That's a huge step beyond the very effective economics-based self-censorship regime that is already in place in the US media and makes many Americans go to the ''government broadcaster'' BBC for more objective news. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 10:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::*We could just IP block-exempt every American editor and let them in through TOR...</sarcasm> For the uninformed (and that is not meant as a slight) some [http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/10/e-parasite_threatens_internet.html light] reading. [[User: Crazynas|Crazynas]] [[User_talk:Crazynas|t]] 10:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::* The BBC is not a 'government broadcaster'. It's a national broadcaster. For many this might be a subtle distinction but in Britain it is highly significant. [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]] ([[User talk:Sam Blacketer|talk]]) 23:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::*I apologise for using the wrong word. I am of course aware of this distinction. Germany adopted the same system after the war. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 23:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::*People who feel that we don't have enough "truth" in our articles already feel like that - be they supporters of Israels occupation, Intelligent Design or other groups that we unfairly discriminate against. What we are talking about here is activities outside of article-space, no one is arguing that our articles on SOPA must have a particular slant or flavor. We would stand little chance to convince people who are unable to appreciate the difference of our neutrality by rational argument in any case. [[User: Unomi|u]][[Special:Contributions/Unomi|n☯]][[User talk:Unomi |mi]] 10:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::*I think you are intentionally arguing the individual case rather than the general. Involving ourselves with politics will lead people not to trust us. As for the middle east case, with organized fight clubs on both sides, I do not look for serious article content from that sphere. Good luck getting Arafat or Ben-Gurion to FA.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 11:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::: [[Yasser Arafat]] is already FA :P--[[User:Neo139|Neo139]] ([[User talk:Neo139|talk]]) 22:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::* Unfortunately, if we don't involve ourselves in ensuring that we have an environment in which wikipedia can thrive, then there will be nothing to trust. [http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/11/15/wikimedia-supports-american-censorship-day/ wikimedia supports American censorship day]. [[User: Unomi|u]][[Special:Contributions/Unomi|n☯]][[User talk:Unomi |mi]] 11:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

* The only pages that shouldn't be blanked are the articles on SOPA, PIPA, PROTECT IP, the 2012 Defense Authorization Act, and a list of the United State's history of censorship. Every other page should link only to those 5, and they should be protected from vandalism. [[User:VoodooKobra|Kobra]] ([[User talk:VoodooKobra|talk]]) 01:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
====Arbitrary break====
*Will this really and definitely affect wikipedia? [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] [[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]] 11:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
**[http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/11/15/wikimedia-supports-american-censorship-day/ Apparently]. [[User: Unomi|u]][[Special:Contributions/Unomi|n☯]][[User talk:Unomi |mi]] 11:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
***Yeah, I've read all this and more over the past month. What I'm getting is a ''could'' and I am skeptical that these scenarios are a definite ''will'' or ''must happen''. [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] [[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]] 11:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::Yes, I agree Seb. That blog reads like a Washington ''post'' editorial. Does anyone have a link to a less frantic analysis of the proposed legislation? Has it even passed a committee, or a house of Congress?--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 12:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::Details of the contents and progress of the bill at [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3261 govtrack.us], thoughts on the wider impact at [http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/10/e-parasite_threatens_internet.html Harvard Business Review]. There are few facets of our lives that give us the luxury of absolutes, most of the time the rational actor must work in terms of risk mitigation. [[User: Unomi|u]][[Special:Contributions/Unomi|n☯]][[User talk:Unomi |mi]] 12:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::Probably the most sensible approach here (given that this is just one small part of the US goverment move to stricter internet control) is to transplant the entire movement to one of the Internet "safe harbour" countries. This could be an interesting catalyst to help us do so. We have some small benefits being "based" in the US - but there are places with even greater benefits. --'''[[user:ErrantX|Errant]]''' ([[User_talk:ErrantX|chat!]]) 12:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::: Wouldn't help. This legislation blocks the domain, so Wikipedia (and other user generated content sites) wouldn't be available in the US. [[User:Dpemmons|Dpemmons]] ([[User talk:Dpemmons|talk]]) 22:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Such as ... (both countries and benefits)--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 12:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::Many of the Nordic countries have particularly liberal approaches to internet freedom etc. And excellent internet connectivity. Iceland is a very liberal Haven. Finland is excellent, with some of the highest standards of freedom of speech in the world. --'''[[user:ErrantX|Errant]]''' ([[User_talk:ErrantX|chat!]]) 13:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::Well, that could boost the economy through the sale of winter gear to the St. Petersburg crowd. God knows the economies in both countries could use it.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 13:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
"On the eve of the House Judiciary Committee vote, the head of the [[Motion Picture Association of America]] admitted that he's pushing a censorship regime just like China's. According to Variety, he said: 'When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites.' -- http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118047080 " -- http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/dodd/ [[Special:Contributions/67.6.163.68|67.6.163.68]] ([[User talk:67.6.163.68|talk]]) 13:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:Wow. Emotional argument much? Anyway, the protest would hurt us and have little effect, the public would go to the mirror sites.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 13:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::How would it hurt us? [[Special:Contributions/67.6.163.68|67.6.163.68]] ([[User talk:67.6.163.68|talk]]) 13:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::It would hurt our reputation, esp. when the doomsday-scenarios turn out to be false. That's why I need to know whether this is really such a grave issue before I have any firm opinion on some protest. [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] [[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]] 13:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::What worries me is that I am starting to realize that this may be mentioned and characterized on Monday, then mentioned in the media at a further remove from reality "Wikipedia editors vote to strike", say after "Well, I asked our editors and an overwhelming ..."--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 16:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::But not if those doomsday predictions aren't wrong. Given evidence of past how things go like this, it will be abused.<big>∞</big>[[User:Jinnai|陣]][[User talk:Jinnai|内]][[Special:Contributions/Jinnai|'''Jinnai''']] 20:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::: For this reason, it makes sense to support a trigger but not an immediate protest. I agree it would be premature to have a flashy protest at this stage, given the number of hurdles that are keeping this bill from getting voted on in both houses. By setting up a trigger, we can decide now if we want to strike once we are at that critical juncture. By planning well in advance, we can act most effectively. [[User talk:Harej|''hare'']] '''j''' 22:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I'm still trying to parse that, Harej. How can we decide now what we will want then?--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 22:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh, how can we possibly strike? When we are (inevitably) questioned more closely, it will be revealed that we are studying our own filters. People won't fall for it. We'll need to close that chapter in our history first, before we can act with clean hands. (This is even more strongly the case in india, of course, but still applies to .us) --[[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] ([[User talk:Kim Bruning|talk]]) 22:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC) ''On the up side, I'm glad to see that Jimmy is back on the light side :-)''
: A collective will to act can be as effective in negotiations as any particular threat of action. I am also glad to see Jimbo standing up for the goals of the encyclopedia. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 23:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

IF we do (as a ... community? how much of a community are we really once we start imposing blanket "strikes" in response to controversial political issues) go with the "let's use Wikipedia to exert political pressure" thing (and honestly, my opinion is that this is nothing but an exercise in meta-narcissism) then supporting gay marriage in Australia is a helluva more worthy cause then this SOPA thing. So. Ok. I'm willing to strike on SOPA as long as we strike on gay marriage in Australia first and we actually manage to make that Australian government change it's policy. Otherwise I'd request that any article that I have spent oodles and oodles of time contributing to or created be exempt from these people's silly idea of a strike. IF we're gonna play this game, I wanna play a different game and who are you to have decided this?[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 01:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::Agreed. There is clearly an element that does not want this. The proposed plan does not admit of dissent. We are forced off the encyclopedia for 24 hours—blocked for a day, effectively—and we have done nothing wrong. For what? I have yet to hear any proponent articulate what they think would happen after the strike, both on wiki and off.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 02:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::Well, firstly while I'm in favour of political strikes, I don't see how 404ing en.wikipedia will force the Australian state and federal governments to reconsider various acts concerning marriage—there isn't a cogent link between marriage and wikipedia's "industry." In contrast SOPA directly attacks the encyclopaedic process, and so striking against this makes sense. Secondly: a 24 hour strike would be grossly ineffective as all symbolic strikes are. A strike would have to be indefinite or for an extended set period with the threat of future extended periods to have any effectiveness. And Wehwalt is correct, we would be removing our own pleasure in editing by striking, unless we restricted access to registered accounts with etcetcetc. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 07:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::'' a 24 hour strike would be grossly ineffective as all symbolic strikes are'' - You're right, we got to be serious here. We should shut the site down permanently until they give in![[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 08:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::Fifelfoo, I see no indication that a strike would have any effect on the political processes. I did take the trouble, which I think no one else here has, to look into what happened in Italy. I would suggest adding a <nowiki>{{cn}} </nowiki> to Jimbo's comment, but if you read it carefully, he nowhere says the Italian strike was effective. He merely says that the Italian Parliament's "backing down" happened "immediatly". ''Post hoc ergo prompter hoc''?--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 13:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::Yes Volunteer Marek, that's exactly the point of a non-symbolic strike. Wehwalt, I agree that Jimbo's argument on that point is fallacious reasoning. Divisions within Italian capital itself over the appropriateness of their then Prime Minister, and other such factors extraneous to the Italian wikipedia were significant. However, the English wikipedia is much more closely involved in the circulation of capital; where it is incorporated to make other products look more useful. Taking down en totally, or merely to a defined unit of "outsider" would damage google search, national library Australia, non-caching marketing systems etc. Whether you believe this would be sufficiently disruptive economically to achieve its purpose is another matter—Jimbo's talk page isn't the place where such an evaluation could happen, and the current evaluation of the efficacy of striking is well below the standard of debate I'd hope for. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 20:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::It would be difficult to find information to support this, but I have a hunch that Wikipedia gets used ''extensively'' by the US Congress since Wikipedia pages generally have very high pageranks with major search engines, and it is arguably the most convenient way for someone to learn basic information about a topic they currently know nothing about...which is necessary when you're supposed to vote on proposed legislation that deals with topics you know nothing about *ahem* [[User:Heeerrresjonny|Heeerrresjonny]] ([[User talk:Heeerrresjonny|talk]]) 10:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strongly oppose''' a strike. I have no problem with the Wikimedia Foundation lobbying to prevent this bill from passing, or suing to have it declared unconstitutional if it does pass. But Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and blanking the content, even temporarily, would detract from its ability to serve its readers as an encyclopedia. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 18:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*Is there a reliable summary somewhere of how exactly this will affect Wikimedia? Would transferring ownership and hosting of the websites to a non-American chapter alleviate some/all of the problems? If so, how difficult would it be to move? --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] ([[User talk:Yair rand|talk]]) 21:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
*Above there is a comment by a users who is worried about Wikipedia losing all market share and being replaced if some kind of political protest happens. I certainly hope the user realizes that the risk of that is non-existent. [[User:Wsoder|wsoder]] ([[User talk:Wsoder|talk]]) 01:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Support: I disagree that this would violate Wikipedia's editorial neutrality in that the bill(s) in process could and would open the site up to frivolous complaints about infringement as written and the complainant would not be liable should the claim(s) be false. That alone should mean the protest, be it a strike or any other form of protest is not a violation of editorial neutrality but a legitimate protest of a real and present danger and threat to the viability of the site and free expression on the site and by the encyclopaedia. That said, my feeling is that it should be sudden, fast and be over with quickly. Something like 48 hours. That would be sufficient to gain considerable media coverage and to make the point without harming the dedicated users of the site. It would also get the word out about SOPA/IP PROTECT to a vastly wider public than it appears to be now. [[User:TtfnJohn|TtfnJohn]] ([[User talk:TtfnJohn|talk]]) 03:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*I would like to suggest, that if a general blanking does not occur, this instead: blank wikipedia access from every US Government and State College address. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.13.128.92|75.13.128.92]] ([[User talk:75.13.128.92|talk]]) 05:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 
*Opposition to blanking Wikipedia is itself a non-neutral position. The view that the pillars are stone fast unbreakable principles is a view that believes in categorical imperatives and a reading of the rules akin to constitutional textualism. Philosophicaly and philologically these are hardline views that do not sufficiently constitute a synthesis and weighting of the sum of human knowledge and morals. Therefore I believe that any argument for opposition rooted in these axioms is null. --[[Special:Contributions/75.13.128.92|75.13.128.92]] ([[User talk:75.13.128.92|talk]]) 05:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

===Another idea: Could we coordinate this?===
Wikipedia would be far from the only site threatened by this legislation. Many of the most popular sites on the Web today (Google, Ebay, Craigslist, Youtube, Facebook, etc.), would be threatened by this, as they are mainly user-driven. If we do plan a day of action on this, why not coordinate with some of those sites? Even if they weren't willing to shut down entirely for a day and say why (and some might be), they might be willing to put up a prominent sitewide statement telling their users: "This service will go away or be severely curtailed if this passes. Call Congress ''today'', or encourage your US friends to do so if you don't live here". Can you imagine the outcry that could be generated if we could coordinate such a campaign, with a day's shutdown for some of the big ones and the site notice for most of them? Wikipedia is large enough, and they hate this enough, that we could at least likely get a sympathetic ear at many of those companies. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] [[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] 16:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:There is a very fair article, I felt, to both sides, from the San Jose ''Mercury News'' [http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_19500037 here]. Google and the other groups contented themselves with signing a letter.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 16:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::I'm proposing we ask if they're "content" with that. If they feel that's enough, we've got an awfully big megaphone on our own—but if even a few of the other behemoths will jump in too, we could amplify that an awful lot. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] [[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] 16:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::I think drafting a letter and "signing" it would be a good idea as a starter measure. --'''[[user:ErrantX|Errant]]''' ([[User_talk:ErrantX|chat!]]) 20:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::They don't all have to block service (although google blocking its search engine would be a major boon). I think even if they publicly alterted their website for a day, all coordinated, it could still send a message if it was attached with a reason (and how to contact your congress person for those in the US).<big>∞</big>[[User:Jinnai|陣]][[User talk:Jinnai|内]][[Special:Contributions/Jinnai|'''Jinnai''']] 20:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

===Could someone who supports this please explain to me...===
What would be the difference between this proposed strike and rewriting the article [[Stop Online Piracy Act]] from an explicitly partisan, anti-SOPA position? Why is the former considered acceptable but not the latter? (If you say 'but the former would only be temporary', you're missing the point.) [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish|talk]]) 17:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:It has nothing to do with temporary or permanent—doing so with the article (even temporarily) would be unacceptable. The difference is the same as having the banner at the top of the site encouraging people to donate to WMF (acceptable), as opposed to changing the [[Wikipedia]] article to say "WMF is an awesome foundation, go donate to them!" (unacceptable). One is clearly in an article that's part of the encyclopedia, while the other is clearly a message from those who operate the site behind the encyclopedia. And while it's unprecedented, this is quite literally an existential threat to Wikipedia, and to the free and open Internet as we know it, and it's currently flying well under the radar. I don't see a bit of a problem, given that, with Wikipedia shining a megawatt spotlight on it. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] [[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] 17:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::Judging by the fact that [[Floyd Abrams]] does not oppose SOPA and considers the opposition political, according to a piece in today's ''Washington post'', that seems a bit overblown, Seraphimblade. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/property-thefton-the-webno-less-wrong/2011/12/09/gIQAFxgDjO_story.html Here] is the link.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 17:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::Did you expect a senior partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, representing the Directors Guild, the Motion Picture Association and various entertainment industry unions to oppose SOPA? [[User: Unomi|u]][[Special:Contributions/Unomi|n☯]][[User talk:Unomi |mi]] 17:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::Indeed. As always, "follow the money." [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 17:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::I do not always agree with Counselor Abrams, but I have never heard that he was dishonest or motivated principally by money. If I was motivated principally by money, I would not edit Wikipedia, travelling to gain information and images to improve the project has cost me $1.28, or possibly slightly more.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 18:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::[[List_of_prominent_cases_argued_by_Floyd_Abrams#Financial_Crisis]] Your mileage may vary. [[User: Unomi|u]][[Special:Contributions/Unomi|n☯]][[User talk:Unomi |mi]] 18:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::No one said he is dishonest. He is simply representing his clients' interests, which is his obligation as an attorney. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 18:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::And in fact, he'd be dishonest if he didn't, or actively went against their interests while representing them. But that makes what he says suspect—not due to dishonesty or malice, but from the simple existence of conflict of interest. Given that the people pushing this are his client, he is not likely to oppose it, even if he privately thinks it's a horrible idea. What if he said that, and then had to argue for it in court someday on his clients' behalf? [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] [[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] 18:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::He is no lawyer who cannot take both sides. But, yes? What would happen then?--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 18:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::"So, Mr. Abrams, in your Washington Post editorial of 12-10-2011, you said, I quote, 'This whole thing is a rotten mess and blatantly unconstitutional?'" "Well, yes, but..." "And now you're telling us that it's a wonderful thing, and we should rule in favor of it?" "Well, yes, you see, uh...". It would be highly unethical for an attorney to publicly attack his clients' interests while representing them. (That's aside from the fact they'd likely fire him and his firm—wouldn't you? Take both sides, perhaps, but not take an opposing one to your client in public!) Regardless, I'd much rather get my information from the engineers that design the Internet's infrastructure, and every one I've seen who has spoken on this will do significant damage, and all but kill [[DNSSEC]] (which should be a top priority if we're ''really'' interested in protecting the public). [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] [[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] 18:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::Possibly, if he was called as a witness. Lawyers aren't as a rule. In fact, ethically you cannot be a lawyer and a witness in the same case, with very limited exceptions that don't apply here. You've been watching ''Inherit the Wind'' too much.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 18:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::I think a more relevant point is that while perhaps it would be problematic for him to publicly oppose a bill he may later have to defend for his clients, it doesn't mean he has to publicly defend it in a non legal forum. Personally I would consider it unethical for him to argue something which is against his personal beliefs in a manner which suggests it's his personal belief. To me the editorial is presented more as a case of his personal beliefs then an attempted to defend his clients interest (it has a disclaimer at the bottom but that's to be expected). Perhaps he doesn't hold to the same ideals but I don't think we should be accusing him of such without evidence. This doesn't mean he's right, he may simply not understand the issues. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 19:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
{{od}}Is there any reason to believe he might not understand the issues? His discussion seemed cogent and informed to me.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 20:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm just amazed that so many people feel that this wouldn't compromise our neutrality, while discussions of allowing advertising on WP have continued to show a consensus opposed to it. I can't understand how anyone could think advertising would compromise our neutrality while somehow a prominent message openly advocating intervention against a specific political proposal would not. [[User:Robofish|Robofish]] ([[User talk:Robofish|talk]]) 19:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:Abrams said it, and you can believe it if you care to believe a man who accepts money for his work: it's become ideological. I am imminently expecting them to all announce for [[free silver]].--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 19:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::There are '''two''' confusions taking place here. As noted already, there is a marked difference between what Wikipedia articles say, and what the Wikipedia community and/or the WMF say. However, there is another confusion clouding clear thinking: there is a marked difference between '''neutrality''' and the '''neutral point of view'''. The neutral point of view ''is a point of view'': it is the viewpoint which seeks to represent all other significant viewpoints accurately, fairly, with due weight, and without bias, according to reliable sources. It sits alongside our goal to make the sum of human knowledge freely available.
::That is ''far'' from being "''neutral''". To some people, in some societies, and some cultures, it is a radical and totally unacceptable viewpoint: information contrary to some prevailing dogma is often regarded as harmful, and suppressing it is considered desirable. Wikipedia actively promotes the idea that it is better to know and understand what those who disagree with you say and believe than it is to silence them or pretend they do not exist. "''A more informed world is a better world.''" That isn't "neutral" — it is an extraordinary political statement.
::Part of our role as a community is to defend and promote the neutral point of view. Political acts which might undermine our ability to do so can and should be challenged. Not in articles, where we should redouble our efforts to represent the views of those who disagree with our goals accurately, fairly, and without bias. That is the neutral point of view. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 20:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::I was enjoying your post, though not completely agreeing, but you disappeared into passive-voice vagueness on the second sentence of the last paragraph. Can you clarify?--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 20:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::Sure. The main point of my post was to address confusions which cloud productive discussion about what course of action to take, if any. The sentence you refer to ("Political acts...") is not at all vague, and could easily be rephrased as "We can and sometimes should challenge political acts...". I am asserting the legitimacy of making political challenges to acts that interfere with our goals. In any particular situation, such as this one, the case still has to made that our goals are under threat, and that taking action is justified: just because we ''can'' act, does not mean we ''should'' take a particular course of action. This may not be so far from your own view. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 21:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::Probably, though I suspect I am a bit more hardened on the no point. As of yet, I have seen nothing beyond generalities as to the "threat" to Wikipedia. We have a bill. As I understand it, it has not passed either house of Congress, and the Senate has gone for a competing bill. There will, at some point, be a conference committee. Withdrawal of service, or even the threat thereof, is a weapon usable once. If it is used too early, it is ineffective and we sound shrill. Please keep in mind that it is not very much of a weapon, it is the classic toy gun with sign "BANG!" because the public will simply go to the next site to get the information. I recall in one of James Hogan's books, they kept shutting a computer that could learn on and off. Eventually it wired around the switch. So will our public. All it does is rather dramatically declare our position on something. Will our public sit and ponder the evils of the proposed legislation? Will they follow the links and learn? No. They will say, "Funk this schiss" or something similar, page back and go to #2 on the list. Or possibly look at the cached copy on Google, not sure how that works. In other words, no one will be inconvenienced. But people will have learned two things: That Wikipedia takes positions on contentious political issues, and that accessing the site is not necessary in order to gain the site's information. Switch off, switch on.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 22:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::We licensed our data to the world. They took it. We can't take it back. Now, what would be in my view an effective means of doing it is a symbolic strike for 24 hours, editors refrain from editing. Possibly we could even plan non-wiki activities, post photos, have get togethers, invite the media, that kind of thing. Not everyone would have to participate, but you can't hide the fact that you edited during those 24 hours, so social pressure would apply.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 22:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::I agree with you on many points: you make pragmatic arguments, and I am a pragmatist as well as an idealist! I don't agree with your last point, as people find their information through search engines, and these predominantly link to Wikipedia. However, according to the hattext of this RfC, no particular action is being proposed at this stage, so the RfC is, on the face of it, concerned primarily with principle, not practicalities. However, the pragmatist in me sees more than that: Jimbo is looking for collective will, as such an expression of will could be useful leverage. Our support or otherwise should be based on whether we believe it is appropriate to bring our collective will to bear in this case.
::::::If there is consensus for action, I hope you will take forward your ideas about ''how'' to act most effectively. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 22:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Certainly. If the community decides generally to act, I will of course suggest what I deem the most effective ways to take action. I am a loyal member of the community.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 23:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::OK, Geometry guy, this point has me add a ''support'' !vote in the sense of "something should be done". [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] [[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]] 01:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:Sorry I should have said 'for example, perhaps he doesn't really understand the technical issues'. I'm not saying he doesn't understand the issues, rather suggesting it's a possibility. My point is more that even if you feel he's wrong, it doesn't mean he's being influenced by his need to defend his clients. And even if you think he genuinely personally believes what he's saying, it doesn't mean he's right. Of course people can disagree on stuff without either holding their views for the wrong reason, but I was specifically thinking of Seraphimblade's comment on engineers. I think there's a fair chance they will indeed understand the technical issues about the design of the internet and how certain actions will affect the internet then him. On the other hand, I also think it's fair to say he will understand the legal issues, like how the law is likely to be implemented, what it means for companies and users who have to respond to the law, and how it will interact with stuff like the US consitution then the engineers. One of the difficulties here of course is they both matter. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 14:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

:BTW one interesting slightly related example here is the 92A controversy mentioned in [[Copyright law of New Zealand]]. Concerns were raised about the ability for users internet access to be cut off based on three complaints and without a court case. Others were concerned about the effect on ISPs and particularly schools, universities, libraries and those operating public wifis (although these are very rare in NZ anyway) in dealing with large volument of complaints (particularly for ISPs) and also in identifying who was responsible (particulary for non ISPs). After an outcry including in blogs and other websites, the original amendment was put on hold and the law was amended again resulting in [[Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act 2011]]. In this case it undoutedly helped that there was a new government who could conviently blame the previous government for the old law, even if the party behind the new government had supported the original amendment anyway. Also the MP considered responsible lost their seat in the election that lead to the new government and some suggested anger over the bill was one of the reasons.
:Anyway in the new amendment, the ability to cut off internet access after 3 complaints had been put on hold for now. But fines can be imposed by the copyright tribunal. Also ISPs are allowed to charge to process complaints and While the new law has had an effect on traffic (i.e. what people are doing with the internet) [http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2011/0907.shtml] [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/digital-culture/dwayne-winseck/nz-feels-the-throttling-effects-of-new-maximalist-copyright-laws/article2229106/print/] it hasn't actually resulted in a large number of complaints to ISPs yet. Some people say the fee copyright holders get charged by ISPs to process complaints is enough to discourage them. Others say the involved parties (RIANZ etc) are keeping quiet either so they can complain in the 2013 review that it isn't working or so they can pretend to other government this is what it will be like if they have similar laws and they don't have to worry about an unmanagable chaos of complaints and internet users being railroaded. Some think it's still too earlier and copyright holders are still testing the waters and learning how to deal with the law (and perhaps wanting to avoid an outcry by proceeding too rapidly). Yet others say it's proof the earlier fuss was a much ado about nothing.
:[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 15:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Robofish, it's the same as the difference between asking people to help write an encyclopedia and editing the [[Encyclopedia]] article to say that people ''should'' write encyclopedias. The former is not a [[WP:SOAP]] issue, but the latter would be, and a [[WP:NPOV]] violation (unless we also included non-fringe views from people saying that encyclopedias shouldn't be written.) [[Special:Contributions/67.6.163.68|67.6.163.68]] ([[User talk:67.6.163.68|talk]]) 00:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:Or, better, it is the ultimate instance of [[WP:POINT]].--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 00:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::"Ultimate" in what sense? ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 00:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::It's a considerable disruption to make a considerable point.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 00:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::Since the alternative from inaction is the likelihood of greater disruption, then it is not disruptive on balance. [[Special:Contributions/67.6.163.68|67.6.163.68]] ([[User talk:67.6.163.68|talk]]) 01:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::A rather remote possibility! Surely the revolution would come after they took down Facebook, even if it didn't start with Youtube.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 01:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::{{citation needed}} Please see below: [[#What we are trying to prevent has been happening for a year]] [[Special:Contributions/67.6.163.68|67.6.163.68]] ([[User talk:67.6.163.68|talk]]) 01:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Those are advocacy sites. They are not expected to be neutral treatments, naturally they seek to advocate.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 01:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::I am afraid you are very much mistaken. ''Business Insider'' and ''Ars Technica'' have always been considered reliable independent secondary news sources on Wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/67.6.163.68|67.6.163.68]] ([[User talk:67.6.163.68|talk]]) 01:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::"Considerable" as in "worthy of consideration" or as in "too much, a lot of"? ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 01:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::As in, a significant amount.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 01:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

===Start a WikiProject===
Wikipedia's greatest strength is in collecting and disseminating accurate information. Currently the EFF is largely supportive[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/alternative-sopa-open-process-befitting-open-internet] of an alternative bill, supported by Senator [[Ron Wyden]] (D-OR) and Represenative [[Darrell Issa]] (R-CA), known as the [[Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act]] or [[OPEN Act]].[http://keepthewebopen.com/] Note red links ''[now blue ;)]''; in fact as of writing this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=%22Online+Protection+and+Enforcement+of+Digital+Trade%22&fulltext=Search&profile=all&redirs=1 no results] come up here for the name. I would like to see this red link become a DYK and perhaps even a Featured Article. Thus there would seem to be a use for a WikiProject, dedicated not to advocacy but simply to ensuring that the facts as they exist are accurately reported, as the SOPA bill needs no herald to announce its stench. But is a new WikiProject definitely needed (rather than some recruits to [[WP:WikiProject Human rights]], [[WP:WikiProject Telecommunications]], or [[WP:WikiProject United States Public Policy]], or simply a general agreement here to get cracking?)? If a new WikiProject is needed, what should its scope and name be? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 19:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
:I've since gotten [[OPEN Act]] up to the point where I proposed it for DYK. Feedback welcome ;) [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 21:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::Good. I'll be by.[[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 07:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

===You're a public speaker and sort of a celebrity===
Have you tried speaking to the politicians? Could you try contracting one of the people responsible for the Republican debates and have them bring the subject up? Could you create buzz within the mainstream media without doing a strike? Have we exhausted all other options? Out of curiosity, on whose side is the man with the veto on? --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] ([[User talk:Michaeldsuarez|talk]]) 00:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:Yes, I will be speaking to people throughout this week. Your idea about the Republican debates is a good one, but we don't have a lot of time. They are trying to ram this through very quickly. I am being very cautious with my public statements because the behind-the-scenes negotiations are underway, and timing is everything. We don't yet know which side Mr. Obama is on, but I am hopeful that he can be supported to veto SOPA in favor of the [[OPEN Act]]. I will be speaking to some of his top advisors this week.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 11:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

===What we are trying to prevent has been happening for a year===
We're too late, but it's still a good idea to oppose SOPA to prevent this from becoming more widespread:
# Rosoff, M. (December 9, 2011) [http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-09/tech/30491777_1_blog-seizure-feds "The Feds Shut Down A Music Blog For A Year For No Real Reason"] ''Business Insider''
# Lee, T.B. (December 12, 2011) [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/ice-admits-months-long-seizure-of-music-blog-was-a-mistake.ars "ICE admits year-long seizure of music blog was a mistake"] ''Ars Technica''
[[Special:Contributions/67.6.163.68|67.6.163.68]] ([[User talk:67.6.163.68|talk]]) 00:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

===Actual scenario===
DMahalko in the poll-section makes a damn good point — what would actually happen if US government shut down wikipedia along with youtube and so forth? The backlash would be enormous and as dramatic as it seems, the public demonstrations against it could maybe only be quelled by the imposition of martial law or something. So... (even though I !voted some tentative support), can the ''strong support''-voters explain why we shouldn't just let this scenario take place and wait for the water cannons and pepper spray to appear on the news? [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] [[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]] 02:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

::The US Department of Justice is already seizing websites. Google Operation In our Sites and ask yourself why the Department of Homeland Security is worried about counterfeit handbags when SCADA control panels are open to the entire internet and some reset user passwords to an easily-googled default if their users follow best practices on password complexity.
::This is not a Chicken Little scenario. Copyright law was used against a security researcher who disclosed the presence of a commercial rootkit on millions of cell phones. Last month. The SOPA article contains several examples of unintended consequences caused by governments messing with their TLDs. (If they have not been removed) It's important to understand that the US controls all .com, .net and .cc domains, so this is not a parochial US issue. I have not managed to get that piece of information to stay in the SOPA article though. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 07:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::That doesn't answer my question. Read it again. [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] [[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]] 07:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::Do you see much coverage of Occupy Oakland or San Francisco on the news? It's all been filed under "dirty hippies were a health risk, and the police did what they were ordered to do." Do you see much coverage of Goldman Sach's fraudulent derivatives? Do not expect critical thinking from the evening news.
::::Wnt's explanation somewhere around here is essentially correct. The DoJ is not going to seize Wikipedia. It will instead require it to take active measures to make sure its users do not post anything that could be considered to violate copyright. At a minimum this is an unfunded mandate for a huge staff increase that would probably make Wikipedia's business model untenable (and YouTube's, and Twitter's...).The Chinese equivalent of Twitter employs hundreds of people to screen user posts. But since copyright law is *already* being abused to criminalize First Amendment material, the chilling effects will be far, far worse. SOPA also makes illegal tools for evading penalties for copyright violations. Goodbye to the open source projects that brought you the Arab Spring. These tools are very very broadly defined, in a manner that could cover widely used privacy tools such as SSL and VPN. Passage of SOPA would endanger the implementation of DNSSEC. That's not me saying that, it's Sandia Laboratories.
::::But nobody is going to arrest Mr Wales tomorrow...it will just gradually become harder and harder for him to keep this site in existence. Oh yeah and, speaking from the heart of Silicon Valley here, which currently leads the nation in job growth--the uncertainty about the effects of the law will very likely cause venture capital to dry up. That's not me saying that, that's venture capitalists.
::::That's why.[[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 08:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::I wasn't expecting anything from the evening news, or any news for that matter. I am expecting protests from all those who use wikipedia and other sites, and that (unlike the Occupy-movement) is a broad base of people.
:::::As for the part that requires wikipedia to enforce copyright-law more aggressively, I am completely for that. People who engage in copyright infringement here should be blocked and banned for life upon first violation without recourse or discussion. But that's just me I guess. [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] [[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]] 09:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, did not mean to point my finger and say *you*. People, in general, should not expect an outcry about really bad proposals. A single Senator kept this from poofing into law as is, and it still may if the sponsors can get sixty votes.
::::::If a tree falls in a forest, though? The reason I believe you are mistaken about this is that they have already been seizing sites for a couple of years, and nobody paid attention because they were just torrent sites. Except some of them weren't. And some of that illegal video wasn't. And at least one site they seized was totally legal in Spain, where it had its offices and servers. But see, it had a .com domain name. The legislation also does away with this pesky jurisdiction stuff -- if someone in the US reads your site, it's affected by the bill.
::::::And by the way, I'm not against protecting copyright at all. Just don't think SOPA is the way to do it. And your proposal is a little drastic too, LOL. We don't have to argue about that, but let me tell you a story. I am currently involved in an AfD that says that a screenshot of an open source browser running on my own personal laptop may be a copyright violation. Who knew? I posted why I thought it wasn't, and as far as I know it's still open for comment. I will be ok with the results either way it goes. But I am telling you this in hopes of showing you that if the person who filed the AfD is correct, it was an innocent error made for all the right reasons. And under SOPA, Wikipedia would have been responsible for it. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 13:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

:Because it's not going to happen that way. The bill doesn't appear to propose shutting down Wikipedia, but possibly restricting its freedom and the freedom of the sources on which it relies (if I understand things correctly). There would be no public demonstrations, no pepper spray, just an Internet that is less open. And, without wanting to breach Godwin's law, I believe some people died in the Holocaust having had a similar faith that if you sit tight and stick to your own business, bad things just don't happen because something else will always intervene. --[[User:FormerIP|FormerIP]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 03:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

::Forgive me, FormerIP, obviously we don't agree, but isn't it a good idea to wait on the Nazi analogies until you've grasped, at least generally, the statute? Even with the ritual nod to the dear departed Mike Godwin.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 03:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

:::Take a deep breath and just work past the analogy. The point is that ''let's sit tight, because something always comes along if you do nothing'' is a poor policy to live by. If you think the bill is actually not so bad, then of course that makes it a different matter. --[[User:FormerIP|FormerIP]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 03:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::Very clever recasting, I salute you. However, what you are actually doing is very solemnly assuring us there is, there is a wolf coming despite significant evidence to the contrary.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 03:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::Yes, that's what I meant, this could be ''cry wolf''. And sometimes, it can be better to actually let the wolf appear so people can (often for the first time) see what a wolf actually does. [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] [[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]] 03:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::If you think it is cry wolf, then by all means oppose it on that basis. But not on the basis that the idea of taking action to defend yourself somehow doesn't make sense. If there's really nothing to worry about, then I too support inaction. Seb: I feel I must add, though, that in the "cry wolf" scenario there is no wolf. Keeping quiet about a wolf so that it can maul the villagers is a different story that no-one has written yet. --[[User:FormerIP|FormerIP]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 03:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::: Wait, the cry-wolf scenario is to bore people into submission when the wolf finally comes (see: ''[[The Boy Who Cried Wolf]]'', on when the wolf arrived), hence, "[[psychic numbing]]" was the danger. There should be real sourced discussion about the expected danger (including primary sources which state the danger, not ''[[argument to authority]]'' raising fears, but real evidence in legal wording affecting U.S. websites). -[[User talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 09:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

:::::::There might not be a wolf here, either. Moreover, the villagers in the story know by experience what a wolf does. [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] [[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]] 03:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::The effects would be more subtle but more pervasive than an all-or-nothing block. Once the U.S. government gets into the Great Firewall business, many decisions would end up being made more after the fashion of totalitarian nations. For example, there was a flap here a year ago about Wikipedia displaying the [[FBI seal]] on its page, which [[Mike Godwin]] concluded was legitimate. There was recrimination against his outspoken response because some people felt that whatever the law, antagonizing the government was not a safe thing. That sentiment would be much, much stronger if people felt like at any time the DOJ could act on a specious third party complaint to block all access to the site without trial. Such intimidation might start at decisions of which content to exclude on the basis of pseudo-legal theory, but it would quite readily extend to excluding mention of political views or facts that the government found inconvenient. For America to surrender to the Chinese model and abandon its mores against censorship would greatly demoralize the resistance to such tendencies. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 05:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::I agree with [[User:Wnt|Wnt]]. Also, these "cry wolf" analogies don't really apply here. Unfortunately, the problem here is that there is no "wolf" but there is ''still'' a major problem or threat. It is unfortunate that the best way to explain it results in a "slippery slope" fallacy. This is how the entertainment industry wants it. The problem is one of erosion, not an outright attack. I trust in the huge number of "internet experts" (for lack of a better term) that oppose SOPA because they should know. That is who we should defer to. If people are looking for simple cause and effects here they aren't going to find them and it is important that we acknowledge this. It would make sense to have reservations on a "cry wolf" basis if it were only a handful of "experts" that opposed it or if the bill was so drastic that we could completely expect widespread backlash. However, neither of these are true. The effects will be slow-moving and the major media coverage will be poor (their owners are likely supporters of the bill) so the effects that come later won't be strongly tied to the causes for everyday citizens. As people with at least ''some'' specialized knowledge of the topic, the responsibility falls to us to try to prevent an erosion of the internet. [[User:Heeerrresjonny|Heeerrresjonny]] ([[User talk:Heeerrresjonny|talk]]) 10:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
'''I really wish that some of the people here who understand that these laws endanger Wikipedia would come help patrol the articles on the subject''' as they are plagued by contentious editing and repeated removals of sourced material. I have not yet succeeded in getting the problems with DCMA to stay in the article, for instance. I just got a lecture on advocacy by an administrator I'd asked for help. Opinions of first amendment lawyers get moved to an opponents section, and their presence there is then used to say that quoting about the impact of the bill is not NPOV. Und so wieder. And by the way, I '''support''' a strike. Whatever it takes to get people to understand that much of what is special about the internet would wither and die. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 07:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:I would have to look at the article in some detail, which I lack the time to do, I have someone annoyed at me for not implementing his peer review comments on another article, but from your description it sounds to me like you wanted the opinions of opponents of the bill to be stated as fact, rather than as opinion. Even if they were stated by "first amendment lawyers", they are, nevertheless, opinions. Hope this helps. I could not act as an admin regarding that article due to my participation in this discussion, but if you have specific questions on content, I'll do my best.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 10:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

::It keeps getting cast that way, that's true. But when you ask a lawyer "what will happen if x" (the law passes as is, for example) what you get for your money is called an *opinion* whether you or I like the term or not ;)And that name does not make the result invalid. Kind of like the theory of evolution isn't just something someone made up one day in the shower ;) even if it *does* have "theory" in its name.
::Or, if you can think of a better way to forecast the effects of this bill, I am open to any suggestions you may have. That categorization of "opponents" and "supporters" is someone else's idea and a bit arbitrary in my opinion, because it loses many shades of grey. The EFF as I recall for example gives the House sponsors credit for trying to get away from rigidly prescribing a technical solution that won't work, but says the language proposed instead is so vague that *anything* could go into the court order, leading to the uncertainty I mentioned elsewhere on this page. That's quite a bit more complex WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Lawyer's opinions are all we have to work with and at least better than the language of the legislation, which says it's protecting motherhood and apple pie by preventing people from ordering their drugs at legitimate Canadian pharmacies. I usually hang out on technical and obscure pages where there's zero controversy, but I am pretty sure that AGF doesn't require us to buy any bridges in Brooklyn.
::And besides, weren't you yourself citing Floyd Abrams a little while ago? Silly Wehwalt:)
::Meanwhile, if you are serious, I may indeed have questions for you about how to apply policy. Thanks. Seriously. (For instance some specific issues around how to fairly give both sides without whitewashing when the consensus is *so* much against it...) But I can assure you that the article as it stands contains statements that are simply wrong but keep getting reinserted. Needs help and I don't care whether the people who help it agree with me, as long as they do in fact help it, mumble. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 12:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::I have to go out shortly, I will answer your policy questions on my talk tonight (separate discussion, people) I will confess I did think of how powerfully people were crying out against Floyd Abrams fand then citing to first amendment lawyers, but it did not seem worth mentioning for tactical reasons. I may have been wrong, but no big deal either way. You tell me that there is no certainty in the future; I heartily agree and suggest you mention that to the people who are utterly predicting the sky will fall and there will be a Great Firewall across America. And the burden of proof is not with me, it is with Jimbo as proponent and backer of the RfC.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 16:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Welp, the Great Firewall of China uses precisely these techniques, so if this law passes that's what we will have. That's another fact. So is the number of small internet companies that would go out of business because of the monitoring requirements. But I digress. You asked me about Wikipedia and the most pertinent to Wikipedia is what it does to DMCA. Tonight is fine. At your convenience. If people let me ask them questions I am not going to go complain about how soon they answer ;) As for Abrahams, mmm, I have a fair amount of disdain for ''Citizens United'' but I can't evaluate his legal abilities. I just feel like it's one way or the other, yanno? Either lawyers are experts for this, or not. He's not quoted in the SOPA article because I think his opinion is about PROTECT IP, but I'm ok with adding him anyway if it seems like a good idea. Would have to also mention his client list in that case, mind you. Talk to you later. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 20:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:my apologies to Elinruby for accidentally zapping the above comment, and thanks to Risker for alerting me - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 21:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

===Ummm...===
{{hat|Volunteer Marek is explicitly requested to desist from personal attacks on others or stay off my user page}}
Why is this here? What relevance does it have? Can I start a RfC on *my* user talk page over shutting down Wikipedia for a few days over some pet cause of mine and if there's a couple of "support" votes, we gonna shut down? This is not the venue for this kind of discussion and even less of a venue for what has turned into a voting poll (to put it charitably). So stop freakin' voting. I know you really want to show Jimbo how much you love him but this whole endeavor goes against the fundamental principles of Wikipedia and no matter how many people write an empty "support" on it, there's not going to be a strike.

At the end of the day, we've been told over and over again that policies such as NPOV are fundamental - and this proposal goes right against that. Also, Jimbo has always made a pretense of being "just another editor" (and for the most part has stuck to that, until now). This means that Jimbo has no more right to start this kind of a "poll" on his user talk page than I do. Now, giving Jimbo a charitable interpretation of the events it looks like he posted a comment on his talk page, which he hoped would get taken to another venue (this is AGFing the fuck out of the "Please help me publicize this widely" comment). But a whole bunch of people who think that agreeing with Jimbo is a way to earn brownie points on Wikipedia turned this into a "Poll". That's not how Wikipedia works. You want a 'strike', propose it in an appropriate venue (village pump, ANI, separate RfC page etc.). Stop wasting time here. Go write an encyclopedia.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 07:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:It was posted on AN and RfC, and you're welcome to post about it anywhere else you think it should be publicized. As for me personally, I've disagreed (in some cases strenuously) with Jimbo on more than one occasion. I couldn't care less about earning "brownie points" with him. I agree with him in this case because I believe he is correct. I believe that is true of most, if not all, of those who have agreed here. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] [[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] 07:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::Maybe but people are "voting" here. And yes, it's pretty obvious that a lot of the support votes are due to the simple fact that Jimbo is the one who proposed it.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 08:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

:Wow. People who disagree with your particular position are out to earn brownie points with Jimbo? [[Argumentum ad Hominem]] much? Maybe you need to read [[WP:NPA]]. '''&tilde;[[User:Danjel|danjel]]''' [ [[User_talk:Danjel|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Danjel|contribs]] ] 07:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

::Wow yourself. What do you think is happening? Are you being daft or naive? There's absolutely no reason or justification in Wikipedia policies for this kind of proposal ... strike that, Wikipedia policies explicitly '''prohibit''' this kind of thing, if it was anyone else but Jimbo trying to pull this kind of a stunt they'd be banned for disruption. Assuming that these aren't naive <1000 edits newbies voting above... yeah, motives do come into question.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 08:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

:Wanna start an RfC on your talkpage? Go ahead. [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] [[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]] 07:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

::At best this is a blatant grab for power, naively supported by folks who can't think beyond "Jimbo said it, it must be true" or "SOPA bad, so support" (SOPA might be bad, but two wrong don't make a right). At worst it's a perfect illustration of everything that can be wrong with Wikipedia.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 08:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::If it bothers you so much go away and ignore it. [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] [[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]] 08:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::How about you go away and ignore it. What kind of bullying bullshit is that? Obviously this is something that would have very widespread implications across Wikipedia, and affect lots of editors myself included. So, no, I don't think I'm going to ignore it. That's a very nasty thing to say to somebody. Typical though I guess.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 08:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::Typical? You're the one attacking people and ranting when all this is is a poll because Jimbo wants to know what people think. You told him what you think and he'll read it. Other than that, it will not have implications. [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] [[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]] 08:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::Go away Seb, you're not welcome here and you're embarrassing yourself.
::::::More seriously, I just got to ask. If "it will not have implications" what is the purpose of the exercise in the first place? Obviously the reason people are voting here is because they believe - rightly or apparently wrongly - that it WILL have implications. Right?[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 08:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::No. At least I didn't. If they do believe that, they got it wrong. [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] [[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]] 08:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::So apparently there's just an excessive amount of internet ether out there and you're just doing your part in preventing it from reaching some kind of critical mass and blowing up the internets as we know it by wasting bandwith with "comments that have no implications". Kudos. For me, as disagreeable as some of my comments might seem to some, I *do* post them with the hope that they do carry some implications.[[User:Volunteer Marek|''' Volunteer Marek ''']] 08:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
{{hab}}
*I oppose Jimbo's proposal, as I made clear, so perhaps I have a slight bias. But one reason it is highly unusual to have RfCs on user talk pages is that we allow users a bit more privilege over their talk pages than over the average page. It is not, however, unusual for words to get a bit heated in an RfC. But is this an RfC? Or is it just a straw poll? If the former, I suggest we move it out of Jimbo's userspace, though keeping a link of course.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 09:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::This is my personal request for comment in order to guide my thinking and talking with politicians over the next few days. I am also speaking to the Foundation, Foundation attorneys, our paid lobbyists, fellow traveller organizations, etc. Because the Foundation has requested, reasonably due to negotiations under way and the impact that I might have on that by accidentally creating a public furore, I'm not able to say a lot at this time. Part of my job here is to represent the wishes of the community to all these parties, hence the straw poll. As I said before, nothing here is binding - if and when we would do something like this, there would be a much more formal proposal. Right now, what I'm thinking is that if there is a credible threat that this might happen, this could have a positive impact on the thinking of some legislators. Do not underestimate our power - in my opinion, they are terrified of a public uprising about this, and we are uniquely positioned to start that. Back room politics over cigars and promises, or a vigorous public debate? I know what I want, and I know what the other side wants, and they aren't the same thing.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 14:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::"Paid lobbyists"? {{cn}}. --[[User talk:SB_Johnny|'''SB_Johnny''']] | [[User_talk:SB_Johnny|talk]] 23:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::'''Contradiction.''' This is your "personal poll", but it's your "job" to represent the Foundation? Sue is the CEO. Did she ask for this poll? Did the board formally vote and ask for it? Are you speaking for them, when you talk to the President, or for yourself, or just trying to have it both ways like a wave-particle duality? No one denies that you have a big Q rating, but the akward straddling of personal advocacy with people who think that you really still are in charge of Wikipedia is wrong. It would be more noble if you were more self-effacing here.[[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|talk]]) 14:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

::::I left a message at Sue Gardner's page asking whether statements to Barry O by Jimbo will represent the WMF's position.[[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|talk]]) 15:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::TCO, you are way out of line here. I am in constant communication with both Sue and the Board of the Foundation. Niether of them has ever suggested to me, and would laugh at the idea, that I'm supposed to get permission from them before asking a question of the community - that's an absurd thing for you to expect. Sue and I have an excellent working relationship and I am of course a solid team player. It is rude and uninformed of you to make such comments.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 11:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

:::Jimbo, I'm a bit puzzled by your comparison of cigars and promises, and vigorous public debate. As I see it, there is very considerable and open public debate on this question. If indeed this is decided in back rooms with cigars as in a [[Homer Davenport]] cartoon about [[Mark Hanna]], I find it difficult to believe, if they are truly so contemptuous of the public, that they would be swayed by Wikipedia. On the one side, we are taking chances with our reputation for neutrality and availability to take a stand which is already being taken by other people amid considerable publicity. On the other, we'd be doing the same thing, and not making any difference. Either way, we will have altered people's perceptions of Wikipedia in an unplanned way.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 14:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

::::If I could break in with a fact here for a sec -- they were *trying* for the backroom. They did not invite any internet engineers to the hearing on the bill. Many many internet and tech companies wanted to testify but got the cold shoulder. Google was allowed to testify but got berate quite a bit for carrying ads for Canadian pharmacies a couple of years ago. Sorry for the interruption, I'll see myself out now ;p [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 14:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

:::::Thank you for that information, Elin, but I don't see that it materially changes the question. You tell me they showed bad faith, I will take your word for it for now, but just from what's out there, this issue is under klieg lights. Whatever happens will be debated in public fora. Similarly, even the threat of action by Jimbo, tomorrow or later, will have an effect on public perception on how we are seen. I routinely see newspapers and blogs casually mention information gotten from Wikipedia. I suspect that if we are viewed as being within the political spectrum, that will change. I don't see many casual mentions of information from Conservapedia, after all!--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 15:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

:::::It is *now*, yes. It wasn't in early November, and this spring the Senate version would have passed without a whimper if Ron Wyden had not put a hold on it. Even then it was getting no coverage at all, apart from specialized blogs and the odd story in the ''New York Times'' music section about the some of the rap sites that got hit. I think you express a legitimate concern about impartiality, but I also don't think impartiality requires Wikipedia to keep silent when its survival is at stake. You can have an opinion on what should happen and still stick to the facts you know, or nobody would ever be dispassionate enough to cover the news. But I'll shut up now and go do just that. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 15:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::"survival is at stake". Yes I know. I've seen at least two invocations of the Nazi Party, and any number of predictions so dire that I look up and am amazed the sun still shines. I have yet to see a clear and present danger to Wikipedia, explained cogently and unemotionally.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 15:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I'd like to see that too. Elinruby's explanation above is that the effective removal of the safe harbor provision might force the WMF to vet every contribution for copyvios before it is posted. That would make the crowd-sourcing method that drives Wikipedia completely impractical, and undermine the principle that anyone can edit. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 16:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::The thing is, all this is too dependent on "mays" and "might" and "coulds". I could be hit by a meteor tomorrow. Barry O could change parties on Tuesday and world spin backwards on Wednesday.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 16:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Some things are more likely than others. :) But, you're getting vague, now, Wehwalt: "all this" what? "too dependent" for what? ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 16:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::The alleged threat to Wikipedia is the "all this". Many of the comments, even in support, contain such language. I am looking for evidence on three points: That the proposed legislation is a real threat to Wikipedia, that the proposed course of action (blocking the site for a day) would significantly help alleviate this threat, and that the course of action would be worth the down side (public perception of loss of neutrality). I have seen much passion expended in support of these point, but few facts cited.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 16:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::: Patience, patience, Wehwalt. I'd like to see more evidence too, but a definite course of action has not yet even been proposed, and action may prove unnecessary. On the other hand, there is evidence that the legislation could negatively affect Wikipedia, and it is a sensible objective to ensure it ''isn't'' a real threat and/or prevent it from ''becoming'' a real threat. The time to raise concerns about the possible impact of legislation is before it is enacted into law, and the time to influence policy makers is before they become too committed to a course of action. It's no good waiting with fingers crossed, comforted by the fact that the sun is still shining, until the court injunction arrives, and then saying, "I now have evidence that this legislation is harmful to Wikipedia, and therefore now oppose it". ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 17:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Raising concerns is what Jimbo is doing by meeting with the white house folks... I don't really see the point of this straw poll at all if all people want is to 'raise concerns' -- this straw pole is about closing wikipedia (temporarily) in protest, which is a lot more than just raising a concern. And I'll point out that SOPA has plenty of supporters, even in the tech world. Nobody thinks it is perfect (not even the MPAA/RIAA), but it isn't a finished piece of legislation yet (and even when it is it won't be perfect). The idea that waiting until the changes that have *already been promised* hit the committee floor is the same as waiting until the injunction arrives is pure FUD. [[User:Karthik Sarma|Karthik Sarma]] ([[User talk:Karthik Sarma|talk]]) 01:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::: You don't see the point? Interesting. So would you like go into a discussion without knowing whether anyone else backs your position? Don't you think you could be more influential if you were representing the views of many, rather than just your own? Do you not see the value of political leverage? ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 03:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: My understanding is that discussion about SOPA in general is not the point of this straw poll -- the point is to collect opinions on this specific proposal. I'd incline to claiming reductio ad absurdum but I simply don't see any connection at all between what I said and not believing in political leverage... [[User:Karthik Sarma|Karthik Sarma]] ([[User talk:Karthik Sarma|talk]]) 03:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: What specific proposal? Check the hat-text again. There is no specific proposal. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 03:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
These are all mainstream publications, with some well-respected tech sites thrown in:
*[http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20128239-38/sopa-hollywoods-latest-effort-to-turn-back-time/ CNET]
*[http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-11-02/business/30353433_1_sopa-craigslist-internet-service-providers San Francisco Chronicle]
*[http://www.itworld.com/security/223845/piracy-bill-could-waylay-floss-projects ITWorld]
*[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_19369009 San Jose Mercury-News]
[[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 17:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

::So... would anyone like to see RS for the First Amendment concerns? I actually posted some earlier but will post some more if you like. They are thick on the ground, and hey, I just noticed this new one: [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/ice-admits-months-long-seizure-of-music-blog-was-a-mistake.ars Feds admit they seized a completely legal domain name last year]. Note: they *just* admitted it. So sorry you've been out of business for a year. I can also post some RS for the breaks-the-internet concern if that's of interest, or the posting-infringing-video-becomes-a-felony concern...The human rights concerns? But we should take this elsewhere if we do that. Those four are some of the better explanations of why the law is a threat to Wikipedia. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 17:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::: You *are* aware that innocent people sometimes get sent to jail by juries of their peers, right? Mistakes get made, and it doesn't make the DOJ a pack of fascists. The articles you reference are quite alarmist, with little discussion of actual text or intent behind current discussions. They certainly don't really talk about alternatives, and you'll find 'mainstream' newspapers that complain about just about anything... [[User:Karthik Sarma|Karthik Sarma]] ([[User talk:Karthik Sarma|talk]]) 01:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

=== Another idea: Black background ===
So there is a lot off opposition to blanking the site for various reasons, one of which is that removing content, even for a day, is against what we should be doing. While I don't agree entirely with those people, I admit they do have some valid points. I think after a night of pondering that we could achieve a similar level of hype by doing a white-text-on-black-background instead of a site blank. It might not be quite as effective, but if we link it prominatly on every page (because there will be people wondering why we changed our colors), then it has the impact of informing people as well as not removing our content. We might have to go through some images (like the logo which has a white background) and make alternate ones for main site images (article ones aren't worth it) so it still looks proffessional. Obviously this won't appease those who don't think we should do anything and I do admit it won't have quite the same impact as a site blank. Thoughts?<big>∞</big>[[User:Jinnai|陣]][[User talk:Jinnai|内]][[Special:Contributions/Jinnai|'''Jinnai''']] 16:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
: While the impulse is commendable, such showy gestures are best used where a site has a greater depth of emotion than research available to it. I would prefer to have a simple banner inviting people to learn about and discuss the issue - especially if that issue includes WMF joining as a plaintiff in a lawsuit to obtain injunctive relief and ultimately to overturn the legislation. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 16:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::That banner will be ignored unless there is something showy.<big>∞</big>[[User:Jinnai|陣]][[User talk:Jinnai|内]][[Special:Contributions/Jinnai|'''Jinnai''']] 19:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:::Wikipedia's power isn't as a medium, but as a reference. Our business isn't really herding eyeballs where we want. But every week I see forums where people reference Wikipedia to back up political arguments, and for example I must have directed people from discussions on the occupywallst.org forums to Wikipedia entries a dozen times, and it often seems effective. Now it's important for Wikipedia to take a stand - to share its internal experiences with the public, to make clear to the country that this bill would be a real problem. But for that it doesn't really need bold fonts and fancy graphics; it needs news reports. And news reports almost always come out when lawsuits are filed, which is one of several reasons why I hope Wikipedia will join other academic and civil liberties organizations in suing for an injunction against the law if/when it is passed. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 22:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

:It would certainly save electricity. - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 16:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:: [citation needed] --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 19:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

=== Proposed replacement text ===

What about replacing all pages with "Our mission free knowledge for everyone, but the U.S. Congress and their proposed Stop Online Piracy Act might put an end to our mission. To show our disapproval, this, and all other pages at Wikipedia have been blanked."

It is not by any means perfect, but I think something along those lines should be added. It should also ask for a donation and contain a picture of Jimbo. [[User:PaoloNapolitano|Paolo]][[User talk:PaoloNapolitano|Napolitano]] 19:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the replacement text needs to explain more about how SOPA would impact wikimedia sites. I would write a suggestion, but I don't think I know enough of the details. [[User:Scott.medling|Scott.medling]] ([[User talk:Scott.medling|talk]]) 09:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

=== Alternate "Blanking" Proposal===
What if the page came up blank with a message that said "This might be what Wikipedia would look like if Congress passes the Stop Online Piracy Act. Click here to learn more, or click here to continue to this article." The user could pick if they want to go to the SOPA article or move past the blanking. So the entry is a blank article, but they can go on to the article they've requested if they choose to continue. We could set up a cookie so this only happens once per user per computer.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 20:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
: I hope we won't get to the point where actually taking action is necessary, but if we do, this is a much better approach than denying access to the encyclopedia. On the other hand, I don't like any of the proposed message texts, because they play into the hands of those who would use this as an opportunity to attack Wikipedia. However, getting the text right (and indeed the precise form of action) is something that we don't need to do unless action proves to be necessary. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 23:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:: If any action is to be taken it should be a strike. Because "Wikipedia have put a notice on their site" is not news in the way that "Wikipedia articles are inaccessible" would be. And because we risk a boomerang if the story ends up being about edit-warring and slanted coverage on SOPA-related articles. If they're not visible, then that can't happen. --[[User:FormerIP|FormerIP]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 23:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
::: You do realize that you literally just suggested that it would be a good idea to cover up discussions and even article content because they might make WP look bad, right? This is funny to me because my understanding is that a lot of contributors spend their time reverting the edits of folks who try to cover up inconvenient truths in their articles... [[User:Karthik Sarma|Karthik Sarma]] ([[User talk:Karthik Sarma|talk]]) 01:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:For what it's worth, I really like your idea and think it would be an effective alternative to complete blanking of Wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/68.195.21.220|68.195.21.220]] ([[User talk:68.195.21.220|talk]]) 23:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
:I think this is a good, less radical proposal (if/when) we get to that point. [[User: Crazynas|Crazynas]] [[User_talk:Crazynas|t]] 00:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:This proposal is for a symbolic action. As it will not effect the economic use of en.wikipedia, I do not believe it would be effective in forcing a major English language state to change its law. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 00:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::If you are looking to impact the conomic use of en.wiki, we could put on a 20-30 second timer that disables the "continue" button until it expires.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 20:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::That's an interesting proposal to convert the symbolic into the economic by attacking the speed of circulation of capital! That's a good pick. I've noted it below in a dissection of ideas coming forward. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 01:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:I, too, think this is a good proposal.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 11:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:: Regarding my concern about the text and criticism of Wikipedia for condoning copyvios, I'd like to draw attention to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=465534004&oldid=465533892 this idea] by Icedog, which I find rather appealing: it addresses potential criticism head on by suggesting, with humor, that Wikipedia has been taken down, in its entirety, because of the copyvios that some pages contain. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 23:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:This proposal is great, and would probably garner support more easily than just blanking the site. [[User talk:Sonia|sonia]]♫ 02:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:I like this proposal too. Possibly a first step might be to put some type of message in the same place as the "donation banner"? Wikipedia could send a different type of web page or banners for computers in the Washington DC area <grin> • [[User:Sbmeirow|Sbmeirow]] • [[User talk:Sbmeirow|Talk]] • 04:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:Great idea, TP. At the very least, that should be implemented on the Main Page. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 05:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:I like these ideas, but I feel like it won't be fair to those who are trying to get information. I understand this is quite an issue that needs to be tackled, but how about doing it so that people will at least understand it, but wouldn't distract them in any way from getting information (ex: blanking the logo without blanking the text OR blanking the logo and text with option to remove it). This is something that needs to be addressed. I think it's important that we make it so at least it doesn't become to obnoxious to have every single page and/or word blacked out. --[[User:Radiokid1010|Radiokid1010]] ([[User talk:Radiokid1010|talk]]) 06:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:There definitely needs to be some information here if this blanking happens. Without it it will mostly be in wain, IMHO. But please also mention [[Protect IP]] in such information! This bill is almost as bad as SOPA, and is probably more likely to pass.

===Proportionate and effective responses===
# The WMF should seriously investigate moving WMF operations out of the US. Publicise this. Embarass the US government, possibly affect SOPA, probably not. If necessary, have serious contingency plans ready. As a first step, of course, review the legal risks of SOPA and publish the conclusions. (Without this, the current discussion is pretty weak.)
# The community should do whatever it wants, but it should be a grassroots community response in order to be effective (like the Italian case) not a WMF move. Because of the discussion on ''this'' user talk page, that is now impossible, so the best thing is to do nothing, as a community. As individuals, of course, people can do what they like. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] [[user talk:rd232|talk]] 02:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

:What should they do, see if [[Sealand]] is for sale? Honestly, this entire affair is reaching new levels of absurd surrealism. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 03:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::Perhaps you should look up [[surrealism]]. What exactly is [[absurd]] about moving outside of a hostile legal jusridiction, or seriously investigating the possibility of moving when a previously hospitable one risks turning hostile? [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] [[user talk:rd232|talk]] 07:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::If the WMF moved out of the US, it would no longer be a US charity. Thus, US donations to it would no longer be tax deductible. It's a problem.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 08:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::There are Wikimedia chapters in the US that American donations could go to, just like for other countries... --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] ([[User talk:Yair rand|talk]]) 09:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

While it is certainly possible in a highly theoretical sense for the Foundation to move out of the United States, it would be highly problematic for a number of reasons. For many reasons, even under SOPA, the United States would likely remain the best jurisdiction for our work. The First Amendment provides very strong protection for our work. The physical infrastructure of the office and the main servers are in the United States, and it would be extremely costly to move either. So while leaving the US is a theoretical possibility, it is not a threat we should make idly, and it isn't a very plausible threat unless things radically change. (Which they could, of course!)--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 11:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::I was about to ask the same question. There's always the friendly nation of [[Tonga]] and their top level domain of ''[[.to]]'' where they maintain no WHOIS database and they have lax copyright laws.... [[User:Alatari|Alatari]] ([[User talk:Alatari|talk]]) 12:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:"the United States would likely remain the best jurisdiction for our work." sounds like an unexamined assumption to me. Yes, moving would be very costly, but if SOPA is as much of a threat as you say, then it would certainly be a reasonable and proportionate response to consider the costs and benefits of moving, and to investigate under what conditions it would be better to move. This need not be cast as a "threat", since the move would hardly damage the US government. It's a question of contingency plans under extraordinary circumstances. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] [[user talk:rd232|talk]] 18:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

===Strikes, voluntarism, and coercion===
Usually, with a strike, those workers choosing to strike down tools, and those choosing not to work on as usual. Those not striking may be picketed and persuaded, but they can't be compelled to participate in the action. Given that, I've no problem if some/many Wikipedians choose to strike. However, blanking the site is quite a different matter. If someone blanks a good page, we revert, warn and then block. Are those of us who choose not to strike to be forbidden from doing that. If we revert blanking will be end up blocked. My point, a shut-down of Wikipedia would not be the equivalent of a volluntary strike at all - it would be the equivalent of the ''management'' of a service provider withdrawing its service in political protest - and instructing its employees to cease working. The management may well be the community rather that the WMF - but the notion of individuals choosing goes out the window. We're all compelled to be part of the protest - even those of us with no knowledge of US politics and law.---[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 12:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:You might want to look into how the Italian Wikipedia community handled it.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 12:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

::I think you're wrong about "usually", Scott. ''Sometimes'' it is possible to work through a strike, but in many cases your place of work will be out-of-operation, or for reasons of health and safety or the practicality of you working, your employer may instruct you not to come in. --[[User:FormerIP|FormerIP]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 12:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

:::Sure, but non-strikers get to record their protest at the strike by at least signing in and getting paid. The unions don't get to shut everyone out and then claim 100% support. Only management can do a lock-out.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 14:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::Okay, so if everything is disabled except logging in, that should do it (?) --[[User:FormerIP|FormerIP]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 14:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::No it won't. I don't wish to "strike" - I want to go on as usual. I have no interest in this. If you want to strike, I won't prevent you - but please don't compel me to join you.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 14:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::: Me too! [[User:Karthik Sarma|Karthik Sarma]] ([[User talk:Karthik Sarma|talk]]) 01:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

::::Blanking isn't a strike anyway. It's more than that - it's suspension of service. I don't know how you would go about implementing it but if we get to that stage I intend to break any "picket" line and make sure that it is trivially easy for our readers to re-obtain access to the site if needed (probably via browser plugin or a proxy). Anyone willing to help both with implementation & publicity, please do let me know (US media contacts in particular would be useful). --'''[[user:ErrantX|Errant]]''' ([[User_talk:ErrantX|chat!]]) 14:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::It seems like, if it does happen, it will be geographically specific, so all that would be needed would be for people outside the US to offer VPN. Which, I guess, can't be prevented so, sure, go ahead. --[[User:FormerIP|FormerIP]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 14:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::I'm with Scott. Johnny Friendly, out of the way.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 17:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::I certainly agree that this would have elements of a lockout. Jimbo asserts that Wikipedia has elements of a monarchy and has talked about using his royal prerogative in the context of the recent Arbcom elections. The lack of a secret ballot and the put-downs delivered to some of the dissident voices (Cla86 Marek etc.) on this page means that this poll has all the democratic validity of the recent elections in Russia and the Congo.--[[User:Peter cohen|Peter cohen]] ([[User talk:Peter cohen|talk]]) 23:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

*Except with en.wikipedia the workers are the managers; which leaves the hackneyed and largely incorrect exegesis of industrial relations above stripped of its explanatory metaphoric value. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 20:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
**Indeed, and as perhaps a closer analogy, when a worker-owned cooperative votes to suspend operations in protest of something, operations are suspended, full-stop. --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] ([[User talk:Delirium|talk]]) 22:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
***And those who don't agree can leave, full stop. Is that what you are saying?--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 22:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
****That's how cooperatives work, yes. There are some limits to what extent [[WP:BOLD]] can override consensus. --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] ([[User talk:Delirium|talk]]) 22:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
*****I didn't join a political cooperative. I joined an editing community. If Wikipedia is changing into something else, then a number of us may not wish to be part of that. But I suppose that's how it goes. At an rate, this is premature. It doesn't look like there's any consensus at all.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 23:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
******It would be helpful if the WMF would issue a formal statement clarifying its position on this matter and on if Jimbo is really speaking for the WMF or not. Don't hold your breath for it, however. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 23:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
******* In fairness, it seems that Jimbo has stated clearly that he's trying to get information on how the community feels, not indicating that he or the WMF support this position (though it sounds like he does support it, at least). [[User:Karthik Sarma|Karthik Sarma]] ([[User talk:Karthik Sarma|talk]]) 01:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
This section is, of course, a total distraction, brought on by Jimbo himself referring to possible action as a "strike". If we can move past this inappropriate metaphor, then we may all benefit from further coherent discussion. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 00:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:The English Wikipedia is, arguably, WMF's flagship project. Does Jimbo have the authority to solicit opinions on temporarily shutting the thing down without mandate from the WMF? [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 06:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
::Of for crying out loud... are you still riding that bicycle? It's brain-dead obvious here that this is Jimbo-as-part-of-the-community. Would any of use need permission or mandate to solicit this input? --'''[[user:ErrantX|Errant]]''' ([[User_talk:ErrantX|chat!]]) 09:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:::No comment on whether Jimbo has authority (he says he's in contact with Sue - so that's certain), however when the Founder and senior board member comes and postulates a strike in support of his personal negotiations with US government (negotiations on behalf of the WMF), it is complete nonsense to maintain the pretence "he's just a community member having a discussion". Any action is intended to get publicity - the publicity will be "action called for and lead by Wikipedia founder Wales" not "this is just something the community spontaneously decided to do".--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 10:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

=== Implementation ===
One of the big policies around here is, [[WP:POINT|don't disrupt things to make a point]]. In that regard actually physically modifying tens (hundreds?) of thousands of pages individually sounds highly disruptive.

And even so, due to the "anyone can edit" environment, there's nothing preventing people "out of the loop" coming along and reverting hundreds of pages back to the original state, resulting in an edit war of epic proportions by those in favor of the proposal and those opposed to it. The vandals would have a field day in the midst of this.

Whatever this is, it would need to be done at a level above the wiki, something that only the foundation and the site programmers can manage and control. Possibilities:
* Database lock, read-only access for all editors and regular admins
* An interstitial whole-page message or effect, inserted into every first-access and tracked by browser cookie so that regular users don't keep getting "hit" with it over and over (or at least, see it less frequently).
* A huge vertically tall ad-banner similar to what is done already for donation drive, but the ad is taller than the browser window (or 2500 pixels tall if you can't read the browser window height).This does not damage the article content but pushes it waaaaaaaaaaaay down the screen, so that people can simply scroll down to view the "hidden" article content. The advantage is that infrastructure for this is already in place, and it can be hidden the same as the regular donation ads.

I still think it's stupid to drag the encyclopedia into this. But this implementation would at least do the least damage. [[User:DMahalko|DMahalko]] ([[User talk:DMahalko|talk]]) 15:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:The Italians implemented it through some Javascript; I do not know the details, but the site was still there, just not visible for the most part.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 15:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::Oversized banner ad is the Occam Razor of all the ideas suggested so far. Allowed access if highly desired and the easiest implementation ever. [[User:Alatari|Alatari]] ([[User talk:Alatari|talk]]) 16:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

=== non-US points of view ===
This talk has been publicized on the French language Wikipedia today at [[:fr:Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/12_d%C3%A9cembre_2011#« La Wikipédia anglophone en grève ? »]]. My view is that if US users who are perhaps most able at understanding what is happening or what might happen decide that something should be done, I am in favour of extending the movement on the French speaking Wikipédia, accessed from France, as well. Some users expressed disagreement with both the Italian movement and what was understood to be something similar being proposed for the English language Wikipedia. I guess some newbies don't even know who "Jimbo" is, and I tried to explain as I could that he is not an obscure activist, but someone important for Wikipedia. I would be glad to know how other language communities are reacting. [[User:Theo F|Teofilo]] [[User talk:Theo F|talk]] 20:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

=== Think about what you are trying to accomplish ===
You are trying to send a message that the SOPA is crossing the line for the internet, because it gives too much power to corporations to shut down websites and cut off their funding -- even if Wikipedia is unlikely to be among them. Shutting down wikipedia can *illustrate* this, but consider the consequences. First of all, Wikipedia content is replicated elsewhere, so people would be able to get at least a recent copy of Wikipedia articles somewhere. But before you take such an action, consider when you will "pull your troops out". Certain countries have started "military campaigns" due to a very controversial reading of their constitution (ahem, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States]]) , and it always became unclear when to pull out. I am worried that if Wikipedia goes down this road, it will likewise be unclear when to revert back. Suppose the SOPA is passed anyway. Will Wikipedia voluntarily be its first casualty? In that case, be aware that your attempt at a protest may very well get Wikipedia permanently removed from the internet. If you are supporting this action, please explain below what it will take for Wikipedia to go back online, or else why you think it is OK for Wikipedia to never reopen for business as a result of this brinksmanship. I would oppose because if we all know Wikipedia will be back whether or not SOPA passes, then it's not a credible threat at all, merely a protest -- which at the end of the day is worth shutting down the site. [[User:EGreg|EGreg]] ([[User talk:EGreg|talk]]) 23:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:I agree. However, Jimbo has inadvertedly unleashed an army of IPs so I am uncertain what we can do about it.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 09:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

===Real metaphors from industrial relations===
en.wikipedia is a large production unit, run on a community organisation model with features of the [[Firm]], [[industrial democracy]], [[consensus decision making]] and [[leadership cult]]. In the normal practice of production consensus rules. At the funding level, the [[Firm]] mentality, outside of en.wikipedia itself, dictates large scale budgets. Policy is developed through a system of !votes that amount to something between consensus and industrial democracy.

en.wikipedia's workforce is largely volunteer, with "paid" workers being paid by external agencies with specific agendas. The volunteer workforce predominates. Volunteers have responsibility for almost all management decisions, such that the workforce is effectively management. en.wikipedia can be seen as a [[self-managed]] [[worker's cooperative]] like [[Mondragon]]. One difference between en.wikipedia and other worker's cooperatives is that en.wikipedia editors are not paid.

The other difference, is that en.wikipedia gives away its product. The product differentiation between en.wikipedia and those who "clone" the database, is that en.wikipedia supplies:
*currently updated articles, guaranteed to be the "original" product as edited by the community
*community editing, that acts as a quality control (to a varyingly acceptable extent)

As en.wikipedia doesn't pay wages, and doesn't charge for its product, it can be seen as a "post [[commodity]]" economic unit. en.wikipedia is either the largest current economically socialist productive organisation in the world; or, the largest civil society volunteer project. Politically (as an object and practice; but not as a "supporter" of anything) this places en.wikipedia firmly in the heart of the "[[Enlightenment]] project" in either of its liberal-capitalist or democratic-socialist forms. This is not unusual: encyclopaedism has long been part of the Enlightenment project to popularise and democratise knowledge.

en.wikipedia's product is widely consumed, in particular by other information industry bodies such as newspapers, schools, Galleries Libraries Archives and Museums and politicians. We could effectively withhold currency and quality in wikipedia content from these bodies as part of an action.

Of use here, is William Foote Whyte, Kathleen King Whyte "Coping with Internal Conflict" in ''Making Mondragón: the growth and dynamics of the worker cooperative complex'' (pp. 91–102); which discusses strikes from internal causes in Mondragon.

Encyclopaedists may feel, reasonably, that this situation threatens or does not threaten the encyclopaedic process. Encyclopaedists may feel, reasonably, that taking action or not taking action would threaten the encyclopaedic process.

Drawing on the conversation above, I'm going to suggest there are three types of action en.wikipedia can take in the face of external threat from corporate apparatus or state apparatus:
* symbolic action that pleads with the other to resolve the problem
* economic or political action that directly affects the other and places immediate material pressure upon them to force them to resolve the issue with us
* direct action that ignores the other and solves the problem
I would argue that [[direct action]] is the most effective solution to the current problem. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 00:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

====Symbolic action====
Symbolic action is much like [[protest]]: it attempts to plead with a powerful other for them to change their mind. In the case of en.wikipedia's products (currency and quality) we could:
*Advertise via:
**Front page messages
**Top of page messages
**Black borders
**Click through advertisements
*One day "strikes":
**Blankings or selective blankings
All of these actions assume that the state apparatus wants to listen to us and incorporate our views. These techniques closely relate to the protests, community meetings, petitions, letters to the editor or politician, symbolic one day strikes, or symbolic work bans that people may be familiar with from their general life. Many editors who have taken such actions will have a preformed opinion on the efficacy and efficiency of pursuing such actions when facing a government that does not wish to listen to the people. My suggestion is that lobbying by WMF, public figures, and other information industry organisations is already sufficient for this; and, that the state does not wish to negotiate with us. Therefore: taking symbolic action would be self-defeating if the aim is to prevent a US law affecting the quality of the encyclopaedic project. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 00:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

====Economic or political action====
Economic or political action is hitting them where they hurt, over an issue of policy, that we want to force them to change. Evaluating the successfulness of this strategy would depend on the amount of "harm" we could inflict. It could comprise:
*Indefinite blankings or selective blankings called off by:
**Win or fail
**Community reevaluation of cost
*Periodic, selective or rolling blankings selected by:
**Topic
**IP range
**Random
*Restricting viewing the encyclopaedia to:
**Non-logged in users
**Certain IP ranges (US government for example, or corporate supporters of the bill)
**All those except users who meet certain criteria ("active" editors, etc.)
*Increasing the economic cost to outside agents of using wikipedia:
**Click throughs or hassles with a 20–30 second timer on the click through. The additional time cost of this would have an economic effect on institutional uses of en.wikipedia (I am indebted to user TParis for this suggestion)
These techniques rely on disrupting the flow of capital, or the capacity of other institutions to function. They resemble the [[sit-down strike]], [[lockout]], [[political boycott]], voluntary [[restriction on trade]] and [[work-in]] in many ways. Many editors may not be familiar with taking these actions. They can win. They are often very costly for the organisation or group taking action, as well as their "opposition," and have the potential to divide communities permanently as words like "scab" or "illegal striker" get thrown about. Even when conducted creatively with periodic actions, or selective actions, the cost can be high. en.wikipedia would need to sufficiently damage the political esteem of the responsible state apparatus, or the economic value of its opposition, more than the cost of their bill not passing. Given that the bill is about the long term survival of information as a saleable commodity, the time-cost horizons of en.wikipedia's opponents are very very long indeed; and, in fact may comprise the "survival of capitalism as such" in the final analysis. If our opponents perceive this as a survival issue, then I would suggest we are far less powerful than they are. If they perceive this as a 2% profit issue over 20 years, we may be stronger in this domain. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 00:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:Very insightful analysis. Whatever action is taken needs to get the maximum people pissed off enough to contact their congressional representative and say vote against SOPA. Thus only restricting to certain government and corporate domains will not be effective. Restricting to only logged in users maybe the right move but will need some empirical data on it's effect and adjustment made mid protest if it's not effective. We will certainly encourage more sign ups! [[User:Alatari|Alatari]] ([[User talk:Alatari|talk]]) 12:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:If the protest goes on too long there is a small chance of a Wikipedia competitor gaining enough power to become an alternative to WP. [[User:Alatari|Alatari]] ([[User talk:Alatari|talk]]) 12:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

====Direct action====
Direct action means solving the problem at its source while ignoring, dismissing or routing around the problem of your opponents. Given that the problem is US law in particular, and the attempt of states to intervene in general, a direct action solution would mean:
*removing en.wikipedia's domain name, servers and IP routing from any possibility of state intervention against it. This may include supplying suitable proxies to our primary editor body (editors in the US). This would require expert legal and technical advice.
*removing en.wikipedia's funding stream from the potential threat of state seizure or interference. This would require expert legal and organisational advice at a level above en.wikipedia.
*other long term alternatives are available but do not directly relate to defending the encyclopaedic process from outside attack.
While these techniques have a high pay-off (freedom from interference from US, or any state's laws) they similarly impose high legal, organisational and potentially technical costs which en.wikipedia editors themselves cannot directly action with en.wikipedia. We could "symbolically" request that our allies in WMF, and other related projects, look at how to achieve these in a cost efficient, and a legally and technically effective way. It does, however, mean abandoning individual editors to the US law. I would suggest integrating these techniques with elements of the techniques above, if other encyclopaedists feel that the encyclopaedia is threatened. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 00:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:Yes, we can deny the current version. We cannot deny recent past versions which in most cases will satisfy the customer. How effective is that?--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 09:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
::Depends. There's a lot of lag time for institutional uses of wikipedia where they can barely scrape together the programming money to serve dynamic content; they serve out of our site. I expect that a significant portion of "added content" is derived in this way, and not from db-dump based mirrors. Correspondingly the kind of users who could confuse a computer with a teletypewriter will experience upset—my assumption is that this demographic includes a number of politicians and their advisors. Competent users will experience a greater offence and upset. The chief risk would be alienating users: locking ourselves out of editing would be bloody stupid. Editing wikipedia is not part of wikipedia's use in the circulation of value, it isn't commodifiable, it isn't commercialisable. Whether removing the guarantees of currency and quality would be sufficient economically to force a government down is a matter of debate. I have suggestions on that front, which is why I'd suggest following some of the Italian Fiat plant industrial strategies from the 1970s including "checkerboard strikes" that desynchronised production, for example, blanking all US government related content for one week, and all Hollywood content the next, etc. States are [http://www.bitsofnews.com/content/view/6638/ highly resistant] to [[1949_Australian_coal_strike|strikes that directly threaten their capacity to make law]]. Then again, symbolic protest ends with people lying down and never getting back up because they're missing the back half of their head as they believed that cops were their friends. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 10:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
::::Yes, the 1949 strike worked out well for Labor, didn't it? They won the election. Oh wait, they didn't. But they won the next one. Oh wait, they didn't either. But they won the one after that. Um, no. I could go on with this for quite a while, Fifelfoo. We are already seeing unintended side effects, people flooding into Wikipedia with an agenda of A) support the strike and B) (we don't know yet).--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 10:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, but the CPA ''also'' got fucked by the 1949 strike, massive membership losses, entire unions lost to groupers or protestant labor "rights." Another example of taking on the state and losing is of course the British General Strike, the social ramifications of scabbing in that one continue to today. As you've noted well above—the talk page of a somewhat inactive editor isn't the best place to develop policy to defend the encyclopaedia. And as you noted immediately above: watch the trots come into the meeting shouting with their newspapers as soon as someone says the "s" word. They've no investment in the economic or cultural life of the community, want to engage in pigheaded confrontationalism without strategy or withdrawal, and fuck off as soon as its time for hard work. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 10:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

===This discussion in the news===
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/12/wikipedia-blackout-sopa_n_1144580.html Wikipedia Blackout Over SOPA? Founder Weighs Protesting Anti-Piracy Bill ]
Just FYI, see what others are saying about a potential Wikipedia blackout, in this Huffington Post article. Read the comments to see what their readers think about the discussion here. [[User:First Light|First Light]] ([[User talk:First Light|talk]]) 04:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*[http://www.itnews.com.au/News/284285,wikipedia-mulls-blackout-to-protest-sopa.aspx Wikipedia mulls blackout to protest SOPA] at itnews (Australia). -- [[User:Trevj#top|Trevj]] ([[User talk:Trevj#top|talk]]) 08:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
::Oh it is all over the web! And since we can't stop IPs from coming in, this means that this poll means ... it means ... um, nothing.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 09:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:::It means, maybe it did exactly what Jimbo wanted it to do? [[User: Crazynas|Crazynas]] [[User_talk:Crazynas|t]] 10:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:::You think a handful of IPs is bad? Just wait until the [[4chan|Ron Paul fan club]] finds out about this. I'm surprised they haven't flooded this page already... [[User:Vyvyan Ade Basterd|Vyvyan Basterd]] ([[User talk:Vyvyan Ade Basterd|talk]]) 11:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
::::All the new influx voters are putting their name first under the poll heading in order to be seen and in violation of normal talk page etiquette. This could be the largest talk page growth in WP history... [[User:Alatari|Alatari]] ([[User talk:Alatari|talk]]) 12:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

===Support===
We can't let failing industries (movie and music distributors) take away internet freedom to protect their walled gardens. While originally not a horrible bill in its original intent, SOPA goes way to far. The EU and other places are already putting laws in place to protect sites in their own countries from SOPA action. The US does not get to dictate the laws of the internet. The citizens of the internet get to decide this. I strongly support the blanking of wikipedia to stop SOPA from being enacted and even something akin to what Tumblr did by making it easy for people to call/email their representatives and tell them to oppose this awful bill. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.244.51.6|82.244.51.6]] ([[User talk:82.244.51.6|talk]]) 09:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

===SOPA versus Wikimedia's new terms of use===
Isn't there a possibility of double standard between what Wikimedia is expecting from US lawmakers to provide for itself: to provide legal certainty, legal predictability, and freedom to do its activities on the internet, and what Wikimedia is imposing to its users: the [[:m:Terms of use|new terms of use]]. If Jay Walsh is right in calling the SOPA [http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/11/15/wikimedia-supports-american-censorship-day/ "reckless"], then should we not study whether we have to call the Wikimedia Foundation's new terms of use also "reckless"? Until October the draft terms of use had a section called [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terms_of_use&oldid=2968294#16._Indemnity Indemnity] imposing every single user to ''indemnify and hold us [Wikimedia] harmless from and against all costs, including any expense or liability arising from all claims, losses, damages''. That section was removed. But I don't know if the latest version is better. Because I am not a lawyer. As far as I know, we have not seen a single lawyer studying the new terms of use and saying if those terms of use are good from the point of view of the contributing user. Perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation is feeling insecure because of what US lawmakers are doing, but I am feeling insecure because of what the Wikimedia foundation's lawyers are doing. The Wikimedia Foundation is increasingly taking the shape of an army of lawyers, and the unarmed contributing user cannot help but have a feeling of fragility and danger. [[User:Theo F|Teofilo]] [[User talk:Theo F|talk]] 09:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:I don't think there is anything for users to fear from the new terms of use, which are not revolutionary in any aspect. They mainly codify and clarify what has already been the case for a very long time. There are many lawyers in the community, and I (and the Foundation) invite feedback. Can you be more specific about what provisions you think are frightening to you?--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 10:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
::Will any we have to agree to the Terms of Use before every post? How will you determine if any IP reader of the encyclopedia is agreeing to the TOS? -[[User:Alatari|Alatari]] ([[User talk:Alatari|talk]]) 12:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

== Lobbyists ==

Jimbo, above you mention lobbyists working on behalf of Wikipedia and/or the WMF. Could you please give the name of the lobbying firm or the registered lobbying agent who is doing this work? Is the expense for theses lobbyists itemized in the WMF's annual report? Thank you. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 01:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

:I also ask for answers to these questions.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 08:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This may be only in the EU at present.[http://www.moneycontrol.com/news-topic/wikimedia-foundation/video-wikimania-2011---2nd-day-wikimedia-chapters--lobbying-for-wikimedians_tlChXL66gtg.html][http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_lobby] [[Special:Contributions/67.6.163.68|67.6.163.68]] ([[User talk:67.6.163.68|talk]]) 10:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

::Most interesting. However, Jimbo referred to paid lobbyists in the context of an American bill, so I would imagine that is DC-oriented.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 10:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Before I answer, I'd like to spend a moment, as usual, and likely without positve result as usual, calling Cla68 out for his persistent tendency to be hostile in his tone, and to assume bad faith at every possible opportunity. The name of the firm is Dow Lohnes, and they were recommended to us by Mike Godwin. And of course all the accounting will be done properly and reporting done according to the best practices of our accountants.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 11:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:What hostility? I note a please, and a thank you - so it cannot be ''tone''. It must be the subject of the questions, although I would be hard put to see what of itself is objetionable - as they seem legitimate ones (and have been answered as such). Perhaps it is the habit of one or two editors to ask questions regarding the conduct of the business Wikipedia; one which I think is laudable, if transparency is to be maintained. I am pleased to see, however, that the query was answered (and I would not attempt to guess in what manner of tone). Very disappointing. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 13:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::I think it is hostile and juvenile to ask "Is the expense for these lobbyists itemized in the WMF's annual report?" As if we're running some kind of secret slush fund or something. The answer is that we follow the law carefully, have a top notch financial staff and a top notch auditing firm. Cla68 is no newcomer - he knows or should know what the answer to the question is going to be.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 16:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::What you've done is assumed bad faith on Cla68's part.--[[User:Cube lurker|Cube lurker]] ([[User talk:Cube lurker|talk]]) 16:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::It's not an assumption. It's a fact proven multiple times over a long period of time.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 16:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::FWIW, I agree with Jimbo on this one (even if I disagree entirely with his proposal) -- I don't really see where all these suspicions of untruthful or misleading information are coming from, and Jimbo has been very clear about the parameters of this discussion and how they relate to his believes and the WMF [[User:Karthik Sarma|Karthik Sarma]] ([[User talk:Karthik Sarma|talk]]) 01:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:That's strange. I contacted Dow Lohnes and asked them if they were representing wikipedia. Their response was "no." Is there some sort of mistake? [[Special:Contributions/174.254.224.59|174.254.224.59]] ([[User talk:174.254.224.59|talk]]) 15:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::: I read the query the same exact way as Wales. Aggressive. Then again, I read Wikipedia Review, so I don't need a scorecard... [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 03:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

::I can't think of a single reason why I should think that you're telling the truth. --[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 16:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::I was just looking through Dow Lohnes's registration records with the House and Senate. They do have a few clients, though I'm sure they would like to forget Bernard Madoff Investments! I didn't see WMF, but I understand there is a 45-day grace period after hiring. I can't get a stable URL, but it's all public record and searchable.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 18:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

My gawd...Cla68, is there ever any end to your baited questions?[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 18:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:MONGO, Cla68 is orders of magnitude nicer than a couple of the people Larry Sanger had to deal with when he was here, and yet Jimbo never seemed to have a problem with that. In fact, Jimbo has a history of ''not'' assuming good faith and disrespecting the projects most important editors, like Giano and Bishonen, and now Cla68. These editors have created ''dozens'' of featured articles - they are vested in the project and care deeply about it. Jimbo simply cannot expect the project's top contributes to behave like sycophants. If Jimbo wants respect, he might consider giving some where due. --[[User:PumknPi|PumknPi]] ([[User talk:PumknPi|talk]]) 18:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::No one doubts the contributions of the contributors you mention. However, I stand by my comment.[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that [[Dow Lohnes]] is a redlink, there are quite a few hits for them on Google news. [[User:Mark Arsten|Mark Arsten]] ([[User talk:Mark Arsten|talk]]) 21:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

:It wasn't always a redlink. Given the "Bell Pottinger affair", the [[Special:Undelete/Dow_Lohnes|history]] of the article is interesting too. --[[User talk:SB_Johnny|'''SB_Johnny''']] | [[User_talk:SB_Johnny|talk]] 22:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::Ahh, silly me, I should have noticed that. I can't see the history, but there is a bit of irony considering the closer's comments. [[User:Mark Arsten|Mark Arsten]] ([[User talk:Mark Arsten|talk]]) 22:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
* If the WMF has hired a professional lobbyist, then there should have been some mention of it in this year's or next year's publically-released budgets. Jimbo, how much has the WMF allocated for lobbying expenses for 2012, and will it be increasing that amount in order to fight against the SOPA bill? If so, how much? [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 23:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

::Given the above discussion, allow me to add a few points. The Wikimedia Foundation has been considering a number of approaches with respect to the proposed SOPA legislation. As one would expect when troublesome pieces of legislation are pending on the Hill, we are working with an established Washington firm, Dow Lohnes, to advise us on the status of the different bills and the political environment surrounding those bills. They are invaluable for understanding the political processes and timing of the different pieces of proposed legislation. We may hire other firms as well, depending on our needs (e.g., PR). We have considered the possibility of seeking to influence the legislation by discrete amendments, but, in the end, we [http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/11/15/wikimedia-supports-american-censorship-day have chosen] to launch a strong public opposition to SOPA.

::Just this afternoon, we received a 71-page [http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/HR%203261%20Managers%20Amendment.pdf new version of the bill] ("Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to HR 3261"). Mark-up on the bill is scheduled for Thursday.

::We are reviewing the new bill with our Washington firm. There may be significant changes from the original version. I intend to report back after our analysis is done (and welcome any analysis from the community).

::The primary share of the budget for this comes out of the legal budget, which I will allocate according to our needs re SOPA. We of course are complying with registration and reporting requirements.

::Needless to say, we applaud the community’s opposition to this legislation as it sees fit, and we, at the Foundation, look forward to supporting all efforts to strike down any version of this legislation that attacks the Internet so directly.

::[[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 00:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

:::An interesting [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/14010917054/lamar-smith-proposes-new-version-sopa-with-just-few-changes.shtml article]. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 01:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

::::This just in from Washington: Although no guarantee for accuracy, it is reported that the Judiciary committee plans on voting on the new version of SOPA Tuesday morning. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 02:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Correction/Update: With no guarantee for accuracy, we received a new report that the vote will in fact be after the Thursday markup. If I hear differently, I will post here. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 12:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

::::Geoff, a slight correction. The community does not oppose SOPA, or support it, pending a fair process in a neutral forum. Individual members of the community have expressed opposition for SOPA in the context of a poll on Jimbo's talk page. It may be impossible to have any process on this given the widespread publicity. However, do not characterize the community's position based on three days' polling on Jimbo's talk page, with him breathing down the neck of the opposers. That's enough to chill debate, far more than SOPA.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 09:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::"breathing down the neck of the opposers"? What does that mean? I'm not breathing down anyone's neck.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 10:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::@Wehwalt. I probably could have been clearer when I said "as it sees fit," and I appreciate your calling that out. The Foundation did not agree with SOPA in its original version (and we are reviewing the new version of the bill released yesterday). That said, at the Foundation, we believe that any decision to stage a protest on-wiki, such as shutting down the site or putting a banner at the top, is completely a community decision, which the community is free to endorse or reject obviously without pressure from the Foundation. We will defer to the community on whatever decision, if any, it makes with respect to an on-wiki protest. To the extent there is a need, we at the Foundation are happy to provide support, such as posting summaries of the implications of SOPA and explaining the next legislatives steps as we learn more about them. As I understand, Jimmy is seeking to lead the community in making a thoughtful smart decision about whether and how to protest SOPA, and we intend to play a support role in whatever the community decides. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 11:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::@Jimbo, I'm referring to your "hostile and paranoid" comment, your comments to Cla68, your comment to TCO, and the comments you made to the first opposer, whose name escapes me. If I called other editors hostile and paranoid, I probably wouldn't be blocked, but I'd probably attract some highly negative talk page comments. I will simply say that it didn't improve the tone of the discussion, and placed you in a poorer position than if you had remained above it (something which is difficult, I admit). I gather that you and Cla68 have a history, but it would have been better to simply address the content of his comments and leave it at that. TCO can be provocative, but he did make valid points. It can be very confusing, sometimes you are Joe Editor, sometimes you speak ''ex cathedra'', but it is hard to know which is which. You have to realize, Jimbo, that from your bully pulpit, everything you say is magnified. Your expressed disapproval can have a chilling effect. That being said, you are far more accessible (and I am sure take a lot more crap from the community) than most people in your position, and I'm grateful for that. (@Geoff, I need to think about what you wrote before any response, although I may leave it at that)--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 11:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

== Lobbyists ==

Jimbo, above you mention lobbyists working on behalf of Wikipedia and/or the WMF. Could you please give the name of the lobbying firm or the registered lobbying agent who is doing this work? Is the expense for theses lobbyists itemized in the WMF's annual report? Thank you. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 01:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

:I also ask for answers to these questions.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 08:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This may be only in the EU at present.[http://www.moneycontrol.com/news-topic/wikimedia-foundation/video-wikimania-2011---2nd-day-wikimedia-chapters--lobbying-for-wikimedians_tlChXL66gtg.html][http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_lobby] [[Special:Contributions/67.6.163.68|67.6.163.68]] ([[User talk:67.6.163.68|talk]]) 10:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

::Most interesting. However, Jimbo referred to paid lobbyists in the context of an American bill, so I would imagine that is DC-oriented.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 10:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Before I answer, I'd like to spend a moment, as usual, and likely without positve result as usual, calling Cla68 out for his persistent tendency to be hostile in his tone, and to assume bad faith at every possible opportunity. The name of the firm is Dow Lohnes, and they were recommended to us by Mike Godwin. And of course all the accounting will be done properly and reporting done according to the best practices of our accountants.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 11:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:What hostility? I note a please, and a thank you - so it cannot be ''tone''. It must be the subject of the questions, although I would be hard put to see what of itself is objetionable - as they seem legitimate ones (and have been answered as such). Perhaps it is the habit of one or two editors to ask questions regarding the conduct of the business Wikipedia; one which I think is laudable, if transparency is to be maintained. I am pleased to see, however, that the query was answered (and I would not attempt to guess in what manner of tone). Very disappointing. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 13:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::I think it is hostile and juvenile to ask "Is the expense for these lobbyists itemized in the WMF's annual report?" As if we're running some kind of secret slush fund or something. The answer is that we follow the law carefully, have a top notch financial staff and a top notch auditing firm. Cla68 is no newcomer - he knows or should know what the answer to the question is going to be.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 16:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::What you've done is assumed bad faith on Cla68's part.--[[User:Cube lurker|Cube lurker]] ([[User talk:Cube lurker|talk]]) 16:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::It's not an assumption. It's a fact proven multiple times over a long period of time.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 16:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::FWIW, I agree with Jimbo on this one (even if I disagree entirely with his proposal) -- I don't really see where all these suspicions of untruthful or misleading information are coming from, and Jimbo has been very clear about the parameters of this discussion and how they relate to his believes and the WMF [[User:Karthik Sarma|Karthik Sarma]] ([[User talk:Karthik Sarma|talk]]) 01:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:That's strange. I contacted Dow Lohnes and asked them if they were representing wikipedia. Their response was "no." Is there some sort of mistake? [[Special:Contributions/174.254.224.59|174.254.224.59]] ([[User talk:174.254.224.59|talk]]) 15:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::: I read the query the same exact way as Wales. Aggressive. Then again, I read Wikipedia Review, so I don't need a scorecard... [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 03:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

::I can't think of a single reason why I should think that you're telling the truth. --[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 16:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::I was just looking through Dow Lohnes's registration records with the House and Senate. They do have a few clients, though I'm sure they would like to forget Bernard Madoff Investments! I didn't see WMF, but I understand there is a 45-day grace period after hiring. I can't get a stable URL, but it's all public record and searchable.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 18:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

My gawd...Cla68, is there ever any end to your baited questions?[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 18:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:MONGO, Cla68 is orders of magnitude nicer than a couple of the people Larry Sanger had to deal with when he was here, and yet Jimbo never seemed to have a problem with that. In fact, Jimbo has a history of ''not'' assuming good faith and disrespecting the projects most important editors, like Giano and Bishonen, and now Cla68. These editors have created ''dozens'' of featured articles - they are vested in the project and care deeply about it. Jimbo simply cannot expect the project's top contributes to behave like sycophants. If Jimbo wants respect, he might consider giving some where due. --[[User:PumknPi|PumknPi]] ([[User talk:PumknPi|talk]]) 18:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::No one doubts the contributions of the contributors you mention. However, I stand by my comment.[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that [[Dow Lohnes]] is a redlink, there are quite a few hits for them on Google news. [[User:Mark Arsten|Mark Arsten]] ([[User talk:Mark Arsten|talk]]) 21:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

:It wasn't always a redlink. Given the "Bell Pottinger affair", the [[Special:Undelete/Dow_Lohnes|history]] of the article is interesting too. --[[User talk:SB_Johnny|'''SB_Johnny''']] | [[User_talk:SB_Johnny|talk]] 22:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::Ahh, silly me, I should have noticed that. I can't see the history, but there is a bit of irony considering the closer's comments. [[User:Mark Arsten|Mark Arsten]] ([[User talk:Mark Arsten|talk]]) 22:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
* If the WMF has hired a professional lobbyist, then there should have been some mention of it in this year's or next year's publically-released budgets. Jimbo, how much has the WMF allocated for lobbying expenses for 2012, and will it be increasing that amount in order to fight against the SOPA bill? If so, how much? [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 23:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

::Given the above discussion, allow me to add a few points. The Wikimedia Foundation has been considering a number of approaches with respect to the proposed SOPA legislation. As one would expect when troublesome pieces of legislation are pending on the Hill, we are working with an established Washington firm, Dow Lohnes, to advise us on the status of the different bills and the political environment surrounding those bills. They are invaluable for understanding the political processes and timing of the different pieces of proposed legislation. We may hire other firms as well, depending on our needs (e.g., PR). We have considered the possibility of seeking to influence the legislation by discrete amendments, but, in the end, we [http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/11/15/wikimedia-supports-american-censorship-day have chosen] to launch a strong public opposition to SOPA.

::Just this afternoon, we received a 71-page [http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/HR%203261%20Managers%20Amendment.pdf new version of the bill] ("Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to HR 3261"). Mark-up on the bill is scheduled for Thursday.

::We are reviewing the new bill with our Washington firm. There may be significant changes from the original version. I intend to report back after our analysis is done (and welcome any analysis from the community).

::The primary share of the budget for this comes out of the legal budget, which I will allocate according to our needs re SOPA. We of course are complying with registration and reporting requirements.

::Needless to say, we applaud the community’s opposition to this legislation as it sees fit, and we, at the Foundation, look forward to supporting all efforts to strike down any version of this legislation that attacks the Internet so directly.

::[[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 00:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

:::An interesting [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/14010917054/lamar-smith-proposes-new-version-sopa-with-just-few-changes.shtml article]. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 01:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

::::This just in from Washington: Although no guarantee for accuracy, it is reported that the Judiciary committee plans on voting on the new version of SOPA Tuesday morning. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 02:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

== You want clout? ==

Threaten to move WP's servers and WMF to the civilized country of Canada from The Evil Empire. THAT would get the attention of the pols (and the news media, which is another way of saying the same thing). [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 02:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:So far as I know, there is [[censorship in Canada]] about "hate literature", which means that Wikisource archives of manuscripts such as [[Henry Ford]]'s ''[[s:The International Jew|The International Jew]]'' would be prohibited. I'm not absolutely sure which way the balance would tilt - Canada apparently has made great strides since the 1990s when they would confiscate gay magazines at the border - but even if they could match or exceed the U.S. on free speech, there's still the question of whether having main offices in the U.S. and servers in Canada just means that two different countries have a whack at censoring any given material.
:If WMF were to consider "moving the servers" in response to some issue, perhaps it should do so less literally and rather devise some less centralized storage scheme with multiple synchronized copies of articles in various countries where they are legal, or even [[TOR]] archives, users communicating directly with Wikipedia web sites in several countries at once to start their searches in each and see which is allowed to answer, etc. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 04:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::Donations to foreign charities are not deductible. Tax law is not my field, but I would expect the IRS to be rather shirty about maintaining WMF as a US charity if the bulk of its operations are elsewhere, especially if the WMF leaves loudly. I would not expect any cosmetic changes to the proposal to impress the IRS.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 08:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::I am not a tax lawyer, but donations to Canadian charities are ''sometimes'' deductible for US purposes. The [[censorship in Canada]] problem might be more serious. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 08:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::As a practical political matter then, I find it unlikely that the WMF would keep its US tax exemption if it leaves amid controversy, burning causeways as it leaves St. Petersburg.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 09:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::That's why I'd like to see a less centralized solution. If Wikipedia has a seamless network of mirrors in several countries, that's just backing up data and "conserving bandwidth on the Internet backbone". No one needs to notice until a court actually issues an order under SOPA and suddenly nothing happens. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 21:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::Wnt, here's a link to a copy of ''The International Jew'' at the [[Toronto Public Library]] [http://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail.jsp?Entt=RDM826317&R=826317]. [[WorldCat]] is a handy website for finding the locations of hard-to-get books.--[[User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh|Brianann MacAmhlaidh]] ([[User talk:Brianann MacAmhlaidh|talk]]) 08:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::I am most pleased to be proved wrong, though there are too many mentions of Canadian customs having a list of banned books and seizing "hate literature" at the border for me to be entirely confident. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 21:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:Why not move the servers to the Caribbean? There, the WMF wouldn't have to pay any taxes and the internet laws are probably more liberal. It could save the WMF a ton of money. [[User:PaoloNapolitano|Paolo]][[User talk:PaoloNapolitano|Napolitano]] 11:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::The WMF doesn't pay taxes already - it's a nonprofit charity. And I think it highly unlikely that "internet laws are more liberal" in the Caribbean. Bandwidth and electricity would be expensive. As I outlined elsewhere on this page, moving the Wikimedia Foundation is not a particularly appealing option for a lot of reasons.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 12:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:Canada? Fugetaboutit. The taxes are waaaaay higher than in the US. Not to mention the 13% sales tax...... [[User:PaoloNapolitano|Paolo]][[User talk:PaoloNapolitano|Napolitano]] 12:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

*In case you have not been following the Politics in Canada, the new government armed with a majority is planning to introduce Internet Surveillance Legislation. We don't have EFF here standing up for our rights, like they do in the US (using the courts etc.). Here we have a smaller group: http://stopspying.ca/
*--[[User:33rogers|33rogers]] ([[User talk:33rogers|talk]]) 01:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
*:Come to think of it, would Wikimedia Foundation be willing to help out, by putting their name on the list of Campaign Members? Hopefully then it will bring back this issue to forefront again in the media. --[[User:33rogers|33rogers]] ([[User talk:33rogers|talk]]) 01:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Funny that Canada should be mentioned: [http://www.thestar.com/article/1085837--geist-u-s-could-claim-millions-of-canadian-domain-names-in-piracy-battle Geist: U.S. could claim millions of Canadian domain names in piracy battle] --[[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - [[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]/[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]] 03:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

== congrats. ==

[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:SemperBlotto#Why_do_you_waste_my_time_instead_of_helping. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:SemperBlotto#Why_do_you_waste_my_time_instead_of_helping.]
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:SemperBlotto#User:Nancy_from_Yellow_Springs — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/219.70.29.39|219.70.29.39]] ([[User talk:219.70.29.39|talk]]) 09:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC) 
:The first link doesn't seem to go anywhere, and I couldn't find it in a quick look at the history. The second link shows behaviors from an admin that I think are absolutely unacceptable and I hope more people will look into it.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 12:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::First link needs the full-stop on the end of the URL (but software treats that as a period, not part of the URL). Should be [[wikt:User talk:SemperBlotto#Why do you waste my time instead of helping.]] [[User:Chzz|''' Chzz ''']][[User talk:Chzz| ► ]] 15:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::Fixed. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 18:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
ta[skyp:sven0921 — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/219.70.29.39|219.70.29.39]] ([[User talk:219.70.29.39|talk]]) 19:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC) 
:The above user has been blocked multiple times by the Wiktionary and Wikipedia communities for abusive behavior, repeated personal attacks, disruptive edits, and sockpuppetting. The fact that SemperBlotto, a Wiktionary bureaucrat, generally does not warn before blocking vandals, is well known to the Wiktionary community. There isn't really anything that can be done about it, because SemperBlotto handles an enormous amount of vandal patrolling, and the wiki really would fall apart without his effective patrolling as much as he does, because we really don't have enough patrollers. The Wiktionary community has discussed this issue before. --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] ([[User talk:Yair rand|talk]]) 00:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
::I see his point. When you warn a vandal, are you really telling him anything he does not already know?--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 09:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

== An update on SOPA and answers to some questions ==

First, I am not in Washington today, having been advised that a phone call later in the week will be as effective. The meeting at the White House today is not with Obama, but rather with various senior advisors to the President.

Second, a "Founder's letter" is going out in the next couple of days from a variety of co-signers. I'll be a signatory to that.

Third, I am hopeful and optimistic that the [[OPEN Act]] is a viable alternative, but apparently the supporters of SOPA are going to try to ram it quickly through the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, and that will make it harder to stop and/or significantly improve the bill before it goes to a full vote. Time is not on our side here.

Fourth, a couple of people had questions about what we are doing so far, and in particular about our lobbying firm. Geoff consulted with Mike Godwin who recommended Jim Burger of Dow Lohnes, and we've retained them to help us with this matter. We will of course remain well within [http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163394,00.html IRS guidelines] on acceptable levels of expenditures on lobbying. And of course this all goes into the accounting in the normal way. I'd like to note that there are no restrictions on the community lobbying, which is part of the point of my starting the poll up above to begin a conversation and an initial "pulse test" for what the community would like to do.

Fifth, just to put everyone at ease (mainly hostile and paranoid people, to be honest), I am in constant communication with Sue, we are talking to the board, I'm talking to our lawyer, etc. Any action that I personally take will be to represent the Foundation and the Community, as always.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 11:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

== Arbcom appeal of ban for conflict of interest ==

Hi Jimbo. I've gone ahead and appealed my ban for conflict of interest.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Appeal_of_ban_for_conflict_of_interest][[User:TimidGuy|TimidGuy]] ([[User talk:TimidGuy|talk]]) 12:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:That's fine. I recommend making sure that other interested parties are informed.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 12:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

== Notability of secondary schools ==

I have clashed a few times with people about the notability of secondary schools (or highschools or whatever the name may be). The is no official guideline for declaring '''all''' secondary schools as notable. Having challenged that, the people of WikiProject:Schools pointed to [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008266.html this] mail of you out of november 2003.

Are you still convinced that every secondary school is automatically notable? Or do you think that even secondary schools should be tested on [[WP:GNG]]? [[User:Night of the Big Wind|Night of the Big Wind]] [[User talk:Night of the Big Wind|talk]] 15:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:I have written about this topic several times since then. We know a lot more today about what works and what doesn't. I think virtually all secondary schools are not notable, and there should be significant third party reliable sources about them before inclusion. Far from being held to a lower standard than other things, I think that due to persistent problems with vandalism and boosterism, we should apply a very strict scrutiny today. I should warn you, though, that people who are happy to use [[WP:JIMBOSAID]] when I agree with their position, are not normally persuaded by [[WP:JIMBOSAID]] when I don't. :-) So, all I can really do for you is remove even the slightest implicit historical endorsement from me of that position, and then the issue should be debated on the merits.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 16:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::Perhaps Wikipedia should be "layered" - that is, allowing "non-notable schools" (heck - all "non-notable" stuff) to be in a sub-pedia which would ''not'' be indexed within the mainspace, but which would be ''reachable'' through master articles which make clear that the material within such categories may ''not'' reach Wikipedia mainspace standards? Each such layer master article could then establish guidelines to prevent abuse of the system. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 16:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::For what it's worth, I largely agree with [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo]] here. I really don't understand how this "All secondary schools are notable" idea arose.
:::@[[User:Night of the Big Wind|Night of the Big Wind]] [[User talk:Night of the Big Wind|talk]] - Since we can't use [[WP:JIMBOSAID]], perhaps a policy RfC is in order?
:::@[[User:Collect|Collect]] - An interesting idea. Perhaps a village pump discussion? [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 17:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::Well, my view is that at a practical level, writing articles about secondary schools is a great way for kids to learn how to edit Wikipedia. They usually have expertise on the topic as well as enthusiasm, and any errors they make will have limited impact. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 17:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::Encouraging kids to edit Wikipedia is a great idea, but there are plenty of good places for them to do it. Their usual habitat is in the popular culture article space, since they have a lot of knowledge in that area and it's popular, large, and rapidly developing. They may also be able to offer feedback about accessibility of topics covered in schools. Notable local topics (such as notable places, people, or events found near to them) are also always an option. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 17:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::Nominating one for deletion results in a large amount of drama and little constructive result.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 17:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] - re "Nominating one......and little constructive result" - You've noticed this too, huh? I thought it was just me.... [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 17:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

:I have opened a discussion on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#Notability_of_secondary_schools_.28part_2.29 WikiProject:Schools]. As expected, they do not like my proposal to remove the "always notable" tag. [[User:Night of the Big Wind|Night of the Big Wind]] [[User talk:Night of the Big Wind|talk]] 18:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

::I'd worry about using too much of a blunt instrument on this. "Almost never notable", I think, is a good rule of thumb ''in principle''. But if carried out aggressively, I think the result, in a UK context would be that all state schools get deleted and all fee-paying schools get kept. There's probably a natural and unavoidable bias in that direction anyway, but we should avoid systematising and amplifying it. --[[User:FormerIP|FormerIP]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 18:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::It would be nice if we can use it for newly written articles. The discussion at WP:Schools is already down to fingerpointing :-) [[User:Night of the Big Wind|Night of the Big Wind]] [[User talk:Night of the Big Wind|talk]] 18:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::Not sure if that was in response to me, NOBW, but my concern is the same whether we are talking about articles created in the past or articles that may be created in the future. If a proposal creates a systematic bias (which I think your proposal on the Project page does), then I think it is really better to do nothing. --[[User:FormerIP|FormerIP]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 19:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::It is a draft propasal, so I like to hear what is the systemetic bias I create. [[User:Night of the Big Wind|Night of the Big Wind]] [[User talk:Night of the Big Wind|talk]] 19:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::: This discussion should be moved to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#Notability_of_secondary_schools_.28part_2.29 project page]. There is no point it being discussed in two places. [[User:Edinburgh Wanderer|Edinburgh]] [[User talk:Edinburgh Wanderer|Wanderer]] 20:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

== Reminders to avoid infringement ==
Meanwhile, WP editors can improve efforts to avoid [[infringement]] of copyrights (re [[WP:Copyrights]]). In many legal cases, a lawsuit is won, or curtailed, by the party who wins "the [[paper chase]]" with better documentation which can refute the alleged charges. If more WP editors re-doubled their efforts to stop potential cases of infringement, then those actions could be cited to help curtail infringement cases in the early stages. If the evidence shows the defendant clearly resisted the illegal actions, then the lawsuit loses credibility and can be ended sooner. Fortunately, many WP editors have been quickly blocking the use of copyrighted materials, but more can be done. The following category typically contains fewer than 200 articles, but wider participation could reduce the category towards zero, several times per month:
::* [[:Category:All articles with improper non-free content]] - lists {{PAGESINCATEGORY:All articles with improper non-free content}} (live count)
With Wikipedia blocking even more attempts to post copyrighted materials, then there would be less substance to sustain any charges of infringement. This is a pro-active effort where many editors could help to reduce future related problems for Wikipedia. -[[User talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 16:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

:While we're at it, I still fail to understand why people who simply copy-paste huge chunks of text into wikipedia don't simply get blocked immediately and indefinitely, talkpage access removed, without discussion or recourse. [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] [[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]] 17:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

::Often the material comes from a web site that the editor is associated with, and the editor does not even realize that copyright is being violated. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 18:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::'''Exactly.''' We have no way to tell when potentially infringing material was added by the copyright holder, except in a relatively small proportion of the cases. There is a difference between erring on the side of caution and paranoia. [[Special:Contributions/67.6.163.68|67.6.163.68]] ([[User talk:67.6.163.68|talk]]) 01:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

:While I'm always in favor of ratcheting up our efforts to avoid infringement of copyrights, I would like to say that the law is still a bad law, and that Wikipedia getting directly in trouble for copyright violations is not my primary fear here. It's rather that we'll be forced due to the high risk to pre-vet '''all''' contributions, with no material improvement in copyright policing, but with significant increase in costs. Additionally, parts of the law suggest to me that we might be forbidden from even linking to certain websites in a purely informational way - that's a violation of our editorial integrity.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 18:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::Wikipedia receives about 200000 edits per day (more than 2 per second). Even after filtering out minor edits, pre-vetting contributions would not be expensive, it would be impossible. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 19:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Editing trends/Raw data/Revisions per day]] --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 19:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::We've already seen the parade of horribles. What I would like to see is a solid legal opinion.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 19:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::Well, both the current ''and'' former lead counsel for the Foundation agree that the law is dangerous and should be fought, and they combine roughly 40 years of legal experience ''specializing'' in intellectual property law and freedom of information. How much more solid would you like it? — [[User:Coren|Coren]] [[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]] 20:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::Link? A lawyer's job is to tell us what the law says and means, not whether it is "dangerous" and "should be fought". --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 20:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::The lawyers probably know what their job is. Pretty sure "legal opinion" is one of them and that "dangerous" and "should be fought" falls under that category.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 20:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I don't have a link handy, because I know this firsthand. That said, Jimmy took the time to mention this above, so it's obviously not a secret either. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] [[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]] 20:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::So when Wehwalt talked about a "solid legal opinion" you were of the view that "Coren's word about what two lowly legal professionals thought about the politics of the law, as relayed by Jimmy" cut the mustard? --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 21:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::Coren, what do you prefer at ArbCom? Conclusory sound bites, or evidence and analysis?--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 21:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::You're welcome to do your own analysis, as I have. You asked for "solid legal opinion", and there is little more solid than the support of some of the foremost experts in the field – Mkativerata's patronizing dismissal of [[Mike Godwin|some of them]] notwithstanding – though I suppose you are more than welcome to solicit an opinion from another expert of your choice (though I expect a substantial analysis will cost you a pretty penny).That said, yes, I ''will'' take even the informal opinion of lawyers who have a record of successfully arguing against damaging legislation before the SCOTUS over the musings of Internet pundits. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] [[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]] 21:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::Coren, perhaps we are talking at cross purposes. When I say a legal opinion, I mean a written (or electronic) legal analysis, setting forth the various issues, the relevant case law, and stating the issues the proposed legislation might face if enacted, what might happen with regulations issued by the administering agency, that kind of thing. I'm not asking for a thumbs up or down from the lawyer, what I want is discussion to enable the client (i.e., me) to make a decision. That's more than a few words. I wouldn't mind reading one by these two lawyers, although I'd much rather have one by a dispassionate, uninvolved lawyer who is expert in the field. That is what I mean by an "opinion".--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 21:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::That's what I want too - preferably by Thursday, and at no personal cost to myself. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 22:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Actually, according to Geoff the latest word is that the House Judiciary Committee might be voting Tuesday (today) morning, so yes, I hope that Geoff takes time out of actively negotiating to write up Wehwalt his own personal report, since apparently Wehwalt is the client here.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 10:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It's normal that Jimmy would rely on internal counsel for this, and I'd ''love'' to read a detailed opinion from Geoff, but I wouldn't expect lawyers to publish their opinions pro bono unless they ''are'' passionate about the issue (one way or another). What you are asking for is feasible, but a very expensive proposition; and one which ''I'' at least don't see as requisite to figure out where I stand.My own analysis is simpler; I read the proposed legislation, read the opinions that ''were'' expressed publicly, and followed the money. :-) — [[User:Coren|Coren]] [[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]] 22:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Interesting that this section turns to the immediate concern about the pending law. I still think, independent of any possible legislation, that wikipedia needs to take a tougher stance on copyright violations. Why is it that somebody often gets 3 warnings (e.g. 3 chances to violate the law) for blatant copyright violations before getting blocked? [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] [[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]] 21:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:Partly because copyright law is ''complicated'', and most people simply do not understand it. "But it's publicly available" is a common meme that is ''hard'' to deprogram. We'd rather turn an editor around than exclude them outright if we can. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] [[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]] 22:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::And that's what I simply don't get. All other disputes, vandalism, incivility are internal wikipedia matters. This one isn't. There should be absolutely no stupid excuses made for these copy-pasters. Block'em, right away. [[User:Seb az86556|Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556]] [[User_talk:Seb_az86556|> haneʼ]] 22:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::: MPAA/RIAA/BRIEN/..... are already abusing their limited (not really limited) power. See 'Megaupload song' for more details.. they have taken off a song they hold no rights to using the automated youtube tool that was created to prevent copyright infringement.. and not just once... if they are already abusing the system now, what will they do when SOPA gives them essentially unlimited power to censor? These despicable bastards will stop at NOTHING. so we have to stop them. NOW! — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Shinigamidono|Shinigamidono]] ([[User talk:Shinigamidono|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Shinigamidono|contribs]]) 22:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC) 
{{od}} Very funny gg. Seriously, I expect there will be pro and con legal opinions on this available online. I confidently expect that any final legislation will be equally unacceptable to both sides (such being the nature of compromise) and will kick the can down the road another five or six years instead of addressing fundamental copyright reform.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 22:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:And Coren, no of course I would not expect WMF to release internal documents. However, a slightly sanitized executive summary would probably not be a big deal.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 22:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=465527712&oldid=465527516 Right on] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=465528488&oldid=465527755 cue], an analysis by Lawrence H. Tribe, Harvard University Professor of Constitutional Law: [http://www.net-coalition.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/tribe-legis-memo-on-SOPA-12-6-11-1.pdf]. It is 23 pages, but the first two already contain the following:
* "''Conceivably, an entire website containing tens of thousands of pages could be targeted if only a single page were accused of infringement.''"
* "''Absence of knowledge of specific infringing acts would not be a defense. Thus, the definition would effectively require sites actively to police themselves to ensure that infringement does not occur.''"
* "''Faced with such pervasive uncertainties, many sites will predictably be chilled from engaging in fully protected and lawful speech''"

''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 22:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
::That is good to know. Do you have one for the other side? By the way, Jimbo's call is now all over the internet, thus the many IPs coming in and !voting. He has certainly transformed this talk page into something rich and strange.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 09:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

== Semi-automated pre-vetting for infringement ==
I think the checking for copyrighted additions could be simplified, greatly, by automated checking of the edit-diff comparisons. Most tiny 8-word edits should be allowed by infringement laws. Plus, a large number of edits (of the 200,000 per day?) are already vandalism hacks, or the reverts (which usually improve the text). Of course, denying updates for vandalism would be a fantastic benefit, with articles rarely scarred any longer. However, recall that some reverts have been Bots restoring hacked, vandalized or BLP-vio edits because the repair-edit contained dis-allowed URL links, and so the bot would be the cause of re-adding copy-vio text (or image-links). Meanwhile, multi-part edits with short deletions and short inserted phrases could be passed automatically. However, beware any ''99-rights-make-a-wrong'' editor, who would make a long series of tiny adds, or tiny deletion edits, with the combined effect of creating a whole paragraph of plagiarized text. Such problems could be reduced by per-article-edit-limits, where a suspected, nominated editor could only make "8 edits" per article per day, to avoid the piecemeal slanting of text that has occurred in the past. They could still make daily edits to construct sections of plagiarized text, but by slowing the total edits per day, then other editors might have time to review those changes, to see if a copyvio-skyscraper was under construction by such repeated "99" small edits to the same article. With those cases handled, then only new articles or whole new sentences (over 9 words) would need to be closely pre-vetted. If the new laws led to "[[zero tolerance]]" of infringement, then the long additions would become pending changes. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77|talk]]) 21:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
: You paint a vivid picture of the potential future editing environment, However, since pending changes, and indeed edit histories, can be viewed, they could also be copyright infringements, so you need to cover that risk too. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 21:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
:: URL links are a major part of the issue - while you might exclude them by machine, the effect would simply be for people to specify them without the incriminating cues (like trying to cite sources in a Yahoo News discussion). Meanwhile, Pending Changes remains a very clearly ''un''workable mechanism for any purpose.
:: I think it's also appropriate to take a step back and look at such paragons of liberty as [[Hudong]] and [[Baidu]]. Though unqualified to say if it's true, I've read claims that it is not uncommon for them to contain large copyvios.[http://china-media-news.org/2011/03/21/baidus-troubles-lawsuits-on-copyright-piracy-and-search-monopoly-china/] If the United States accepted a Great Firewall approach as valid doctrine, perhaps these corporations would provide a freer alternative, which Americans might access via [[HTTP tunnel]]s and other dodges. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 21:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

How do you propose to allow material added by the copyright holder under such a system? [[Special:Contributions/67.6.163.68|67.6.163.68]] ([[User talk:67.6.163.68|talk]]) 01:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

== Hello good sir. ==

I need you to clear my name,people keep bothering me,and telling me I'm something that I'm not.They don't want Ips to be able to edit WikipediA.
comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.71.62.146|98.71.62.146]] ([[User talk:98.71.62.146|talk]]) 22:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC
:Whatever it is, your gig for using Wikipedia as a tool for harassment of real life people is up. –[[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]] 01:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

== Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoodDay ==

You were [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland&diff=418544443&oldid=418542786 involved] in a discussion about which an [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoodDay|RfC/u]] is in progress. Your input would be welcome. Thanks, [[User:Daicaregos|Daicaregos]] ([[User talk:Daicaregos|talk]]) 23:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

== SOPA ==

Dear Wikipedia or whom it may concern,

Your idea to black out all of the Wikipedia pages is very good. I like it alot. However, you shouldn't just black them out, you should make a logo, a message which will replace all the Wikipedia pages. The message could be something like "This is what the Government did" or "This page has been shut down due to the Governments SOPA Act and I The founder of Wikipedia now face jail terms" or "This is what will happen to your favourite website if the SOPA act gets in" or "Under the SOPA Act Wikipedia will be no more, protest today" etc. You could have a different add for each page you black out. Therefore, not only can't people access there beloved Wikipedia page, they can see a message, the reasoning behind the Blackout. This will let users understand the reasoning behind this and understand the law you are actually trying to protest.

Overall, I like the idea of OPERATION BLACKOUT WIKIPEDIA, but you should add messages to each page you Blackout. The messages will help people who think the site may have been hacked or something went wrong with there internet etc to fully understand the reasoning behind OPERATION BLACKOUT WIKIPEDIA. Plus if people ifnd out that you could go to jail or be taken down under this new act, I think people will be outraged and want to do something.

Maybe you could start a Wikipedia Petition(I know there is many petitions out there, but face it how many people would actually see them?) It'd be better off if you started your own petition because millions of people visit Wikipedia a day and would see it and be like what's this. Then they will sign it and leave a message that they have hand typed themselves and you can take the millions of petitions as well as the Blackout Operation into full force.

Good Luck stopping this ACT/LAW that will ruining the internet and every site on their. It is a stupid law, due to every site having some form of copyright material on it. Have you ever seen a site without a piece of copyright material like a video, some music or an image? I don't think so... So lets jail every website owner on the internet for 5years that'll teach them for sharing a Youtube video or a Wikipedia page that they didn't make or own. Therefore, I am 100% with you and wish you all the best in whatever you decide to do. But whatever you decide, you must decide fast as time is limited and this needs to protested and put into full action as soon as possible to maximize the full force and effectiveness of it. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:18.208.116.164|18.208.116.164]] ([[User talk:18.208.116.164|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/18.99.66.33|contribs]]) 01:24, 12 December 2011‎
:No, lying is not a good message. Imagine what people would think after they find out that the government didn't black out the site nor arrest the owner and replacing the encyclopedia with blatant lies was just a way of protesting some bill (granted, some very very evil bill). A better message would be to tell them if you don't want this to happen for real in the future then call/write your representative to vote against it. And if the illusion of representation has faded, start a war. That's how America was born, btw. Represent. [[Special:Contributions/71.155.239.85|71.155.239.85]] ([[User talk:71.155.239.85|talk]]) 02:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
::Yes, whatever the community decides to do, if anything, it's really crucial that we be absolutely 100% factual in every regard and not exaggerate. There is no risk of me going to jail under SOPA, for example, that's just not the issue at all and pretending that it is would be wrong.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 10:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

== SOPA/Blanking out pages ==

Hello Wikipedia. I would like to take a moment, if I can, to talk about SOPA, and if you blank out the pages. Just like most of you are, I am outraged by what SOPA *may* do to the internet if the bill passes. And just as much as everyone else, I hope we can take a stand against SOPA and protect websites that matter to us (Wikipedia included). Now, to my concern. I understand that you want to blank out the pages of Wikipedia sometime soon. If you do so, could you Please have an option for us to not have the pages blanked out. I know I may be just a person, but I rely on Wikipedia to get information, and by blacking out words, or having pages not show up, it makes it hard to get that information. I'm hoping you will consider the preceding and at least have this option available to users who would like access to Wikipedia's content without being "blacked-out." Thank You. --[[User:Radiokid1010|Radiokid1010]] ([[User talk:Radiokid1010|talk]]) 04:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:Hi Radiokid and welcome. Do not worry too much about it. I ran some tests and our "mirror sites", that is the sites that take the free content we produce and reproduce it with ads, will still be available in the unlikely event that there is a strike. Personally, I believe that now that Jimbo Wales (a founder of Wikipedia, who still likes to keep his fingers in) has what I think he wants, a talking point he can convey to influential others, all this will fizzle out. However, if I am wrong, just go to the mirror sites. Possibly Google cache will also be available. Good luck!--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 09:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

== I fully support your move to black out Wiki to protest the horrendous perversion of American rights that is SOPA. ==

I thought that SOPA was a joke, an online hoax when I first read about it. What a complete and total travesty. Anyone that disputes the Wiki blackout clearly doesn't have two feet on the ground, and takes things for granted way too much. I'm sick and tired of losing rights as a law abiding American. I won't even start in with how few rights I have as a white male American to begin with...

== We need to occupy the internet and take it back ==

The internet is a free flow space exchange of ideas and knowledge regardless of user's socio-economic class. I fully support you doing a wikipedia blackout. While I use wikipedia 3-8 times a day, people need to understand what is at stake. And perhaps, this moment, the tunisian food vendor that sparks other groups like Twitter, Facebook, or even Google.
[[Special:Contributions/98.244.28.20|98.244.28.20]] ([[User talk:98.244.28.20|talk]]) 07:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC) OccupytheInternetSpreadDemocracy 12/12/2011 at 11:57pm

== The bill sucks, but often, so does Wikipedia ==

Wikipedia's shameful partisanship on issues such as global warming have diminished it in my eyes, and I'm sure in the eyes of many other people, as a useful resource.

So I dont think a strike would be particulary effective.

There is a lot of internet, and only a small part of it is wikipedia. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/198.240.128.75|198.240.128.75]] ([[User talk:198.240.128.75|talk]]) 10:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 

== Blanking all Wikipedias? ==

Hi Jimbo,

I am an editor of huwiki, and I don't understand precisely if your proposal concerns enwiki only or all of different language Wikipedias? However, I support the idea for defending our freedom. [[User:Bináris|Bináris]] ([[User talk:Bináris|talk]]) 10:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:I think that whatever might happen in each Wikipedia language, it should be up to that community. Having said that, I think that making an effective public point to the US Congress could be done mainly via English Wikipedia. Sad to say, but our politicians are traditionally barely even aware that the rest of the world exists, and probably don't care a bit about Hungarian Wikipedia. I also think, to be clear, that whether and what to do here depends on a lot of thinking about impact and timing, about a particular end goal and measures of success or failure.
:I had a great conversation with Larry Lessig yesterday. As many of you probably know, he has turned his attention increasingly to the problem of corruption/money in politics, particularly US politics. He is excited about the idea of a strike here, in the sense that it is important that somehow, some way, we begin in the US to get a bigger voice for ordinary people as against moneyed interests. At the same time, he wisely cautioned that we not get into the problem that "Occupy Wall Street" faces in which there is no particular end goal, no particular "victory" (or loss), so it is difficult for people to join a protest that they aren't sure will be effective.
:Can we galvanize literally hundreds of thousands of people to call their Congressional representatives to demand that SOPA be killed, in favor of OPEN as an alternative? If so, if we can get the timing right, that's very interesting. If not, if we can't really make something happen, then there's less of a point to it.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 10:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you and good luck! [[User:Bináris|Bináris]] ([[User talk:Bináris|talk]]) 11:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales

2011-12-12T23:14:22Z

Forteller: Added my !vote

Ben & Jerry's

2011-10-22T12:11:32Z

Forteller: /* Wages */

{{Use mdy dates|date=July 2011}}
:''B&J redirects here. For the beverage company see [[Bartles and Jaymes]].''
{{Multiple issues|refimprove=June 2007|tone=February 2010|weasel=February 2010|intro-tooshort=February 2010}}
{{Infobox company| Ice Cream
|company_name = Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Holdings, Inc.
|company_logo = [[Image:Ben and jerry logo.svg|200px]]
|parent = [[Unilever|Unilever NV]]
|company_type = Subsidiary
|company_slogan =
|foundation = [[Burlington, Vermont]] (1978)
|location = [[South Burlington, Vermont]], US
|key_people = Jostein Solheim (CEO)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.benjerry.com/our_company/press_center/press/WaltFreeseAnnouncement.html |publisher=Ben & Jerry's Press Release |title=Ben & Jerry's new CEO|accessdate=April 23, 2007}}</ref> [[Ben Cohen (businessman)|Ben Cohen]] co-founder [[Jerry Greenfield]], co-founder
|num_employees =
|industry = Retail
|products = [[Ice cream]]
|revenue =
|homepage = [http://www.benjerry.com/ benjerry.com]
}}
'''Ben & Jerry's''' is an American ice cream company, a division of the British-Dutch [[Unilever]] [[conglomerate (company)|conglomerate]], that manufactures [[ice cream]], [[frozen yogurt]], [[sorbet]], and ice cream novelty products, manufactured by Ben & Jerry's Homemade Holdings, Inc., headquartered in [[South Burlington, Vermont|South Burlington]], Vermont, United States, with the main factory in [[Waterbury, Vermont|Waterbury]]. It is best known as an ice cream brand, founded in 1978 in [[Burlington, Vermont]].

==History==
[[File:Ben and Jerry.jpg|thumb|[[Ben Cohen (businessman)|Ben Cohen]] (right) and [[Jerry Greenfield]] (left) in 2010]]
In 1977 lifelong friends [[Ben Cohen (businessman)|Ben Cohen]] and [[Jerry Greenfield]] completed a correspondence course on [[ice cream]] making from the [[Pennsylvania State University]]'s [[Penn State University Creamery|Creamery]]. On May 5, 1978, with a $12,000<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.benjerry.com/company/history/ |title=Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream – History |publisher=Ben & Jerry's |accessdate=April 2, 2010}}</ref> investment the pair opened an ice cream parlor in a renovated gas station in downtown [[Burlington, Vermont]]. In 1979, they marked their anniversary by holding the first-ever free cone day, now an international annual celebration.

In 1980, Ben and Jerry rented space in an old spool and bobbin mill on South Champlain Street in Burlington and began packing their ice cream in pints. In 1981, the first Ben and Jerry's franchise opened on Route 7 in [[Shelburne, Vermont]]. In 1983, Ben & Jerry’s ice cream was used to build “the world’s largest ice cream sundae” in [[St. Albans (city), Vermont|St. Albans, Vermont]]; the sundae weighed 27,102 pounds. That same year, the cows on their cartons were redesigned by local artist, [[Woody Jackson]].<ref>Dan Chu and Martha Babcock. [http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20121051,00.html "The Whole Country Cowtows as Artist Woody Jackson Makes His Big Moove Toward Udder Success"], ''[[People magazine|People]]'' magazine, August 28, 1989</ref>

In 1984, [[Häagen-Dazs]] wanted to limit distribution of Ben & Jerry’s in Boston, prompting Ben & Jerry’s to file suit against the parent company, [[Pillsbury Company|Pillsbury]], in its now famous “What’s the Doughboy Afraid Of?” campaign. In 1987, Häagen-Dazs again tried to enforce exclusive distribution, and Ben & Jerry’s filed its second lawsuit against the Pillsbury Company. In 1985, the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation was established at the end of the year with a gift from Ben & Jerry's to fund community-oriented projects; it was then provided with 7.5% of the company’s annual pre-tax profits. In 1986, Ben & Jerry’s launched its “Cowmobile”, a modified mobile home used to distribute free scoops of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream in a unique, cross-country “marketing drive”—driven and served by Ben and Jerry themselves. The “Cowmobile” burned to the ground outside of Cleveland four months later, but there were no injuries. Ben said it looked like “the world’s largest [[baked Alaska]].”<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.jerrygreenfield.com |title=Jerry Greenfield |date=March, 2005 |publisher=Celebrity Websites |accessdate=April 13, 2008}}</ref>

In 1988, the pair won the title of U.S. Small Business Persons Of The Year, awarded by [[President of the United States|U.S. President]] [[Ronald Reagan]]. Also that year, the first brownies were ordered from [[Greyston Bakery]], which led to the development of the popular Chocolate Fudge Brownie flavor.<ref>{{cite web |title=Baking In The Glory |publisher=Ben & Jerry's |url=http://www.benjerry.co.uk/ourbrownies/ |accessdate=July 21, 2008}}</ref> In 1992, Ben & Jerry’s joined in a co-operative campaign with the national non-profit [[Children's Defense Fund]]; the campaign goal was to bring children’s basic needs to the top of the national agenda. Over 70,000 postcards were sent to Congress concerning kids and other national issues.

[[Image:BenJerry-UnitedSquare.jpg|thumb|Ben & Jerry's ice-cream branch at the [[United Square Shopping Mall]] in Singapore.]]
In April 2000, Ben & Jerry's sold the company to British-Dutch multinational food giant [[Unilever]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.commondreams.org/views/041300-106.htm |publisher=Common Dreams |title=The Globalization of Ben & Jerry's|accessdate=April 13, 2000}}</ref> Unilever said it hopes to carry on the tradition of engaging "in these critical, global economic and social missions." Although the founders' names are still attached to the product, they do not hold any board or management position and are not involved in day-to-day management of the company.{{Citation needed|date=September 2009}}

In 2000, Jostein Solheim, a Unilever executive from Norway, became the new CEO of the company and had this to say about the transition: "My mantra that I've repeated a hundred times since starting at Ben & Jerry's is: ‘Change is a wonderful thing,'" he said. "The world needs dramatic change to address the social and environmental challenges we are facing. Values led businesses can play a critical role in driving that positive change. We need to lead by example, and prove to the world that this is the best way to run a business. Historically, this company has been and must continue to be a pioneer to continually challenge how business can be a force for good and address inequities inherent in global business."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.foodprocessing.com/ceo/jostein_solheim.html |publisher=Food Processing |title=Jostein Solheim |accessdate=April 1, 2000}}</ref>

In 2001, Ben & Jerry's U.S. completed transition to "Eco-Pint" packaging, which packaged all pint flavors in environmentally friendly [[Bleaching of wood pulp|unbleached]] [[paperboard]] Eco-Pint containers, a decision it later reversed. The use of [[kraft paper|brown-kraft]] unbleached paperboard had been a critical first step toward a totally biodegradable pint made without added chlorine. However, due to what they described as increasing supply, quality, and cost challenges, Ben & Jerry's discontinued their use of the Eco-Pint in 2006, transitioning to a pint container made out of a bleached paperboard that it said was more readily available with superior forming characteristics.

On [[Earth Day]] in 2005, when a vote in the [[United States Senate|U.S. Senate]] proposed the opening of the [[Arctic National Wildlife Refuge]] to oil drilling, Ben & Jerry's launched a protest by creating the largest ever [[Baked Alaska]], which weighed 900 pounds, and placed it in front of the [[United States Capitol Building|U.S. Capitol Building]].<ref>[http://www.benjerry.com/our_company/about_us/social_mission/social_audits/2005_sear/sear05_9.1.2.cfm http://www.benjerry.com/our_company/about_us/social_mission/social_audits/2005_sear/sear05_9.1.2.cfm]</ref><ref>[http://www.benjerry.com/features/baked_alaska/index.cfm http://www.benjerry.com/features/baked_alaska/index.cfm]</ref>

In March 2009, "[http://www.cyclonedairy.com/ CyClone Dairy]" launched an advertising campaign and a website to promote its milk products, which purportedly came exclusively from cloned cows.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cyclonedairy.com/ |title=Perfect Cows. Perfect Milk |publisher=Cyclone Dairy |accessdate=April 2, 2010}}</ref> On April 1, 2009 (April Fool's Day), Ben & Jerry's announced that it was behind this fake company. Ben & Jerry's had created the tongue-in-cheek hoax to raise awareness of the increasing presence of products from cloned animals within American food,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/FINAL_FORMATTEDprime%20time.pdf |title=FDA’S flawed approach to assessing the safety of food from animal clones|format=PDF |date= March 2007 | publisher=www.centerforfoodsafety.org |accessdate=April 2, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Paynter |first=Ben |url=http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/15-11/ff_clonedmeat?currentPage=all |title=Cloned Beef (and Pork and Milk): It's What's for Dinner |work=Wired |accessdate=April 2, 2010}}</ref> and to campaign for a tracking system of cloned-animal products.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ga3.org/campaign/CloneTracking |title=Take Action: Tell Congress to create a tracking system for cloned animals! |publisher=Ga3.org |accessdate=April 2, 2010}}</ref> The hoax was revealed on April Fool's Day with the message: "We believe you should have the right to choose which foods you eat – and not to eat cloned foods if you don’t want to. And that's why Ben & Jerry’s believes we need a national clone tracking system, so people and companies can know where their food is coming from."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.benjerry.com/activism/inside-the-pint/more-about-milk/cow-cloning/ |title=Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream – Cow Cloning |publisher=Ben & Jerry's |accessdate=April 2, 2010}}</ref>

==Original flavors and sundaes==
[[File:Ben&Jerrys-Coffee-Heath-Pint-Small.jpg|thumb|right|175px|A pint of Ben & Jerry's ice cream]]
{{Main|List of Ben & Jerry's ice creams}}

'''Chubby Hubby''' consists of vanilla malt ice cream swirled with fudge and peanut butter, and containing [[pretzel]] nuggets covered in fudge and filled with peanut butter. For the month of September 2009, Ben and Jerry's, in partnership with [[Freedom to Marry]], renamed Chubby Hubby to '''Hubby Hubby''', in celebration of the [[Same-sex marriage in Vermont|legalization of same-sex marriage]] in the company's home state of [[Vermont]]. The carton featured the image of two men getting married beneath a rainbow.<ref name=guardian>{{cite news | url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6125277/Ben-and-Jerrys-renames-ice-cream-Hubby-Hubby-in-celebration-of-gay-marriage.html | title=Ben and Jerry's renames ice cream Hubby Hubby in celebration of gay marriage | last=Moore | first=Matthew | date=September 2, 2009 |work=The Daily Telegraph |location=UK |work=The Daily Telegraph | accessdate=September 2, 2009 }}</ref><ref name=tribune>{{cite web | url=http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/thestew/2009/09/hubba-hubba-hubby-hubby-ice-cream-introduced.html | title=Hubba hubba! Hubby Hubby ice cream introduced | last=Daley | first=Bill | date=September 2, 2009 |work=Chicago Tribune | publisher=(leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com) | accessdate=September 2, 2009 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.benjerry.com/hubbyhubby/ |title=Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream – Flavors – HubbyHubby |publisher=Ben & Jerry's |date=September 1, 2009 |accessdate=April 2, 2010}}</ref>

[[Ben Cohen (businessman)|Ben Cohen]] and [[Jerry Greenfield]] appeared on the ''[[The Colbert Report]]'' on March 5, 2007 to promote their new ice cream flavor, '''[[Stephen Colbert's AmeriCone Dream]]''', and their grassroots education and advocacy project, [[TrueMajority]].

The company renamed a flavor, Yes Pecan, in reference to Barack Obama's victory in the [[2008 U.S. Presidential election]]. They later decided in January 2009 to donate all proceeds made on the sale of that flavor to the Common Cause Education Fund.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/09/yes-pecan-ben-jerrys-anno_n_156674.html |title=Yes Pecan!: Ben & Jerry's Announces Obama Ice Cream |work=Huffington Post |accessdate=April 2, 2010}}</ref>

On March 2, 2011 Cohen and Greenfield appeared on ''[[Late Night with Jimmy Fallon]]'' and unveiled their new flavor of ice cream, '''Late Night Snack''', whose carton features a picture of [[Jimmy Fallon]] on it.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.benjerry.com/flavors/feature/late-night-snack/</ref>

The '''Vermonster''' is a large ice cream [[sundae]] found in Ben & Jerry's "[[ice cream parlor|scoop shops]]", which is served in a "Vermonster Bucket", and consists of 20 scoops of ice cream, a fudge brownie, 4 bananas, 3 cookies, 4 toppings, 4 ladles of [[hot fudge]], whipped cream, and marshmallows. It contains 14,000 calories, and 500 grams of fat.<ref name=Vermonster>{{cite web |url=http://www.travelchannel.com/Places_Trips/Travel_Ideas/Food_And_Drink/Food/Extreme_Pig_Outs |title=Extreme Pig Outs: Meals That Will Blow Your Mind and Tip the Scale |first=Erica |last=Walsh |publisher=[[Travel Channel]] |date=October 2009}}</ref>

==Free Cone Day==
[[Image:Freeconeday cowgirl.jpg|250px|thumb|Girl in cow costume promoting Free Cone Day outside a Ben & Jerry's shop in Stockholm, Sweden]]
Free Cone Day is an annual event held between late March and early May, in which Ben & Jerry's [[Ice cream parlor|scoop shops]] give out free ice cream cups and cones. The most recent event took place on Tuesday, April 12, 2011 from noon to 8 pm.

Over one million free cones are given away each year, prompting the company's ad slogan "Be One In A Million." Charitable organizations are often present at the stores each year and enjoy a significant amount of fundraising success. Oftentimes, local celebrities show up at various stores, promoting the day and the charities there.<ref>http://www.vegasnews.com/6178/ben-jerry's-31st-annual-free-cone-day-serves-more-than-7300-scoops-raises-money-for-local-charities.html Retrieved September 16, 2009</ref> Sometimes the event is scheduled to coincide with [[Earth Day]] and sometimes volunteers are on hand with clipboards and voter registration forms to help those who would like to register to vote.

The first Free Cone Day was held on Saturday, May 5, 1979 by [[Ben Cohen (businessman)|Ben]] and [[Jerry Greenfield|Jerry]] as a customer and staff appreciation event for the first anniversary of their store's opening.

==Cultural significance and reach==
[[File:1.20.10HobokenBen&Jerry'sByLuigiNovi3.jpg|thumb|left|The interior of the Ben & Jerry's in [[Hoboken, New Jersey]].]]
Ben & Jerry's was the first brand-name ice cream to be taken into space aboard the [[Space Shuttle]]. Most of the cruise ships of the [[Royal Caribbean International]] have a Ben & Jerry's scoop shop on board.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.royalcaribbean.com/findacruise/experiencetypes/experiencetype/experience/home.do?br=R&exCode=115 |title=Onboard Experience |publisher=Royal Caribbean International |accessdate=April 2, 2010}}</ref>

==Controversies==
Rumors have suggested that Ben & Jerry's supported the defense of [[Mumia Abu-Jamal]], who was convicted in 1982 of killing Philadelphia Police officer [[Daniel Faulkner]]. Despite several appeals, Abu-Jamal's conviction has been upheld. As a result of this alleged support, e-mails claimed that the [[Fraternal Order of Police]] called for a boycott of Ben & Jerry's products.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/danielfaulkner.html |title=The FOP's Boycott for Daniel Faulkner |publisher=BreakTheChain.org |accessdate=April 2, 2010}}</ref> The Ben & Jerry's website denies that the company has had any connection with the case; however, it adds that Cohen did sign a petition as a private citizen asking that "the system of American justice be followed fully in the case."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://benjerry.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/benjerry.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1&p_created=915055482&p_sid=SjHqOFbj&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD0yMjcsMjI3JnBfcHJvZHM9JnBfY2F0cz0mcF9wdj0mcF9jdj0mcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1hbnN3ZXJzLnNlYXJjaF9ubCZwX3BhZ2U9MQ**&p_li=&p_topview=1 |title=Support Home Page |publisher=Ben & Jerry's |accessdate=April 2, 2010}}</ref>

The company raised controversy in 2006 after releasing a flavor of ice cream called "Black and Tan." It had named the flavor after the [[Black and Tan|alcoholic drink]] made by mixing [[stout]] with [[pale ale]]. However, outrage stemmed from the fact that [[Black and Tans]] was also a name given to the irregular force of British ex-servicemen recruited during the [[Irish War of Independence]] and renowned for their brutality.<ref>{{cite news |first= Owen |last= Bowcott |title= Ben & Jerry's new flavour leaves bad taste |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/19/ireland |work=The Guardian |location=UK |date=April 19, 2006 |accessdate=August 6, 2009}}</ref>

In September 2010, the company agreed to stop labeling their ice cream and frozen yogurt as "all natural." The [[Center for Science in the Public Interest]], a consumer-advocacy group, had urged Ben & Jerry's to stop labeling their ice cream as "all natural" due to the company's use of [[corn syrup]], [[Dutch process chocolate|alkalised cocoa]], and other chemically modified ingredients.<ref name="allnat">{{cite news|last= Clark|first=Andrew|title=Ben and Jerry's admits ice-cream with a liberal conscience not 'all natural'|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/sep/28/unilever-ben-jerrys-ingredients-watchdog|accessdate=September 28, 2010|newspaper=The Guardian|date=September 28, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/09/27/130158014/ben-jerry-s-takes-all-natural-claims-off-ice-cream-labels|title=Ben & Jerry's Takes 'All Natural' Claims Off Ice Cream Labels|publisher=NPR|date=September 27, 2010|accessdate=September 30, 2010}}</ref>

==Global locations==
[[File:Ford Kuga Gen1 from 2008 BEN AND JERRYS backright 2009-04-09 U.jpg|thumb|right|[[Ford Kuga]]]]
Ben and Jerry's has locations around the world.<ref name="International Locations">{{cite web|url=http://www.benjerry.com/company/international/|title=International Locations|publisher= Ben & Jerry's |accessdate=December 14, 2009}}</ref>
{{columns-list|2|
* Austria
* Australia
* Belgium
* Canada
* China
* Colombia
* Czech Republic
* Cyprus
* Denmark
* Estonia
* Finland
* France
* Germany
* Gibraltar
* Greece
* Hong Kong
* Iceland
* India
* Ireland
* Israel
* Italy
* Kazakhstan
* Malta
* Madagascar
* Mexico
* Netherlands
* Norway
* Panama
* Portugal
* Puerto Rico
* Singapore
* South Korea
* Spain
* Sweden
* Switzerland
* Thailand
* Turkey
* United Kingdom
* United States
}}

==Wages==
Ben & Jerry's used to have a policy that no employee's rate of pay shall exceed seven times that of entry-level employees. In 1995, entry-level employees were paid $8 hourly, and the highest paid employee was President and Chief Operating Officer Chuck Lacey, who earned $150,000 annually. When Ben Cohen resigned as Chief Executive Officer and Ben & Jerry's announced the search for a new CEO in 1995, the company ended the seven-to-one-ratio policy.<ref>{{cite news |title=Pure Profit – For Small Companies That Stress Social Values as Much as the Bottom Line, Growing Up Hasn't Been an Easy Task. Just Ask Ben & Jerry's, Patagonia and Starbucks |work=Los Angeles Times |date=February 5, 1995 |first=Peter |last=Carlin |url=http://articles.latimes.com/1995-02-05/magazine/tm-28412_1_ben-cohen }}</ref>

In 2006 Ben & Jerry's started selling their first [[Fairtrade]] certified ice cream. The company has promised that all the ingredients they use that can be Fairtrade certified will be by the end of 2011<ref>{{cite |url=http://www.benjerry.co.uk/fairtrade/ }}</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==External links==
{{Commons category|Ben & Jerry's}}
* {{official|http://www.benjerry.com/}}
* Wieder, Tamara. "[http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/qa/documents/03073228.asp Coneheads]." ''[[The Boston Phoenix]]''. August 8 – August 14, 2003. – Boston Phoenix Interview with founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield
* Criswell, Ann. "[http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1992_1063355 Ben & Jerry's is sweet on social issues]." ''[[Houston Chronicle]]''. Wednesday June 24, 1992. Food 1.

{{Portalbox|Vermont|Companies|Food}}

{{Unilever}}
{{Fast food restaurants}}
{{UK Food}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Ben & Jerry's}}
[[Category:Ben & Jerry's| ]]
[[Category:Duos]]
[[Category:Ice cream brands]]
[[Category:Ice cream parlors]]
[[Category:Companies based in Vermont]]
[[Category:Companies established in 1978]]
[[Category:Unilever brands]]
[[Category:Vermont culture]]
[[Category:Agriculture in Vermont]]
[[Category:Fast-food franchises]]

[[da:Ben & Jerry's]]
[[de:Ben & Jerry’s]]
[[es:Ben & Jerry's]]
[[fr:Ben & Jerry's]]
[[ko:벤앤제리]]
[[id:Ben & Jerry's]]
[[it:Ben & Jerry's]]
[[he:בן אנד ג'ריז]]
[[nl:Ben & Jerry's]]
[[ja:ベン&ジェリーズ]]
[[no:Ben & Jerry's]]
[[ru:Ben & Jerry's]]
[[simple:Ben & Jerry's]]
[[fi:Ben & Jerry's]]
[[sv:Ben & Jerry's]]
[[th:เบนแอนด์เจอร์รีส์]]
[[zh:班傑利公司]]

Greg Mitchell

2011-01-28T20:58:58Z

Forteller: /* Books */ Added Age of Wikileaks and October Light

{{Multiple issues|notability =May 2009|cleanup =December 2010|primarysources =May 2009}}

'''Greg Mitchell''' (born 1947) is the author of ten books and currently blogs on media and politics for The Nation. He was the editor of ''[[Editor & Publisher]]'' (E&P), which covers the news and newspaper industry, from 2002 to the end of 2009.

==Biography==
Greg Mitchell's latest book, published in January 2009, is "Why Obama Won: The Making of a President 2008" (Sinclair Books). His previous book was published in March 2008, titled ''So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed in Iraq'' (Union Square Press). It includes a preface by Bruce Springsteen and a foreword by war reporter [[Joseph L. Galloway]]. His 1992 book for Random House, "The Campaign of the Century: Upton Sinclair's Race for Governor of California and the Birth of Media Politics," which won the Goldsmith Book Prize, was recently published in a new edition by PoliPoint Press.

Mitchell is married to writer Barbara Bedway, and they live in [[Nyack, New York]]. The couple has a son, Andy, now a filmmaker, about whom he has written regarding their experiences together in [[Little League]] baseball in the memoir ''Joy in Mudville.''<ref>Online review http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/0671035312.asp</ref><ref>[Book excerpt http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/0671035312-excerpt.asp]</ref> Mitchell has a daughter, Jeni, from a previous marriage, who lives in London.

His influential blog, launched at The Nation in April 2010, is updated several times a day at the magazine's web site. Its "Daybook" feature presents media and politics items and links early in the morning, updated all day and weekends. He also blogs regularly for Huffington Post, among other sites and has a popular Twitter feed @GregMitch.

Mitchell was editor of ''Nuclear Times'' magazine from 1982 to 1986 and has written widely about the atomic bombings for dozens of magazines and newspapers including ''The [[New York Times]]'' and the ''[[Washington Post]]''.

Mitchell is co-author of a book with [[Robert Jay Lifton]] on the perceptions in the [[United States]] of the nuclear bombing of [[Hiroshima]] and [[Nagasaki, Nagasaki|Nagasaki]] during [[World War II]]. In an interview,<ref>[http://onthemedia.org/transcripts/transcripts_080505_60years.html]</ref> he discussed the long-censored stories of [[Chicago Daily Tribune|Chicago Tribune]] correspondent [[George Weller]], the first Western news reporter to reach [[Nagasaki, Nagasaki|Nagasaki]] after the atomic bombing.

He wrote a second book with Lifton about capital punishment called ''Who Owns Death?''

Mitchell has written a pair of acclaimed books about famous [[California]] political campaigns. One was ''The Campaign of the Century,'' about [[Upton Sinclair]]'s race for governor in 1934 and the birth of media-driven elections. It was made into a [[PBS]] documentary for "The [[Great Depression]]" series and was produced in the theater as a musical. His book, ''Tricky Dick and the Pink Lady: Richard Nixon Vs Helen Gahagan Douglas--Sexual Politics and the Red Scare, 1950'' homes in on an era in California politics as it impacted national politics.

In the 1970s, Mitchell was senior editor at the legendary ''[[Crawdaddy!]]'' magazine where he is credited with writing (with ''Crawdaddy'' editor Peter Knobler) the first magazine article about [[Bruce Springsteen]].

==Views on news coverage==
Mitchell revealed what he called his own [[Jayson Blair]] moment in his E&P column in 2003. At age 21 and while working as a summer intern, Mitchell confessed to making up some quotes when asked by his city editor at the ''Niagara Falls (N.Y.) Gazette'' (now the ''Niagara Gazette'') to gather quotes from tourists at Niagara Falls. The point of the column is that both he and other journalists learn from their mistakes.

In an interview [http://www.echochamberproject.com/mitchell] June 28, 2004 with the Echo Chamber Project, Mitchell discussed the duty of news reporters to be "skeptical" and not tilt coverage either to the right or left. He cited coverage of the build-up to the [[United States]] war in [[Iraq]] as an example of skewed coverage.

He said the tone of coverage by news media "all our coverage on all subjects—is not to be partisan or not to be left or right or anything like that. But we believe in the—what should be the main principle of journalism, besides being accurate and fair, is to be skeptical—to raise questions, to not take what officials say as the gospel truth—unless it's really proven—if there's documents."

Whether covering Washington or a small town, Mitchell said "the journalistic principle is the same: to be skeptical unless there's hard evidence and proof. And you report what someone says—"It's their claim." "It's what they say." "It's what they allege." "It's what they're trying to prove." But you don't present these things as fact if you're not sure they're fact. And what happened with the Iraq coverage was that too often newspapers—and especially television—went with stories that were based on official claims, and in retrospect, were really propaganda. Because in some cases, the officials were well-meaning. Maybe they thought that they had the evidence. But in other cases, they knew their evidence was incredibly shaky—or should have known—and yet went with the evidence claiming it was fact. And the press just, in most cases, accepted it."[http://www.echochamberproject.com/mitchell]

==Books==
*''[http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/1949679|The Age of WikiLeaks]'' by Greg Mitchell (Self published on [[Blurb]], 2011)
*''October Light: Paris and Auvers'', photographs by Greg Mitchell (Self published on Blurb, 2006)
*''The Campaign of the Century: Upton Sinclair's E.P.I.C. Race for Governor of California and the Birth of Media Politics'' by Greg Mitchell ([[Random House]], 1992), ISBN 0-87113-467-5 [http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/presspol/goldsmith_awards/book_prize_winners.shtml#1993 Winner of the 1993 [[Goldsmith Book Prize]]]
*''Hiroshima in America: A Half Century of Denial'' by Robert Jay Lifton and Greg Mitchell (Avon Books, 1996), ISBN 0-380-72764-1 (Diane Pub Co, 1995), (Putnam Pub Group 1995), ISBN 0-399-14072-7 ISBN 0-7881-9992-7
*''Joy in Mudville: A Little League Memoir'' by Greg Mitchell (Pocket Books, 2000), (Washington Square Press, 2002), ISBN 0-671-03532-0 ISBN 0-671-03531-2
*''Tricky Dick and the Pink Lady: Richard Nixon Vs Helen Gahagan Douglas-Sexual Politics and the Red Scare, 1950'' by Greg Mitchell (Random House Inc, 1998), ISBN 0-679-41621-8
*''Truth.. and Consequences: 7 Who Would Not Be Silenced'' by Greg Mitchell (W W Norton & Co Inc, 1987), ISBN 0-934878-08-0
*''Very Seventies: A Cultural History of the 1970S, from the Pages of Crawdaddy'', Peter Knobler and Greg Mitchell (editors) (Fireside/Simon & Schuster, April 1, 1995), ISBN 0-684-80069-1 ISBN 0-02-022005-7
*''Who Owns Death?: Capital Punishment, the American Conscience, and the End of Executions'' by Robert Jay Lifton; Greg Mitchell (William Morrow & Co, November 1, 2000), (Perennial, February 1, 2002), ISBN 0-380-79246-X ISBN 0-380-97498-3
*''So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed in Iraq'', by Greg Mitchell (Union Square Press, March 4, 2008) ISBN 1402756577 ISBN 978-1402756573

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com/ Official blog]
*[http://www.thenation.com/blogs/media-fix Media Fix blog at The Nation
*[http://www.bookreporter.com/authors/au-mitchell-greg.asp Interview at Book Reporter]
*[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_archive.jsp Mitchell's online column archive at E&P.]

{{Persondata 
| NAME =Mitchell, Greg
| ALTERNATIVE NAMES =
| SHORT DESCRIPTION =Author and blogger
| DATE OF BIRTH = 1947
| PLACE OF BIRTH =
| DATE OF DEATH =
| PLACE OF DEATH =
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Mitchell, Greg}}
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:1947 births]]
[[Category:American anti-nuclear weapons activists]]
[[Category:American non-fiction writers]]

Greg Mitchell

2011-01-28T20:49:57Z

Forteller: /* External links */ Added official blog and his blog at The Nation

{{Multiple issues|notability =May 2009|cleanup =December 2010|primarysources =May 2009}}

'''Greg Mitchell''' (born 1947) is the author of ten books and currently blogs on media and politics for The Nation. He was the editor of ''[[Editor & Publisher]]'' (E&P), which covers the news and newspaper industry, from 2002 to the end of 2009.

==Biography==
Greg Mitchell's latest book, published in January 2009, is "Why Obama Won: The Making of a President 2008" (Sinclair Books). His previous book was published in March 2008, titled ''So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed in Iraq'' (Union Square Press). It includes a preface by Bruce Springsteen and a foreword by war reporter [[Joseph L. Galloway]]. His 1992 book for Random House, "The Campaign of the Century: Upton Sinclair's Race for Governor of California and the Birth of Media Politics," which won the Goldsmith Book Prize, was recently published in a new edition by PoliPoint Press.

Mitchell is married to writer Barbara Bedway, and they live in [[Nyack, New York]]. The couple has a son, Andy, now a filmmaker, about whom he has written regarding their experiences together in [[Little League]] baseball in the memoir ''Joy in Mudville.''<ref>Online review http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/0671035312.asp</ref><ref>[Book excerpt http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/0671035312-excerpt.asp]</ref> Mitchell has a daughter, Jeni, from a previous marriage, who lives in London.

His influential blog, launched at The Nation in April 2010, is updated several times a day at the magazine's web site. Its "Daybook" feature presents media and politics items and links early in the morning, updated all day and weekends. He also blogs regularly for Huffington Post, among other sites and has a popular Twitter feed @GregMitch.

Mitchell was editor of ''Nuclear Times'' magazine from 1982 to 1986 and has written widely about the atomic bombings for dozens of magazines and newspapers including ''The [[New York Times]]'' and the ''[[Washington Post]]''.

Mitchell is co-author of a book with [[Robert Jay Lifton]] on the perceptions in the [[United States]] of the nuclear bombing of [[Hiroshima]] and [[Nagasaki, Nagasaki|Nagasaki]] during [[World War II]]. In an interview,<ref>[http://onthemedia.org/transcripts/transcripts_080505_60years.html]</ref> he discussed the long-censored stories of [[Chicago Daily Tribune|Chicago Tribune]] correspondent [[George Weller]], the first Western news reporter to reach [[Nagasaki, Nagasaki|Nagasaki]] after the atomic bombing.

He wrote a second book with Lifton about capital punishment called ''Who Owns Death?''

Mitchell has written a pair of acclaimed books about famous [[California]] political campaigns. One was ''The Campaign of the Century,'' about [[Upton Sinclair]]'s race for governor in 1934 and the birth of media-driven elections. It was made into a [[PBS]] documentary for "The [[Great Depression]]" series and was produced in the theater as a musical. His book, ''Tricky Dick and the Pink Lady: Richard Nixon Vs Helen Gahagan Douglas--Sexual Politics and the Red Scare, 1950'' homes in on an era in California politics as it impacted national politics.

In the 1970s, Mitchell was senior editor at the legendary ''[[Crawdaddy!]]'' magazine where he is credited with writing (with ''Crawdaddy'' editor Peter Knobler) the first magazine article about [[Bruce Springsteen]].

==Views on news coverage==
Mitchell revealed what he called his own [[Jayson Blair]] moment in his E&P column in 2003. At age 21 and while working as a summer intern, Mitchell confessed to making up some quotes when asked by his city editor at the ''Niagara Falls (N.Y.) Gazette'' (now the ''Niagara Gazette'') to gather quotes from tourists at Niagara Falls. The point of the column is that both he and other journalists learn from their mistakes.

In an interview [http://www.echochamberproject.com/mitchell] June 28, 2004 with the Echo Chamber Project, Mitchell discussed the duty of news reporters to be "skeptical" and not tilt coverage either to the right or left. He cited coverage of the build-up to the [[United States]] war in [[Iraq]] as an example of skewed coverage.

He said the tone of coverage by news media "all our coverage on all subjects—is not to be partisan or not to be left or right or anything like that. But we believe in the—what should be the main principle of journalism, besides being accurate and fair, is to be skeptical—to raise questions, to not take what officials say as the gospel truth—unless it's really proven—if there's documents."

Whether covering Washington or a small town, Mitchell said "the journalistic principle is the same: to be skeptical unless there's hard evidence and proof. And you report what someone says—"It's their claim." "It's what they say." "It's what they allege." "It's what they're trying to prove." But you don't present these things as fact if you're not sure they're fact. And what happened with the Iraq coverage was that too often newspapers—and especially television—went with stories that were based on official claims, and in retrospect, were really propaganda. Because in some cases, the officials were well-meaning. Maybe they thought that they had the evidence. But in other cases, they knew their evidence was incredibly shaky—or should have known—and yet went with the evidence claiming it was fact. And the press just, in most cases, accepted it."[http://www.echochamberproject.com/mitchell]

==Books==
*''The Campaign of the Century: Upton Sinclair's E.P.I.C. Race for Governor of California and the Birth of Media Politics'' by Greg Mitchell ([[Random House]], 1992), ISBN 0-87113-467-5 [http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/presspol/goldsmith_awards/book_prize_winners.shtml#1993 Winner of the 1993 [[Goldsmith Book Prize]]]
*''Hiroshima in America: A Half Century of Denial'' by Robert Jay Lifton and Greg Mitchell (Avon Books, 1996), ISBN 0-380-72764-1 (Diane Pub Co, 1995), (Putnam Pub Group 1995), ISBN 0-399-14072-7 ISBN 0-7881-9992-7
*''Joy in Mudville: A Little League Memoir'' by Greg Mitchell (Pocket Books, 2000), (Washington Square Press, 2002), ISBN 0-671-03532-0 ISBN 0-671-03531-2
*''Tricky Dick and the Pink Lady: Richard Nixon Vs Helen Gahagan Douglas-Sexual Politics and the Red Scare, 1950'' by Greg Mitchell (Random House Inc, 1998), ISBN 0-679-41621-8
*''Truth.. and Consequences: 7 Who Would Not Be Silenced'' by Greg Mitchell (W W Norton & Co Inc, 1987), ISBN 0-934878-08-0
*''Very Seventies: A Cultural History of the 1970S, from the Pages of Crawdaddy'', Peter Knobler and Greg Mitchell (editors) (Fireside/Simon & Schuster, April 1, 1995), ISBN 0-684-80069-1 ISBN 0-02-022005-7
*''Who Owns Death?: Capital Punishment, the American Conscience, and the End of Executions'' by Robert Jay Lifton; Greg Mitchell (William Morrow & Co, November 1, 2000), (Perennial, February 1, 2002), ISBN 0-380-79246-X ISBN 0-380-97498-3
*''So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed in Iraq'', by Greg Mitchell (Union Square Press, March 4, 2008) ISBN 1402756577 ISBN 978-1402756573

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com/ Official blog]
*[http://www.thenation.com/blogs/media-fix Media Fix blog at The Nation
*[http://www.bookreporter.com/authors/au-mitchell-greg.asp Interview at Book Reporter]
*[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_archive.jsp Mitchell's online column archive at E&P.]

{{Persondata 
| NAME =Mitchell, Greg
| ALTERNATIVE NAMES =
| SHORT DESCRIPTION =Author and blogger
| DATE OF BIRTH = 1947
| PLACE OF BIRTH =
| DATE OF DEATH =
| PLACE OF DEATH =
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Mitchell, Greg}}
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:1947 births]]
[[Category:American anti-nuclear weapons activists]]
[[Category:American non-fiction writers]]

Talk:List of common misconceptions

2011-01-25T00:30:44Z

Forteller: /* Schizophrenia */

{{high traffic|date=4 January 2011|site=xkcd|url=http://www.xkcd.com/843/|small=}}
{{high traffic|date=12 January 2011|site=Boing Boing|url=http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/11/wikipedias-list-of-c.html}}
{{talk header |search=yes}}
{{ArticleHistory
| action1 = AFD
| action1date = 2006-10-29
| action1link = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of misconceptions
| action1result = no consensus
| action1oldid = 84390149

| action2 = AFD
| action2date = 2009-03-24
| action2link = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (2nd nomination)
| action2result = keep
| action2oldid = 279365308
| topic = history
}}
{{auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=5 |units=days }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 13
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(5d)
|archive = Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive index
|mask=Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}



== Misconceived to be a misconception ==

Some of these misconceptions are so dumb I have to assert that they are only "reportedly" common misconceptions, and aren't very common.

I'm trying to set up a dichotomy between "commonly reported as a common misconception" and "common misconception".

How common is it, really, for people to believe lightning never strikes the same place twice? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.187.99.79|72.187.99.79]] ([[User talk:72.187.99.79|talk]]) 07:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC) 

:What, you've never heard the expression? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 07:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

::I agree it is a common quote, but I don't think the people who say it believe it. I may be wrong, but unless there is hard data, I may be right. The quote may simply be older than towers tall enough to attract lightning commonly. The same goes for Europeans believing in the world being flat. This makes me think this article should be split into two halves. True misconceptions and reportedly misconceptions. Respectively With, and Without, empirical research into the commonness. "Commonly reported as a common misconception" and "common misconception".~ ~ ~ [[Special:Contributions/72.187.99.79|72.187.99.79]] ([[User talk:72.187.99.79|talk]]) ~ ~ ~ [[Special:Contributions/72.187.99.79|72.187.99.79]] ([[User talk:72.187.99.79|talk]]) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 07:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC). 
:::I'm pretty sure lots of people are convinced people used to think the Earth was flat before America was discovered. I'm pretty sure I was told that in Elementary school whenever Columbus Day came around, so I'm sure that is being told to lots of school kids and some never learn otherwise.[[Special:Contributions/68.94.91.172|68.94.91.172]] ([[User talk:68.94.91.172|talk]]) 17:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
:::That sounds like a content fork, but it does give me an idea. Maybe there could be a separate article (again, at risk of it being endless) that examines the truth or falsehood of "well-known sayings". For example, "Lightning never strikes the same place twice." Obviously false, but it could be taken as a metaphor equivalent to "Opportunity only knocks once." "Water finds its level." Probably true. "Criminals always return to the scene of the crime." It only takes one exception to "prove" that one false, but a more interesting result would be if there is any reliable info on ''what percentage'' of criminals return to the scene of the crime, assuming they're even able to. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 17:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
::::We may be able to get good statistics about one particular class of criminals returning to the scene of the crime; arsonists. It is common enough for arsonists to be in the crowd that watches a fire that investigators photograph the crowd. The same face at three or four unrelated fires is a dead givaway. [[User:guymacon| Guy Macon ]] 08:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::An improvement, not a fork. Interesting idea. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:TheThomas|TheThomas]] ([[User talk:TheThomas|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheThomas|contribs]]) 11:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC) 

:::72.187.99.79: Where are you going to get [[WP:RS|sources]] which specifically state something is a common misconception '''but''' there's no empirical research into its commonness? [[User:AQFK|AQFK]] ([[User talk:AQFK|talk]]) 14:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

:Strong agree. Many things mentioned here are far from genuinely believed. [[User:Turkeyphant|'''''Turkeyphan''''']][[User talk:Turkeyphant|<big>t</big>]] 13:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a problem that I see no solution to. The only reliable source as to whether a misconception is commonly held would be an opinion poll, and nobody is going to pay for such a poll any time soon. Lacking that, (or perhaps convincing Snopes.com to put in "I was taught that was true", "I was taught that was a misconception" and "never heard that one before" buttons) all we have for a reliable source is someone who is of the opinion that a misconception is common, with no way for them to know that. And yet, there are beliefs listed on this page that I suspect everyone here agrees are commonly held, even if we cannot prove it. [[User:guymacon| Guy Macon ]] 21:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

::There is a solution and the issue of whether lightning strikes the same place twice is a good example of how to apply it. The phrase "lightning never strikes the same place twice" is said not as an statement of belief, but as an idiom. If you were to reply to someone saying it to you, "really? lightning doesn't strike the same place twice?" they would probably tell you that you missed the point of the phrase. My proposed solution is that if a phrase is an idiom, it's not a misconception. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.64.13.153|88.64.13.153]] ([[User talk:88.64.13.153|talk]]) 03:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC) 

I'm having the same problem with my 'refreezing defrosted foods' one (section 21, below). I'm struggling to find anything that specifically says it's a commonly-held misconception, but I think many people would agree that they think (or previously thought) that it is dangerous to refreeze thawed food - which turns out not to be true. So I would argue it's a commonly-held misconception, but won't be able to prove as much.
[[Special:Contributions/80.175.12.57|80.175.12.57]] ([[User talk:80.175.12.57|talk]]) 15:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

== Drinking a considerable amount of distilled (or "pure") water will kill you ==

I was going to add a section about this myth but it is surprisingly hard to prove that it is a common misconception in the first place. The facts are easy to source and are also basically covered in [[Purified_water#Health_effects]] and [[Distilled water]], but help is welcome to find sources that comment on this being a misconception. --[[User:Echosmoke|Echosmoke]] ([[User talk:Echosmoke|talk]]) 17:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
:"''it is surprisingly hard to prove that it is a common misconception in the first place''": Therein is the problem. I doubt very seriously that many people have even considered this "misconception". Please provide a reliable source that's it's common. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 17:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
::Maybe it is a common misconception in Germany only. w/e ;) --[[User:Echosmoke|Echosmoke]] ([[User talk:Echosmoke|talk]]) 22:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
:::It's probably due to conflation with regular water poisoning (see Leah Betts, et al.) [[User:Turkeyphant|'''''Turkeyphan''''']][[User talk:Turkeyphant|<big>t</big>]] 18:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
:::It's a common belief in the UK, too - perhaps '''because it's true''' ! See [[Leah Betts]] & [[Water intoxication]] ! --[[Special:Contributions/195.137.93.171|195.137.93.171]] ([[User talk:195.137.93.171|talk]]) 05:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
:::I'm from the UK and I'd never heard that. Leah Betts died from drinking far too much bottled water. I've never heard anyone suggest that it was particularly pure in any way and would be very surprised if it was. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.4.195.51|80.4.195.51]] ([[User talk:80.4.195.51|talk]]) 03:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC) 
::::That was my point. We're still waiting for sources that it's an actual misconception. I've personally never heard of it. [[User:Turkeyphant|'''''Turkeyphan''''']][[User talk:Turkeyphant|<big>t</big>]] 22:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Leah Betts did not die from just randomly deciding it would be fun to drink a lot of water, she had taken a bad ecstasy pill at her birthday party, which made her feel dehydrated. She drank a lot of water very quickly and ended up with swelling on the brain, causing her death. Her dad was/is a policeman and started a big advertising campaign to alert young people to the dangers of taking ecstasy after the loss of his daughter. I am English, and I remember the 1995 story very well. BBC News- <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/13/newsid_2516000/2516593.stm</ref> —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/194.176.105.41|194.176.105.41]] ([[User talk:194.176.105.41|talk]]) 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC) 
:This is a misleading summary on many levels. But the point is that she died from water intoxication, nothing to do with MDMA. For the purposes of this article and this talk page discussion, people have died from water intoxication.[[User:Turkeyphant|'''''Turkeyphan''''']][[User talk:Turkeyphant|<big>t</big>]] 22:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
::Whether or not it is common, it apparently is not a full-blown misconception - [[Water intoxication]]. --[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 23:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
:::You need to actually read what people are saying in this talk section. Water intoxication has already been brought up and it's nothing to do with this (alleged) misconception. [[User:Turkeyphant|'''''Turkeyphan''''']][[User talk:Turkeyphant|<big>t</big>]] 00:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
An expert stated at the inquest that if she'd have just drunk the water, she would have survived, and if she'd just taken the drug she would have survived.<ref> "The legacy of tragic Leah" (HTML). BBC. 2005-11-16.</ref> —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/194.176.105.41|194.176.105.41]] ([[User talk:194.176.105.41|talk]]) 14:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 
::Ref is broken. [[User:Turkeyphant|'''''Turkeyphan''''']][[User talk:Turkeyphant|<big>t</big>]] 19:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Well the "expert" was telling lies as they all do at these government-funded - anti-drug-hysteria-whip-up fests. For a start, all he would be able to say is that it was ''of his opinion that'' she ''might'' have survived. Bottom line is, she died of water poisoning. Whether the water is pure or has trace elements or is contaminated in any way is immaterial. Drinking that large a quantity of water is bad for you and will probably kill you. --[[User talk:WestwoodMatt|Matt Westwood]] 06:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

== 0.999... ==

The widely known fact that students believe .999... to fall short of 1 is discussed, for example, by

* {{cite journal |last1=Tall |first1=D. O. |last2=Schwarzenberger |first2=R. L. E.|title=Conflicts in the Learning of Real Numbers and Limits |journal=Mathematics Teaching |year=1978 |volume=82 |pages=44–49 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot1978c-with-rolph.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}
* {{cite journal |last=Tall |first=David |authorlink=David O. Tall |title=Conflicts and Catastrophes in the Learning of Mathematics |journal=Mathematical Education for Teaching |year=1976/7 |volume=2 |issue=4 |pages=2–18 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot1976a-confl-catastrophy.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}
* {{cite journal |last=Tall |first=David |title=Cognitive Development In Advanced Mathematics Using Technology |journal=Mathematics Education Research Journal |year=2000 |volume=12 |issue=3 |pages=210–230 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot2001b-merj-amt.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}

Additional references are given at [[0.999...]]. It is widely known in education circles that a majority of the students believe that .999...<1. [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 19:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
:Several problems here. First, citations belong in the article, not the talk page. Secondly (and more importantly): the last two sources do not address it as a common misconception ''whatsover''. The first source identifies it as a misconception among some first-year university students; that's doesn't make it a common misconception ''in general''. Most people have never given it any thought, much less have a misconception about it. If you disagree, please wait for [[WP:CON|consensus]] before restoring the item. So far two editors disagree with you (Qwyrxian and me); thus currently no consensus for the item. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 19:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

::The other editor "disagreed" for a reason that is diametrically opposed to yours, as I recall. He felt it is not a misconception but merely "unintuitive", but seemed to acknowledge implicitly that it is a common problem. As far as your last point is concerned, I am not sure what you are arguing exactly. That most people are not interested in this problem? Certainly many people attend the first year of the university. Furthermore, this problem is routinely treated in highschool as well. Dubinsky et al recently published an article where they describe a program geared toward convincing students of the correctness of .999...=1 by using the formulas for sums of geometric series. There are literally dozens of articles written about this. If you think people don't care, just check [[Talk:0.999...]] ! [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 19:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Please let Qwyrxian speak for himself. And yes, I'm saying that most people other than mathematicians give it no thought, unless it is specifically pointed out to them by a mathematician. I've functioned in academic environments most of my life; I've never met one person other than a mathematician who has ever mentioned it. Looking at your edit history, I'm guessing you hang around mathematicians a lot; that would explain why you think it's a common misconception. If someone hangs around nuclear physicists a lot, he can come to the erroneous conclusion that the general population thinks a lot about the behavior of subatomic particles; in fact, most people never think about it. If this favorite misconception of yours is a common misconception among people in general, please provide sources. The fact that a mathematician developed a program to convince students does make it a common misconception. In any event, please wait for consensus before restoring the item. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 19:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

::::Actually, I was referring to user "Gump Stump", whereas Q seems to be bothered by the same sourcing issue as you. As I mentioned, many people do attend the first year of the university. Someone not majoring in the sciences is not likely to have heard about this, and I find nothing odd about the fact that in your "academic environment" this is not an issue. Incidentally, it is hardly an issue among mathematicians, either. The people mostly concerned are the students and the educationists, who have published voluminously on this, and find that a majority of their students feel that .999...<1. There are surely many people with little interest in this; but there are also surely many people with little interest in Roman circuses, as well. [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 20:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::"''Someone not majoring in the sciences is not likely to have heard about this.''": Precisely my point. Most people do not major in a science, making it less likely that it is a common misconception. I agree that most people have no interest in Roman circuses. In the past few days, tons of crap have been added to the article because it got some publicity. Eventually that will be pared down. In the mean time, the fact "[[WP:OSE|other stuff exists]]" is not a legitimate reason to continue adding uncommon misconceptions. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 20:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::You are in error. The page had an extensive science section prior to the current wave of edits, as you can see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&oldid=405392708#Science here]. Your current line of reasoning is a considerable radicalisation of your initial concern with sourcing. An anti-science position is merely another form of anti-intellectualism. [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 21:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
{{od}}
:::::
'''How does having "an extensive science section" make your misconception a common one?''' If the article never had a single science item, would that make your misconception more or less common? If you can explain that, you might have something worth talking about. How many of those in the "extensive science section" were properly sourced as common misconceptions? How many were accepted by consensus? The article needs a lot of cleanup (I never said it didn't if that's what you consider being "in error"), but nevertheless that is not an excuse for you to continue adding uncommon misconceptions. One reason the article has so many items that are unsourced as common misconceptions is that so many editors like yourself insist that their misconception be included because "everyone else is doing it" or "I think it's common so it must be" or "I asked a few of my friends and it is a common misconcpetion among them" or some other ridiculously arbitrary reason. The article has been nominated for deletion more than once ''for that very reason''. Read this talk page and the archives. There are pages and pages of debates about whether an unsourced misconception should be included. And once again, please read [[WP:OSE]]. You don't make a page with problems better by adding to the problems. Now this is my final time repeating this: wait to see if a consensus supports addition of this item. That's how things work on Wikipedia. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 21:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
:FWIW, [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] is one of the most misused guidelines on Wikipedia. It has to do with article ''deletions''. It has absolutely nothing to do with article ''content''. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 21:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks Quest. Technically you are right. My point is the priniciple applies to article content. "Other stuff exists" is no excuse for adding bad information to articles. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 22:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
*Resp to Cresix at this indent level, a few msgs above
*First, citations in Talk are not a ''problem,'', they're welcome here, since they serve to advance the discussion. It's wrong to object to their presence ''here,'' when the deleting editor would have hacked them out of the article ''without'' discussion. Since discussion is one of the [[WP:Five Pillars]] of Wikipedia, better to have them.
*If the argument is "it doesn't matter, the misconception is only held by college students,"
:# The first reference establishes that the problem stems from lack of mathematical preparation in '''high school,''' where the notion of sums of infinite series is discussed in '''pre-algebra.''' So the misconception exists in the (very large) set of all high school students, not "just" the somewhat smaller set of college students.
:# This article isn't about the importance-in-day-to-day-living of misconceptions, just their existence and prevalence. "Common" can mean ''commonly held'' among the population (everybody thinks it) or it can mean ''commonly heard'' (everybody knows that one guy who spouts this misconception) - it doesn't matter. Here, the misconception that "0.999... is not equal to 1.0" is ''commonly held'' - widely held by a large number of non-high-school-math-educated folks, even if it's not commonly ''professed.'' If asked, most people will spout the misconcept.
*If the argument is "it doesn't matter, it affects nobody," it's such a widespread misconception that it impacts design, mechanical and electrical engineering, economics, navigation - everything which involves real-world "messy" math. Where the lack of comprehension of the ''meaning'' of numbers (really, just the labels we hang on the numbers underneath) contrasts with "common sense", there's trouble. Consumers, anyone? Why do price tags end in ".99"? Because consumers ''behave'' as if $9.99 is substantially different from $10.00, whether or not they ''know'' there's no practical difference. Sadly, there's probably no study relating this pricing vulnerability directly to knowledge of sums of series ...
*The fact that mathematicians care about the issue does not minimize its importance in any way. The widespread misconception that "0.999... is not 1.0" is a kind of canary in the coalmine of widespread (and apparently growing) willful, indeed prideful ignorance of math and science, as promulgated by... but I digress.
*'''"No consensus" is not a brickbat.''' If more independent sources (by other authors, in other journals, books or magazines) are found, I'll support the item's inclusion over the objections raised so far, because the objections are neither well-formulated nor persuasive.
:--[[User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 22:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a mystery to me why we even have a [[0.999...]] article. All this is worth is a brief paragraph at [[1 (number)]].
This isn't really a common misconception, it is just a didactic tool for math teachers to familiarize their students with the concept of [[Repeating decimal]]. Nobody would form the idea of "0.999... < 1" on their own. The entire story is that the teacher sets up the scenario, students ''answer'' to the proposed scenario that it is smaller, and the teacher then shows that it isn't. If we are going to include a list of standard elementary math lessons in this article, we would never see the end of it.

Can people please stay focused of what it is this article is really trying to do, and what it isn't supposed to turn into by well meaning but misguided additions of random concepts.

From the 0.999... article:
:'' '''In popular culture''': With the rise of the [[Internet]], debates about 0.999... have escaped the classroom and are commonplace on [[newsgroup]]s and [[message board]]s, including many that nominally have little to do with mathematics. '' (I rest my case at this point) ''In the newsgroup <tt>sci.math</tt>, arguing over 0.999... is a "popular sport", and it is one of the questions answered in its [[FAQ]].''
So, unless we want this page to become a mirror of all usenet FAQs ever compiled, we should draw the line here. --[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] [[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]] 22:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
::Agree. And unless we want the article deleted, it can't be a repository for everyone's favorite misconception. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 23:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to Lexein:
*''citations in Talk are not a ''problem,'', they're welcome here'': You're right, but you also misunderstood me (or, more likely, I expressed it poorly). Tkuvho was adding the item to the article without sources (three times). My comment simply was related to my request that he add them to the article if and when the item is determined to be appropriate.
::Fine. It now has FIVE sources, count 'em. Cease the stubbornness. --05:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
*''The first reference establishes that the problem stems from lack of mathematical preparation in high school'': I don't agree with your reasoning. High school students have lots of misconceptions, and high school students don't make up a majority of the adult population. We don't need to include every misconception held by high school students unless there is evidence that the misconception is more commonly held.
::offs. Stop with the deliberate misunderstanding. It ''starts'' earlier than that, and is uncorrected as of high school, and carries through to college. It remains uncorrected, and therefore a misconception, in anyone who got no math in highschool or college. OK? --[[User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 05:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Where in the article does it state that it "carries through to college"? Please give us a direct quotation. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 16:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
*''The fact that mathematicians care about the issue does not minimize its importance in any way'': I never said it did. You twisted my point. I said that the fact that mathematicians consider it a common miconception does not mean it is common.
::Again weirdly deprecating the profession and the subject, as if "it's only maths", or as if you're a troll. It's a mis-taught and uncorrected misconception in grade, middle, and high school, which survives through college to adulthood. School attendance is required by law to be attended, and math is required to be taught, yet the misconception remains. That mathematicians point it out, again, reduces its truth value not at all. It's a bar bet. It's ludicrously common, and is quite well sourced. --[[User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 05:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Nothing "weirdly deprecating" about the statement that mathematicians are no better (or worse for that matter) at discerning common misconceptions than the other 99.9% of the population. If anything, stating that they ''are'' is a laughable falsehood. As for your "troll" comment, Lexein, you're a regular so I haven't templated you for personal attacks. But if you happen to need a warning, consider this a warning about [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]]. Comment on the issue, even on your inaccurate assessment of my opinion of mathematicians, but leave the personal comments about me or any other editor out of this discussion. Thanks. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 16:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

*''If the argument is "it doesn't matter, it affects nobody"'': Again, I never said that's the argument. If it affects the design of thousands of products, that doesn't mean it is a widely held misconception among the large majority of people who have nothing to do with the designs.
*''If more independent sources (by other authors, in other journals, books or magazines) are found, I'll support the item's inclusion'': So will I, if you mean more good sources that the misconception is common among the general population. The sources listed above provide little, if any, support for that.
*''"No consensus" is not a brickbat'': In matters of disputed content or dispute about how adequate sources are, consensus trumps just about everything except [[WP:BLP]]. In any event, if this article stays on its current trajectory of adding everyone's favorite misconception with very little evidence that the misconception is common, it will be soon be deleted. I truly fail to see the logic here: We add dozens and dozens of uncommon misconceptions because someone "likes it", only to have the entire article deleted. I have always opposed deletion of this article. But if this frenzy of adding anything and everything to the article doesn't diminish and more reasonable editors begin to accept limiting the article to the misconceptions that are clearly common, I'll support deletion. As it is right now, the article is largely a miscellaneous collection of favorites. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 23:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

::Your current position represents a further radicalisation of your position. Your original contention was well-taken, namely that this particular misconception should be sourced. When the source was duly provided, you argued that scientific misconceptions are not relevant, and were only added in the current wave of edits. When I pointed out that even before the current wave of edits there was a substantial science section, you went on a further limb and apparently you currently hold that '''no''' misconceptions by highschool students should be included here. This apparently amounts to a proposal to delete the article, since most people after all do go through high school. Your deletion of this misconception is therefore misguided and the right address is an AFD if that's the course you wish to pursue. [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 03:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
::::You're better off if you drop the hyperbole, Tkuvho. There is no "radicalisation" or "anti-intellectualism" or "going out on a limb" or a claim that "'''no''' misconceptions by highschool students should be included" or a "proposal to delete the article" or "anti-science position" (even more absurd since I have a medical degree). You're not improving your case by misrepresenting what I have said through ridiculous exaggeration or creation of straw-men to attack because you have no good source or consensus; those are very weak debating strategies that are used when there's nothing else to fall back on. You would serve your goal better by simply letting the consensus process play out. Now, unless much stronger sources are supplied or a consensus develops, I'm finished with this exchange. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 04:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Apologies, I'm leaving in just a few minutes, so I haven't read all of this, but I saw my name so wanted to leave a brief comment: my concern was that the entry had no sources to verify it is a common misconception. If the new sources state that unambiguously, then perhaps it can be included. Looking at just the comment above me: we absolutely should not have entries that are misconceptions of high school students, as, by definition, high school students hold countless misconceptions about the world, which is one of the reasons why they go to school. In any event, I want to see very strong documentation on this one, because at least at my school, we learned it in junior high school, and I didn't see anyone who disbelieved it; it's like saying that students have a "misconception" about the pythagorean theorem before they study it. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 03:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I went to google books and I found "Intuition suggests that this means that the repeating decimal <math>0.\bar{9}</math> is also less than 1, and this is a common misconception." in ''An introduction to mathematical reasoning: numbers, sets, and functions'' Peter J. Eccles, 1997, Cambridge University press, p 167. I am sure there are many more such sources, because this really is a common misconception. — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 03:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:A claim about "intuition" by a mathematician provides no additional evidence that this is a ''common'' misconception held by people other than mathematicians. And if there are "many more such sources", please let's see them. But not sources written by mathematicians. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 04:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
::What a ridiculous demand. Why should material about subject X be sourced only by people who are not knowledgeable about X? —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 04:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Maybe I didn't express it clearly. It's fine for mathematicians to claim that this is a common misconception, but what makes mathematicians better at determining what percentage of the populations holds the misconception? In my opinion, not much. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 04:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
::::Why would mathematicians make good sources for this fact? Because some of them write popular books about mathematics, which are thereby usable by us as reliable sources. People who are not mathematicians are less likely to do that, for reasons I'll let you guess at yourself. And also, because mathematicians are the ones that have to deal with students who hold this misconception. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 04:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::Is your point that mathematicians are better at knowing the number of people in the general population who hold a misconception (not students; that's not the general population; this is an article about common misconceptions among people in general, not students)? If so, then it would logically follow that an expert on a subject (not just math, any subject: philosophy, biology, economics, etc.) is in the best position to determine if some misconception related to his/her field is a common misconception. Continuing to follow that logic, that means that if an expert publishes a statement that he/she has observed misconceptions in his/her field, they should automatically be accepted in this article. Is that your argument? [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 04:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
::A book published by CUP that directly says that something is a common misconception is a perfectly reliable source for the fact that it's a common misconception. The fact that it was written by a mathematician (if it was) would only make it a stronger source, since we can presume mathematicians are familiar with mathematics. There is no basis in policy for the idea that sources by mathematicians would be discounted.

::You won't find anything more direct than a source that literally includes the phrase "this is a common misconception". However, the first source that Tkuhvo gave a bove is also pretty good: "First year university students in mathematics, fresh from school, were asked the question: "Is 0.999 . . . (nought point nine recurring) equal to one, or just less than one?". ... The majority of students thought that 0.999 . . . was less than one. " — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 04:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::''The fact that it was written by a mathematician (if it was) would only make it a stronger source'': Yes, if the issue was what is mathematically correct, but no one is disputing whether 0.999... is equivalent to 1. The dispute is whether this is a common misconceptions. There's nothing inherent in mathematical expertise that enables someone to be a better judge of how many people hold a certain misconception. This is often the point of confusion in this article. I'm not asking for a source as to whether the misconception is true or false; I'm asking for better sourcing that it is a ''common'' misconception. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 04:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
::::It's a book published by Cambridge University Press that literally says "this is a common misconception". That's a reliable source as far as Wikipedia goes. — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 04:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::If anyone cares, here's the link to the exact page: {{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ImCSX_gm40oC&pg=PA167#v=onepage&q&f=false |title=An introduction to mathematical reasoning: numbers, sets, and functions|first=Peter J. |last=Eccles |year=1997|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|page=167}} --[[User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 05:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's another source, btw: {{citation|first=Eli|last=Maor|title=To infinity and beyond: a cultural history of the infinite|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=1991|isbn=9780691025117|page=32|quote=Many people find it hard to accept this simple fact [that 0.999 = 1 — DE], and one can often hear a heated discussion as to its validity.}} The author, [[Eli Maor]], is not so much a mathematician as a historian of mathematics. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 04:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm calling it ''sourced'' and putting the item back in with the above 3 sources. Stubbornness and shifting weak arguments are now swept aside in the face of overwhelming sourcitudiness. --[[User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 05:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:It's already in the article, Lexein. It was there 30 minutes before you made your official pronouncement. And I assume it will stay until the article is deleted. I disagree with your disdain for complete discussion. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 05:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
::The irony (and my joke) missed. I was attempting to make light of the error made in this discussion: as sources were found, the arguments shifted to attack the sources, the authors, the field, the origin, the generality, anything ''but'' relaxing and seeing the point. My declaration was merely a mirror held up to the repeated declaration of "no consensus." --[[User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 05:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Yeah ... right ... a joke. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 16:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
::Incidentally, if you happen secretly to believe that .999... is less than 1, there is good news for you: there is sourced material claiming that the students have been right all along, but simply misunderstood by their instructors. The infinite repeated "9" can be understood as a number less than one, just not in the complete ordered field misleadingly referred to as the "real" numbers. [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 05:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

:There is a question as to the word "misconception" is applicable here. To me, a misconception is something that most people believe but is false. The research on .999...=1 seems to indicated that many people doubt the statement when confronted by it, but I think most people give this little thought either way so it's hard to claim they actively believe the contrary statement. To me, the real misconception is that there is a one-one correspondence between real numbers and their decimal representations. I don't think this implies that the entry should be removed however, it belongs on at least one list of kind and, unless there is a "List of facts people find difficult to accept because they are misinformed on other matters" article, it should go here.--[[User:RDBury|RDBury]] ([[User talk:RDBury|talk]]) 16:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

: I'm slightly intimidated by the length of this discussion. But I would say that this belief is an extremely common misconception at the high-school level, and clearly suitable for this article. I see a lot of sources for it as well -- though I'm not going to review them now (I assume in the large discussion above their contents have already been discussed). [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]] ([[User talk:CRGreathouse|t]] | [[Special:Contributions/CRGreathouse|c]]) 16:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
::I secretly believe that .999 is less than 1. I'm not sure how common this misconception is though, and this example shows the problem with this article. This article has no boundry to its growth.[[User:Asher196|Asher196]] ([[User talk:Asher196|talk]]) 18:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Without reference to the 0.999... issue (which was added with a legitimate consensus), the article had adequate boundaries until the recent flood of "it's-common-because-I-like-it" newcomers. Only time will tell if the article can ever be restored to sanity. At this point, I'm not optimistic. Right now the article is largely an indiscriminant collection of favorite misconceptions. The ironic thing is that those who have shoved their favorite misconception into the article may very well see the entire article deleted because of it. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 18:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

::::@Asher196: ''You'' don't know how common this misconception is, but a number of editors have mentioned ample sources stating this this is a common misconception. If this article is being flooded by items that are not sourced, by all means they should be deleted. @Cresix: I am glad we ere able to reach a consensus regarding this particular subsection. There are several administrators currently monitoring the page. If a strong case can be made that the page should be placed under stronger edit-protection, we should pursue this route. [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::My problem is with the definition of "common" as used in this article. Is it common amoung American high school students? The general public? College math majors? This seems like a misconception in search of an audience.[[User:Asher196|Asher196]] ([[User talk:Asher196|talk]]) 18:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sixty-something year old teacher of Mathematics here. Just came upon this topic. I just read this whole section because I didn't see the point of the heading. It's simply not a common problem. I have never heard the issue discussed outside the classroom, and never seen it to be a continuing problem after a '''brief''' explanation was given to a student. It seems trivial. Some may believe it. It would be interesting to meet them. This topic should not be in the article. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 18:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::@Asher196: "Common" by wiki standards means that there are reputable sources that call it a "common misconception". @HiLo48: Do you teach decimals? [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 18:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
: Those "sources" which supposedly show that this is a common misconception only seem to show me why .999 is 1. I'm tempted to delete this entry if you can't show better sourcing than this.[[User:Asher196|Asher196]] ([[User talk:Asher196|talk]]) 18:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

::'''Of course''' they show that .999... is 1. Do you want them to show that it is less than 1? For that you have to look in the "infinitesimal" section of [[0.999...]]. But in addition to showing the equality, the sources mention that is is a common misconception, as discussed above. [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 18:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::I don't need the source to show WHY .999 is 1. I need them to show THAT IT IS A COMMON misconception, not just some guy saying "this is a common misconception".[[User:Asher196|Asher196]] ([[User talk:Asher196|talk]]) 18:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

::::What would you like to see exactly: statistics on people holding such misconceptions? [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 19:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

::::Actually, reliable references that say it is a common misconception are all that we need for the article to claim it's a common misconception. The article is not trying to explain why it is a common misconception, so we don't need sources for that.

::::It seems to me that the standard being asked for here is higher than for the other items on the list: they also seem to just use sources that claim the misconception is common, without explaining why it's common or quantifying how common it is. So the references already provided in the article are (more than) enough, and they are just as strong as the references used for the other claims. — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 20:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::It is possible that many claims here will have to go. At any rate, here is what I have been able to find: K Weller, I Arnon, and E. Dubinsky. Preservice Teachers' Understanding of the Relation Between a Fraction or Integer and Its Decimal Expansion. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1942-4051, Volume 9 (2009), no. 1, 5--28.

:::::The study by Weller et al (2009) states that "Tall and Schwarzenberger (1978) asked first year university mathematics students whether is equal to 1. The majority of the students thought that is less than 1."

:::::Weller et al go on to describe their own controlled experiment, performed "during the 2005 fall semester at a major research university in the southern United States. Pre-service elementary and middle school teachers from all five sections of a sophomore-level mathematics content course on number and operation participated in the study." The results are striking: "On the question of whether .999...=1, 72% of the control group and 83% of the experimental group expressed their view that .999... is not equal to 1."

:::::Four out of five sophomores think that .999... is less than 1. And these are the future math teachers. Maybe they are right ? [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 21:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

For me, life's too short to read all of the tedious (to me, excuse my impatience) waffle above. What I will say is that IMO it ''is'' a valid misconception at least as important as the ones about vomitoria, ostriches and lemmings. I have watched discussions on facebook getting quite heated on the subject. It appears to boil down to an inability to handle the concept of infinity. It certainly merits its one line on this page, and I also suggest a link to a page on infinite series might be worth adding. Oh by the way: shameless plug for proofwiki: [http://www.proofwiki.org/wiki/0.999...%3D1 0.999...=1] --[[User talk:WestwoodMatt|Matt Westwood]] 21:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

:I'd like to meet just one person who thinks that 0.999... does not equal 1. Can those convinced that it's a common belief find such a person and get them to post here please? If it's a common misconception that should be pretty easy to do. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 22:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

::That's not how we do things on Wikipedia (not that finding one person would confirm that the misconception is common anyway). Several sources, published by academic presses, have been presented for the fact that it's a common misconception. That means those who think it isn't common need to present some sources to the contrary, or at least sources that add some extra context. Lacking that, our policy presumes that books from academic presses such as Cambridge press and Princeton press are reliable sources for their claims. — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 22:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

::{{ec}}Is that the standard we use for inclusion on this page? Tracking down individuals who believe them? Personally, I wouldn't think this item should be included since it seems to me to be more of a counter-intuitive but really-true factoid, rather than a myth that gets spread around despite being untrue. That said, we seem to have reliable sources which ''explicitly'' state it's a "common misconception", which would seem to warrant inclusion on the page. Judging our sources to determine which items that are sourced as "common misconceptions" are really common falls into the realm of [[WP:OR|original research]]. Either having reliable sources which say it's a common misconception is enough, or this page has inclusion criteria which violates WP policy. [[User:Mann_jess|Jess]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|talk]]|[[User:Mann_jess/Cs|edits]] 22:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Oh, go on, add the darn thing. It just adds to the fact that this whole article is being filled with trivial garbage. We don't have a meaningful definition of the the term "common misconception". I really don't know what people are trying to achieve. In some cases I think it's a case of "I know something thing that you don't know." Not a very useful or meaningful article at all. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 23:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

::::Perhaps I didn't come across clearly enough. Having reliable sources which explicitly state "this is a common misconception" seems to be a reasonable standard for inclusion in this article. Judging those sources by our own standards would also appear to be counter to WP policy. Therefore, it doesn't matter if we have a meaningful definition of the term or not... because we aren't the ones deciding. Our reliable sources are. Further, whether the article is useful seems to be rather irrelevant to whether it is notable, and therefore WP-worthy. [[User:Mann_jess|Jess]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|talk]]|[[User:Mann_jess/Cs|edits]] 01:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::I think what's bothering me here is that we are not working with a consistent definition of what a ''common misconception'' is. Logically, one should be able to key ''common misconception'' into Wikipedia, find an article of that name, and it would start off with a definition. But guess what? [[Common misconception]] redirects to this article! So the only way a reader can determine what a ''common misconception'' is is by some form of [[WP:SYNTHESIS|synthesis]] of their own by reading the list and trying to figure it out. Saying that a ''common misconception'' is whatever any source deems it to be seems just not quite right to me. It's all very clumsy. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 01:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::That is because "common", by its very nature, is both subjective and dependent on the current social climate. We simply can't define "common misconception" because what that label applies to will vary significantly depending on numerous factors. This wouldn't be true if we could poll the world population about every fact imaginable, but we simply don't have those kinds of polls, so we have to work with what we do have. With that in mind, that doesn't mean the article is arbitrary. Some things are going to be presented by reliable sources as "common misconceptions", and others will not. The misconception that the Earth is flat, for instance, is not going to enjoy its own article in the NYT which labels it as such, so it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in this article. This is so even though some people really do believe it, even today. However, if a misconception is so prevalent that it does get printed in a major newspaper or another notable reliable source, and explicitly labeled "common", then it's certainly common enough to enjoy that kind of publicity, and per [[WP:V]] we have to represent what the sources say. That seems pretty non-arbitrary to me, and perfectly in line with how we choose what information to represent across the rest of the site. Perhaps you disagree... but if so, do you have a suggestion for determining what misconceptions we include which doesn't involve original research by means of editors choosing which proposals go in? [[User:Mann_jess|Jess]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|talk]]|[[User:Mann_jess/Cs|edits]] 02:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::::Do I have a suggestion for determining what misconceptions we include? The more I think about it the more I'm leaning towards including none at all, i.e. scrap the whole article. Other sources, no matter how normally reliable, will inevitably vary incredibly widely in their usage and definition of the term ''common misconception''. It will vary by topic, by author, but intended audience, by location, by culture, by time. I suspect this post is unlikely to convince anybody, but I really don't like the idea of a list of things satisfying such an ill-defined (or non-defined?) criterion. Leave the misconceptions to the primary articles on topics. This one, for example ([[0.999...]]), already has a primary article. That will do. [[Lemmings]] have their own article. Leave the misconception about their suicides in that article. Many others just shouldn't be here. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 02:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

: Anecdote: This subject is so common that its discussion has been banned at several math forums I frequent. [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]] ([[User talk:CRGreathouse|t]] | [[Special:Contributions/CRGreathouse|c]]) 23:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

::People who frequent math forums are, by definition, not very [[Common misconceptions|common]]. (They are, of course, very nice people.) [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 00:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

:::I don't frequent math forums other than wiki discussion pages, but since the comparison of .999... and 1 is treated in highschool, we are talking about potentially billions of people exposed to this subject. The underlying issue is indeed tied to the treatment of the concept of infinity, of which there is more than 1. By the way, reliable sources have found the student intuitions to the effect that .999...<1 to be not erroneous, but rather nonstandard and fruitful. Read the article by Robert Ely cited at [[0.999...]]. [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 04:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

::::Based on our current loose definition of "common misconception," and the fact that one of the sources uses that exact phrase, I am comfortable with that entry remaining in the list now. As to whether or not the whole list needs to go...well...I'll table that for the moment. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 04:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I spent a large part of my life teaching mathematics in high schools. This misconception came up year after year. Time and again I found myself trying to teach the (to me) simple idea that saying a number is 12 to the nearest whole number means that it lies in a range with the bounds 11.5 and 12.5. Time and again, year after year, I was confronted by a blank refusal ''by whole classes'' to accept this. There were several reasons for this problem, but one of them was a conviction that the upper bound was 12.49999... rather than 12.5. This severely obstructed attempts to teach methods of dealing with ranges of possible values of measured values. ''Never once was it I who brought up the question of recurring decimals with endless strings of nines, as that was totally irrelevant to what I was trying to teach'': it was my pupils who brought it up, because they mistakenly thought it was relevant. Anyone who thinks that this idea never occurs to anyone other than mathematicians, or that it only occurs to other people if mathematicians suggest it, or that it doesn't ever cause any real problems, is quite mistaken. [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] ([[User talk:JamesBWatson|talk]]) 14:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

:Thanks for your detailed comment. There does seem to be a consensus in this direction. What I was going to propose next is an even more common misconception among education professionals, namely that .999... must ''necessarily'' be equal to 1. [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 15:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

::In what sense is that a misconception? It is necessary within the accepted framework of the real number system. Outside that accepted framework anything is possible, such as that 2+2=1. That .999... equals one is no more and no less necessary than any other fact of arithmetic. Without context that indicates otherwise, it is reasonable to take the word "necessarily" as meaning necessarily within the accepted real number system, just as without context indicating otherwise it is reasonable to assume that statements about 2+5 refer to the accepted integer system, not (for example) the field of integers modulo 3. Therefore, unless there is context which indicates that something other than the standard real number system is under consideration, ".999... must ''necessarily'' be equal to 1" is not a misconception. [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] ([[User talk:JamesBWatson|talk]]) 09:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Pursuing the idea that 2+2=1 is not a fruitful direction. What Robert Ely argues in his paper last year is that student nonstandard intuitions that ".999..." falls short of 1 by an infinitesimal amount ''are'' fruitful. Students are routinely told that .999...=1 '''before''' they are taught anything about the complete Archimedean ordered field (which is what I assume you mean when you refer to "the standard real number system"). The ''context'' you referred to is therefore generally only in the mind of the instructor. As we saw above, it is not in the minds of between 70 to 80 percent of the students. [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 12:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

::::The suggestion that "student nonstandard intuitions that .999... falls short of 1 by an infinitesimal amount are fruitful" is an interesting one. Can you give a brief summary of how it is "fruitful"? [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] ([[User talk:JamesBWatson|talk]]) 13:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::This discussion is getting a bit off the subject of "common misconceptions" and should eventually move to a talkpage, but the main point is that Robert Ely's article published last year in the top education journal argues that these are fruitful intuitions, if you get a chance to read it. [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 13:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::Briefly, R. Ely reports the results of a field study suggesting that intuitions of an [[infinitesimal]] difference 1-.999... can be helpful in learning [[infinitesimal calculus]]. 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this item touches on an important distinction: something that people commonly reason incorrectly about ''when asked'', and things that people commonly believe (already have thought about and have formed a belief about) that are incorrect. Here, people seem to be discussing which type the 0.999... issue falls into. It's not enough for it to be in the first, because then you get into a very large number of things that most people would reason incorrectly about if asked, but have never thought about before and thus do not hold any belief about whatosever. It's true that pointing out these errors of thought and ways of working around them is useful, but that's not what this page is for. This page seems more for things that people believe simply because they were told them by others. [[Special:Contributions/72.48.75.131|72.48.75.131]] ([[User talk:72.48.75.131|talk]]) 20:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
:That's an excellent perspective. One I totally agree with at this stage. Yes, if most people never think about something, it cannot be a '''common''' misconception. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 22:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be four (at least) threads of thought here:

1. Professional mathematicians and educators, and enthusiastic amateurs, who regular encounter (through their activities in communication) the misconception 0.999... < 1. To them it is a common misconception which is prevalent everywhere. (I'm in this category, btw.)

2. Mathematically literate people who no longer have the need to think about such things, who understand well enough that 0.999 ... = 1 but no longer have any interest in thinking about it and the subject never arises in the course of day-to-day life. To them it is a misconception, but not a common one.

3. People who, if they think about it, intuitively believe that 0.999... < 1 and think the equality is a combination of fakery and deviltry. To them it's not a misconception in the first place.

4. People who haven't really thought about it because they hate mathematics, and having some intellectually challenging math suddenly appear in the middle of a wikipedia is offensive and upsetting. Because "mathematics" (or what they conceive as being "mathematics" does not even feature in their thinking) they can not believe that it would appear in anyone else's thinking except among those people about whom they have a mental stereotype based on their unfruitful encounters with their teachers in high school. To those people, whether 0.999 < 1 is or is not true is not the issue, it's: "But surely most people never waste their time even letting such a question enter their heads?"

To put the question into perspective: consider the furore if someone posted up the "common misconception" that, for example, a certain historical figure whose initials are commonly rendered "JC" is the direct son by biological descent of "God." Wikipedia would erupt in a flame war that would destroy the universe. --[[User talk:WestwoodMatt|Matt Westwood]] 09:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

== Edit request from Kittiquel, 17 January 2011 ==

{{tlx|edit semi-protected}}


Please add the following to the section titled ''Physics'', because many people still believe Sir Isaac Newton founded the theory of gravity. The information supporting this can be found under the section titled "''4. Astronomy and gravitation''

It is a common misconception that Sir Isaac Newton founded the idea of the Inverse Square Law of Gravity; however, there is evidence that Robert Hooke, an English scientist and inventor, gave Newton the idea of this law and had even worked with Newton on other gravity related work. After the publication of Newton's ''Principia'' in 1687, Hooke was left with no credit of his efforts towards the work he and Newton had done on the gravitational theories. [http://home.clara.net/rod.beavon/leonardo.htm Source]



[[User:Kittiquel|Kittiquel]] ([[User talk:Kittiquel|talk]]) 05:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

:{{notdone}}. While that source is a fascinating read, it doesn't really establish that it's a common misconception that Newton formulated the inverse square law of gravity. I think a more common misconception may relate to the apocryphal story of an apple inspiring Newton by falling his head — but sources saying it's common would need to be found first. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] ([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]]) 00:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

::The really interesting research would be to find the source of the apple myth. From a perspective of considering how this story could possibly have originated, all I can come up with is someone asking Newton (many years later, perhaps when he was a celebrity): "So how did you come up with your crazy idea about gravity?" to which he probably replied something like: "I was lazing around in the orchard one day when I happened to see an apple fall, and it got me thinking." Then the story probably got garbled, possibly by the influence of his enemies, "An apple fell on his head and knocked some sense into him ..."

:: Of course, unless one finds the original materials that were written at the time (there ''must'' be ''something'' written down) then it remains speculation. Maybe such material does exist in the public domain but just hasn't been made popular. --[[User talk:WestwoodMatt|Matt Westwood]] 09:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

== Edit request - Misconception: Re-freezing defrosted foods such as meat is dangerous ==

It is a common misconception that once food (particularly raw meat) has been defrosted, it must not be re-frozen. Many sources (such as http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/focus_on_freezing/index.asp#14) state that this is not true. While the quality of meat may be degraded by cell-wall damage with each freezing (including the first), there is no intrinsic danger in the defrost/refreeze process itself.

[[Special:Contributions/80.175.12.57|80.175.12.57]] ([[User talk:80.175.12.57|talk]]) 13:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
:{{notdone}}. Please provide a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that this is a '''''common''''' misconception. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 21:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
::Sure - I take your point. I'm going to find it difficult to find something that clearly states it's a common misconception - it's just one of those things that most people think they know. But I realise and agree that's not a 'reliable source' in itself, so I guess we'll have to leave this one out then...

[[Special:Contributions/80.175.12.57|80.175.12.57]] ([[User talk:80.175.12.57|talk]]) 09:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Glad you get the point. I'm afraid if it can be sourced or accepted here by consensus, it can't go in the article. My personl opinion is that this is ''not'' a common misconception. Most people that I've ever heard mention this only refer to it reducing the taste quality of the food, not any danger. I think refreezing is in the same category as eating molded bread: most people would never do it because of the taste, but they know it's not a health problem. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 16:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

== Standardize format ==

Most items in this list start with "xxx is/was/did not yyy", which clearly states a misconception. Some start with "it is a common misconception that yyy". The second format is redundant (we already know that it is about a common misconception) and confusing when contrasted with most items in the first format.

I propose that items should be standardised so that the misconception is stated in the first form, and that items not in this format be changed to conform to this format. It might help if a small section titled something like "Format rules for this list" was placed at the top of this talk page and not archived.

A similar issue has already been discussed above in the section "Contrary to the common myth" but has not reached a consensus because only one other editor apart from me has been involved. I would be grateful if we could get more than one person to comment here. [[User:Andreclos|Andreclos]] ([[User talk:Andreclos|talk]]) 21:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

:As previously discussed, I think that the best way to handle this is to rewrite the article in a Misconception - Fact format like [http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?ucpg=3&pgnew=False&cp-documentid=100236538&ucsort=4&= this]. Anyway, given the recent high traffic to the article and the constant edit requests, this probably isn't the best time to reformat the article. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 18:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

::Fair enough, and I can see nobody else is interested, so it is not worth pursuing. [[User:Andreclos|Andreclos]] ([[User talk:Andreclos|talk]]) 21:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

:::I would strongly agree with the Misconception - Fact format. As well as improving readability, having to explicitly set each item out that way would make it easier to put sources in a logical place, and point out where they haven't been supplied for either the misconception or fact. (Which is far too often in this article.) [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 22:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

::::After the edit requests finally die down and we've cleaned up the entries that don't belong, I'd like to try to address this issue again. Since the article is ''long'', it might be a good idea to split up the work. Maybe each editor can volunteer to handle different sections. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 17:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

:::I think this is a good idea. I've seen a book about misconceptions that use a similar format. The misconception is stated as a heading, and the text underneath explains the misconception. We could do something like that, for example:
<div style="border:1px solid green; margin: 0 3em 0 9em;">
;The moon is made of green cheese.
The moon is actually made of pumice. In 1969 the Apollo 11 brought back samples of... etc...
</div>
:::Then there would be no need to have the labels "Misconception" and "Fact" repeated over and over. In this case we would use the semicolon as the lead character for the header, as I have done above. That creates a heading on Wikipedia without including it in the table of contents. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] ([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]]) 21:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

{{od}}I have a working copy of this page at [[User:Mann_jess/List_of_common_misconceptions]]. I'm having a hard time coming up with a format which fits this proposal but also looks good. Here are two versions:
{{cquote|1= 1)
*;In [[ancient Rome]], Romans built rooms called vomitoria to purge themselves after a meal
:[[Vomitorium|Vomitoria]] were the entranceways through which crowds entered and exited a stadium.<ref>{{cite web|title=Vomitorium|url=http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/vomitorium|work=Oxford Dictionary|publisher=Oxford Dictionaries|accessdate=2010-12-02}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=McKeown|first=J.C.|title=A Cabinet of Roman Curiosities: Strange Tales and Surprising Facts from the World’s Greatest Empire|year=2010|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=0195393759, 9780195393750|pages=153–154|url=http://books.google.com/?id=YGYwlMZ3ursC&pg=PA153&dq=vomitorium+misconception#v=onepage&q=vomitorium%20misconception&f=false}}</ref>

*;[[Vikings]] wore horns on their helmets
:There is no evidence that viking helmets were adhorned with horns.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Did Vikings Wear Horned Helmets?|first=Robert |last=Wilde|url=http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/thevikings/a/histmyths6.htm|publisher=About.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Did Vikings really wear horns on their helmets?|url=http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2189/did-vikings-really-wear-horns-on-their-helmets|publisher=StraightDope.com}}</ref>

*;[[Iron maiden (torture)|iron maiden]]s were invented in the [[Middle Ages]] and used for torture
:Despite being shown in some media, there is no evidence that this is true. It has been suggested that they were instead pieced together in the 18th century from several [[artifact (archaeology)|artifacts]] found in museums in order to create spectacular objects intended for (commercial) exhibition.}}

{{cquote|1= 2)
;In [[ancient Rome]], Romans built rooms called vomitoria to purge themselves after a meal
[[Vomitorium|Vomitoria]] were the entranceways through which crowds entered and exited a stadium.<ref>{{cite web|title=Vomitorium|url=http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/vomitorium|work=Oxford Dictionary|publisher=Oxford Dictionaries|accessdate=2010-12-02}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=McKeown|first=J.C.|title=A Cabinet of Roman Curiosities: Strange Tales and Surprising Facts from the World’s Greatest Empire|year=2010|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=0195393759, 9780195393750|pages=153–154|url=http://books.google.com/?id=YGYwlMZ3ursC&pg=PA153&dq=vomitorium+misconception#v=onepage&q=vomitorium%20misconception&f=false}}</ref>

;[[Vikings]] wore horns on their helmets
There is no evidence that viking helmets were adhorned with horns.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Did Vikings Wear Horned Helmets?|first=Robert |last=Wilde|url=http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/thevikings/a/histmyths6.htm|publisher=About.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Did Vikings really wear horns on their helmets?|url=http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2189/did-vikings-really-wear-horns-on-their-helmets|publisher=StraightDope.com}}</ref>

;[[Iron maiden (torture)|iron maiden]]s were invented in the [[Middle Ages]] and used for torture
Despite being shown in some media, there is no evidence that this is true. It has been suggested that they were instead pieced together in the 18th century from several [[artifact (archaeology)|artifacts]] found in museums in order to create spectacular objects intended for (commercial) exhibition.}}
{{hat|References}}
{{Reflist}}
{{hab}}
Does anyone have a preference between the two, or another suggestion? [[User:Mann_jess|Jess]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|talk]]|[[User:Mann_jess/Cs|edits]] 20:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:I disagree with any format that formulates misconceptions as fact before debunking them. Formatting the misconception in bold makes it even worse. But the main problem is that the misconceptions will appear out of context in Google snippets and can easily mislead readers.
:I prefer the following format:
::* ''According to a misconception which one survey found to be held by 23% of French philosophers and mathematicians, the Moon is made of green cheese. However, the soft green material making up most of the Moon has only a superficial resemblance with cheese and has a low nutritious value.''
::* ''According to a survey commissioned by the Christian Science Monitor, 78% of Americans believe that the existence of intelligent life on Earth can only explained by an intelligent designer. However, recent astrobiological research based on election statistics and opinion poll outcomes has established beyond reasonable doubt that no intelligent being has come near our planet during the last 150 billion years.''
:Note how the first sentence recounts the misconception in indirect speech and gives as much specific information about the misconception's popularity as we have found in reliable sources. (In many cases this will be none, and we will just write "According to a common misconception...".) [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 20:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

::That style doesn't really qualify as compelling prose, don't you think? I can't see how Google search result snippets are relevant here.
::As suggested in the criteria for good articles, text should be clear and concise. If someone is searching for information about a common misconception, wouldn't it be best to state that misconception up front, the way it is likely to be searched?
::One could always prepend "Misconception:" before stating the misconception. That would solve the problem Hans Adler pointed out, while being more concise and readable. My own quibble with doing this is that it gets repetitive, but it's a minor quibble. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] ([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]]) 21:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

== Zero is an even number ==

{{User|JamesBWatson}} restored this item. Before it is restored again, I am asking for quotation(s) from the source indicating that it is a ''common'' misconception among adults. I acknowledge that I have not looked at the source because it is unavailable online, but given the necessity for sourcing that a misconception is common (and the virtually infinite number of potential additions to the article without it), I think this is a reasonable request. Stating that it is sourced simply because it has a citation does not convince me that the source provides evidence that it is a common misconception among the general population. This is similar to the 0.999...<1 misconception, which eventually was accepted because of both reliable sources and consensus. I don't think we should expect any less from this item. Judging from the title of the source, it appears it is a book pertaining to mathematics for children. If so, I doubt that it provides such evidence for adults. Thanks. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 19:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
:Agree. This is far from a ''common'' misconception even if anyone anywhere actually thinks it! [[User:Turkeyphant|'''''Turkeyphan''''']][[User talk:Turkeyphant|<big>t</big>]] 20:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
::Just to be clear here, the alleged misconception is that zero ''isn't'' an even number right, the title of this section is confusing on that point. There's some information in the [[Parity of zero]] article that might be a starting point if anybody did want to pursue this. Quite surprised at the number of elementary school teachers who got this incorrect 2/3rds in one study mentioned there, but then is that a misconception, where they have an incorrect belief that it isn't an even number, or just a lack of knowledge/education when trying to answer the question, even the statistics about students are fairly surprising. Obviously will need a fairly convincing ref to support its inclusion here.[[User:Number36|Number36]] ([[User talk:Number36|talk]]) 00:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Just to clarify even further, it's not whether zero is even or not that is the issue - it's whether zero is actually a number at all that causes the intellectual problems: [http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Mathematics/?view=usa&ci=9780195142372 The Nothing That Is by Robert Kaplan] is a work I'm familiar with about the history of this. Once the acceptability of zero as an actual number is resolved, its even-ness follows automatically. So I would argue '''against''' this entry. --[[User talk:WestwoodMatt|Matt Westwood]] 09:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

== Edit Request: Elephants (not) afraid of mice. ==

Mythbusters aired an episode concerning the popular "elephants are afraid of mice" belief. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpTSA_25wGE Video Link]
Considering the current source disproving this common misconception is of a small sample size (1) and that the only elephant tested was a trained circus elephant, I suggest removing the misconception altogether, as no truly verifiable source exists and the two that we have (ABC News/Mythbusters) are contradictory. If we keep the misconception, it could read "Not all elephants are afraid of mice" instead of simply "Elephants are not afraid of mice" — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:WoodyTrombone|WoodyTrombone]] ([[User talk:WoodyTrombone|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/WoodyTrombone|contribs]]) 19:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 
:Hm, I think this is a myth. See [http://books.google.com/books?id=fBT-s3KdwSMC&pg=PA7&dq=elephants+afraid+of+mice&hl=en&ei=N2w3TfqUMoGBlAe07JjbBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=elephants%20afraid%20of%20mice&f=false this], [http://books.google.com/books?id=ohjY-nt401IC&pg=PA26&dq=elephants+afraid+of+mice&hl=en&ei=N2w3TfqUMoGBlAe07JjbBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=elephants%20afraid%20of%20mice&f=false this], [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=1wQpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=dkgDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6738,3440510&dq=elephants+afraid+of+mice&hl=en this], [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=et8jAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SCcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6850,315252&dq=elephants+afraid+of+mice&hl=en this], [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=pAcvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IikEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6807,2932585&dq=elephants+afraid+of+mice&hl=en this], [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=T_1NAAAAIBAJ&sjid=iYsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4227,3901544&dq=elephants+afraid+of+mice&hl=en this], and [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1308415/Elephants-NOT-afraid-mice-terrified-ants.html this]. '''/[[User:Fetchcomms|ƒETCH]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|COMMS]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|/]]''' 23:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
::I'm not sure what you mean by "this is a myth". If you are equating "myth" with "common misconception", there's nothing in the sources verifying that it's a ''common'' misconception. Essentially, the sources ask the question ("Are elephants afraid of mice?"), and then answer it ("no", followed by some evidence that elephants aren't afraid of mice). There's nothing about the misconception being common. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 00:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

: It may be a common cartoon theme but I don't see a source establishing that a greater number of people actually believe it. And come on, both the source given here and mythbusters are a joke as far as actual research goes. Indeed you would need a bigger sample size, check for variables like surprise, reaction to other unknown animals, color of the mouse, a variation of different ways of exposure...one could even claim the Elephant is carefully avoiding stepping on the mouse :) So again I was bold and took it out. --[[User:Echosmoke|Echosmoke]] ([[User talk:Echosmoke|talk]]) 05:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

== Edit Request: Alexander Graham Bell Invented the Telephone. ==

I think it's pretty clear that this is a common misconception. Here are sources that show that the US Govt has formally recognized that the telephone was invented by an Italian inventor named Meucci:
<ref>http://hnn.us/articles/802.html</ref> and <ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/17/humanities.internationaleducationnews</ref>
JW Depew 19:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Jw depew — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jw depew|Jw depew]] ([[User talk:Jw depew|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jw depew|contribs]])  
:My personal opinion is that most people believe Bell invented the telephone. But there are a few problems here. First, the item does need a reliable source that it is a common misconception, or otherwise be accepted here by consensus. More importantly, however, a resolution by the U.S. House of Representatives is not unequivocal evidence that Bell did not invent the telephone. A House resolution has no force of law (it's just the opinion of the majority of members; and even U.S. laws must also be passed by the U.S. Senate); and even if it were a law, a law does not determine historical fact. The U.S. Congress could pass a "law" that the Earth is flat, but that wouldn't make the Earth flat. I realize that there has long been controversy about who invented the telephone, and I think if you look at reliable sources you will not get a firm answer. For one thing, how do we define "invent"? Bell was the first to get a U.S. patent; does that mean he invented the telephone if someone else had the idea first but didn't get the patent on time. And often it is not clear when the actual moment of "invention" occurred when two or more people have similar but not identical ideas. Bell got the legal rights with his patent. But who actually invented the telephone is very much a matter of debate. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 21:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
::"''I think it's pretty clear that...''" and "''...most people believe Bell invented the telephone''" are perfect examples of [[WP:OR|original research]], without reliable sources to back up the claims. To the latter comment I would respond "''How many of the world's six billion people have you checked with to justify a claim of '''most'''?''" and to the former "''Well, that's a sample of one.''" Personally I'm well aware that there were a number of parallel efforts underway that together led to voice communication over wires. That's a sample of one too, but at least I'm honest about it. I wonder if there would be an American bias towards believing in Bell, an Italian/British bias towards Marconi, and a healthier mix elsewhere? No, we have not been presented with decent evidence that it's a '''common''' misconception. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 22:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Actually the issue with Marconi is whether he invented radio (wireless telegraphy) -- he didn't-- not the telephone (a debate on that one is in the archives). In the U.S., the debate generally is between Bell and [[Elisha Gray]] for the telephone. Italians (and those of Italian descent) may be more likely to credit [[Antonio Meucci]]. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 22:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
::::Talking about his book on Bell/Gray, Seth Shulman calls the Bell misconception "accepted history". [http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2008/01/02/hang_on_a_minute/] [[User:Pepso2|Pepso2]] ([[User talk:Pepso2|talk]]) 12:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

== Cotton swabs ==

It's a common misconception that cotton swabs should be used to clear the inside of the ear and remove earwax, but doctors say otherwise. In fact, cotton swabs can damage the ear. Could someone add this since the page's protected? There're references on the [[Cotton swab]] and [[Earwax]] articles. [[Special:Contributions/201.81.88.100|201.81.88.100]] ([[User talk:201.81.88.100|talk]]) 01:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
:{{notdone}}. Please provide a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that this is a '''''common''''' misconception. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 01:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
::Does this one really need a source that it's a common misconception, given that so many others on this page lack sources. It's a very widely held belief not only that q-tips are useful for cleaning ears, but that this use is their main function.
:::Yes, it does. Each proposed new entry is judged on its merits alone, not in comparison to existing junk that still needs cleaning up. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] ([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]]) 21:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

== Edit Request: The Misconceoption Concerning the Great Wall of China being seen from "Space" ==

Further evidence for the veracity of this section can be added by the words of Taikonaut Yang Liwei who was the first Chinese national in space, where he regretted to report that he could see no evidence of the Great Wall, although he had specifically looked for it.
<ref>http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200310/17/eng20031017_126232.shtml</ref>

== Mathematics "reliable sources"/"primary sources" ==

Someone temporarily added a "primary source" tag to the "Mathematics" section. These are the sources provided:
*{{Cite book|last=Eccles|first=Peter J. |title= An introduction to mathematical reasoning: numbers, sets, and functions|year= 1997|publisher= [[Cambridge University Press]]|page=167|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ImCSX_gm40oC&pg=PA167#v=onepage&q&f=false|isbn=0521597188|quote=Intuition suggests that this means that the repeating decimal<math>0.\bar{9}</math> is also less than 1, and this is a common misconception.}}
*{{Cite book|last=Maor|first=Eli |year= 1991 |title= To infinity and beyond: a cultural history of the infinite|publisher=[[Princeton University Press]]|page=32| ISBN=9780691025117|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=lXjF7JnHQoIC&pg=PA32#v=onepage&q&f=false|quote=Many people find it hard to accept this simple fact, and one can often hear a heated discussion as to its validity.}}
These references are both textbooks published by scholarly presses – they are not primary sources. — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 11:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

:I'm not sure how you can have a primary source on mathematics. Sounds like nonsense to me. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 16:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
::Maybe you could call a research paper a primary source. But not a textbook. — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 16:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
:::The last remark is clearly not written by a mathematician. Textbooks aren't always just the things you use in a high-school math class. Many mathematicians publish textbooks on cutting edge topics, collecting the new results in the field from theirs and others' papers, as well as introducing new contributions. There's no reason to rule a paper a primary source but a textbook not. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.64.22.7|88.64.22.7]] ([[User talk:88.64.22.7|talk]]) 20:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC) 
::::I can't claim to be an expert on the difference between primary and secondary sources, but doesn't "''collecting the new results in the field from theirs and others' papers''" make something a secondary source (at least that part of the information), i.e., a source that "[[WP:PSTS|analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research]]"? [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 22:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::Finish reading the sentence you quoted: "as well as introducing new contributions." --[[Special:Contributions/88.65.240.64|88.65.240.64]] ([[User talk:88.65.240.64|talk]]) 04:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Anon 88, snide, condescending remarks are neither necessary nor appropriate, and it does nothing to promote your argument. You would do well to read [[WP:CIVIL]]. I read the sentence. My point (which I clearly stated) is that the portion of the source that involves "collecting the new results in the field from theirs and others' papers" could be secondary, even though new contributions may be primary. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 04:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::From [[WP:NOR]] [[User:Asher196|Asher196]] ([[User talk:Asher196|talk]]) 22:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published [[secondary sources]] and, to a lesser extent, on [[tertiary sources]]. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about [[primary sources]] must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of [[WP:COMMON|common sense]] and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages. For the purposes of this policy, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are defined as follows:<ref>[http://www.lib.umd.edu/guides/primary-sources.html This University of Maryland library page] provides typical examples of primary, secondary and tertiary sources.</ref>

* '''[[Primary source]]s''' are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper is a primary source about the experiments performed by the authors. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources; ancient works (even if they cite earlier lost writings) are generally considered primary sources.<ref>Further examples include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. For definitions of primary sources:
* The [http://www.library.unr.edu/instruction/help/primary.html University of Nevada, Reno Libraries] define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: '''original documents''', such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage, official records, photographs, raw research data, and speeches; '''creative works''', such as art, drama, films, music, novels, poetry; and '''relics or artifacts''', such as buildings, clothing, DNA, furniture, jewelry, pottery.
* The [http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/instruct/guides/primarysources.html University of California, Berkeley library] offers this definition: "Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period. Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied, or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs) and they reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer."
* [http://library.duke.edu/research/finding/primarysource.html Duke University, Libraries] offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents."</ref>

::{{fontcolor|maroon|'''''Policy'''''}}: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. '''Do not''' make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. '''Do not''' base articles entirely on primary sources. '''Do not''' add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]], which is policy.

* '''[[Secondary source]]s''' are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them.<ref>[http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/instruct/guides/primarysources.html University of California, Berkeley library] defines "secondary source" as "a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the event".</ref> For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.<ref>The [http://www.ithacalibrary.com/sp/subjects/primary Ithaca College Library] compares research articles (primary sources) to review articles (secondary sources).</ref> Whether a source is primary or secondary may depend on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source of material about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source of material about those experiences.

::{{fontcolor|maroon|'''''Policy'''''}}: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.{{underdiscussion-inline|talk=dubious}}

* '''[[Tertiary source]]s''' are publications such as encyclopedias or other [[Compendium|compendia]] that mainly summarize secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.

::{{fontcolor|maroon|'''''Policy'''''}}: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself.

== Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds is not LSD reference John Lennon son Jules (Julian Lennon) made a drawing en he called it ==

{{tl|edit semi-protected}}

Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds is not LSD reference John Lennon tells that his son Jules (Julian Lennon) made a drawing en he called it "lucy in the sky with diamonds" because the woman in de drawing was flying. Happiness is a warm gun and Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! both was misunderstood as he explains it in this interview from Dick Cavett in The Dick Cavett Show (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dick_Cavett_Show) John Lennon talks about drugs & Kyoko Cox - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LftibKEA7U&feature=related

[[User:Lvssvl|Lvssvl]] ([[User talk:Lvssvl|talk]]) 02:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
:{{notdone}}. Please provide a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that this is a '''''common''''' misconception. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 02:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

== cold weather really does spread flu ==

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12808-cold-weather-really-does-spread-flu.html
I saw the above article in 2007. I do not know if it has been verified by additional study.
While I agree that Influenza is not the "common cold", the findings in the article do support the common conception.
[[Special:Contributions/98.116.27.157|98.116.27.157]] ([[User talk:98.116.27.157|talk]]) 14:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Joseph Kohn MD, DrKohn@WeAreOne.cc
:<s>{{notdone}}. Please provide a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that this is a '''''common''''' misconception. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 16:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)</s>
::I don't think you've understood the above person, he isn't requesting something be added to the article he's suggesting something should be taken out.[[User:Number36|Number36]] ([[User talk:Number36|talk]]) 22:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Ah, thank you, my mistake. In that case, something would need to be decided on this talk page, as the article provides reliable sources that cold weather does not ''directly'' cause a cold (so I assume also the flu). I think the link provided above only asserts that the virus spreads more easily in cold weather, which is not the same as causing it. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 22:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
:::(ec) I have removed it from the article as dubious. Here it is for easy reference:
{{blockquotetop}}
*Prolonged exposure to cold weather such as rain or winter conditions does not increase the likelihood of catching a [[common cold|cold]].<ref name="pmid12357708">{{Cite journal|author=Eccles R|title=Acute cooling of the body surface and the common cold|journal=Rhinology|volume=40|issue=3|pages=109–14|year=2002|pmid=12357708}}</ref> Although common colds are seasonal, with more occurring during winter, experiments so far have failed to produce evidence that short-term exposure to cold weather or direct chilling increases susceptibility to infection, implying that the seasonal variation is instead due to a change in behaviours such as increased time spent indoors close to others.<ref name="NIAID2006">{{Cite web|title=Common Cold|publisher=[[National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases]]|date=2006-11-27|url=http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/healthscience/healthtopics/colds/|accessdate=2007-06-11}}</ref><ref name="pmid13559211">{{Cite journal|author=Dowling HF, Jackson GG, Spiesman IG, Inouye T|title=Transmission of the common cold to volunteers under controlled conditions. III. The effect of chilling of the subjects upon susceptibility|journal=American journal of hygiene|volume=68|issue=1|pages=59–65|year=1958|pmid=13559211}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Douglas |first1=R. Gordon |last2=Lindgren |first2=Keith M. |last3=Couch |first3=Robert B. |title=Exposure to Cold Environment and Rhinovirus Common Cold |journal=New England Journal of Medicine |volume=279 |pages=742–7 |year=1968 |doi=10.1056/NEJM196810032791404}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Douglas |first1=R. C. |title=Cold doesn't affect the "common cold" in study of rhinovirus infections |journal=JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association |volume=199 |pages=29–30 |year=1967 |doi=10.1001/jama.199.7.29}}</ref> Viruses spread more easily when humidity is low which is the case during wintertime.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lowen |first1=Anice C. |last2=Mubareka |first2=Samira |last3=Steel |first3=John |last4=Palese |first4=Peter |title=Influenza Virus Transmission Is Dependent on Relative Humidity and Temperature |journal=PLoS Pathogens |volume=3 |pages=e151 |year=2007 |doi=10.1371/journal.ppat.0030151 |laysummary=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071019090004.htm |laysource=ScienceDaily |laydate=October 19, 2007}}</ref> A lowering of body temperature can, however, reduce the body's resistance to an infection that is already present, and cause temporary sneezing and runny nose.<ref name="FapPrac22:608–613">{{cite journal |last1=Johnson |first1=C. |last2=Eccles |first2=R |title=Acute cooling of the feet and the onset of common cold symptoms |journal=Family Practice |volume=22 |issue=6 |pages=608–13 |year=2005 |pmid=16286463 |doi=10.1093/fampra/cmi072}}</ref>
 
<references/>
{{blockquotebottom}}
:::[[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 22:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Experiments with short-term exposure to cold weather cannot disprove a claim about long-term exposure to cold weather, so this simply makes no sense as stated. It appears to me that to the extent this is is even correct, it puts up a strawman that hardly anybody actually believes in: That cold weather can cause the common cold in the absence of appropriate germs. What people do believe, and for good reason, is that the common cold germs spread more easily in winter and that hypothermia makes it more likely to break out. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 22:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

== For discussion: double-jointedness ==

For some reason, lots of people think being "double-jointed" is a real thing. As if they have extra joints the rest of the human race doesn't have. Yes, it is just a colloquialism for flexibility, but it might be something worth discussing for inclusion in the list. I know, you want lots of sources to prove a misconception that everyone's heard of... Google "double-jointed" and you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm just throwing this out there for discussion, not presenting a dissertation on it (as some people feel the need to do on here...) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/208.64.91.43|208.64.91.43]] ([[User talk:208.64.91.43|talk]]) 06:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC) 

== A few potential additions ==

This article and the ones it links to seem like they may merit inclusion:
:[http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/the-ideology-of-health-care/ Believing in Treatments That Don’t Work]
The article lists the misconceptions, and in some cases states itself that the beliefs are common, so it'd need to be sourced on a case-by-case basis. — [[User:DanPMK|MK]] ([[User Talk:DanPMK|t]]/[[Special:contributions/DanPMK|c]]) 20:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
:I did a quick read, including some of the links in the article. The only suggestion that any of them are "common" misconceptions is that they are commonly held by physicians. Without additional sourcing, I don't think we can include a misconception just because it's commonly held by physicians and not the broader population. If I missed something, please let me know. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 22:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

== Question for the audience--who supports deletion? ==

Because of my experience with past AfDs on topics like this, I'm hesitant to take this article to AfD, as my gut feeling is that it will be kept under the grounds that the fundamental idea isn't flawed even if the current instance is. I disagree with this, because I don't believe that the topic of this article is sufficiently well defined or notable for it to ever reach an acceptable form. That is, I don't believe that we can adequately define what a "common misconception" is (does a "common legend" qualify? what about an "well-known urban legend"? how about something that is "regularly taught in school but is actually incorrect?"). I think that if we restrict this to only subjects for which the term "common misconception" is used in an RS, then we have a non-notable topic, because, as far as I know, there is no reliable research do document "Common Misconceptions" as itself notable. If we expand this to include other similar terms, we start running into all sorts of problems, as we've seen--does it have to be common among "everyone?" Does everyone mean worldwide (clearly not)? Does it mean "English speakers?" Can we include common misconceptions among only people in the U.S.? How about among physicians, or teenagers, or middle class people between the ages of 20 and 25 living on the west coast of the US of non-white ethnic descent? And if we really expand, I would argue that we could reasonably include half of what appears in [[Mythbusters]], nearly everything in ''[[Lies My Teacher Told Me]]'', and who knows how many other books of "Common but False" anecdotes. In other words, I'm arguing that not only is this article currently broken, because it lacks a clear inclusion criteria, but that we cannot produce a suitable inclusion criteria that will make this list notable and not original research.

I'd like to get a sense if anyone else feels the same way I do, as there's no point in me AfDing this just to get a nebulous "no consensus" result that doesn't actually improve the article. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 01:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

: I agree completely that this article is pointless. A good Wikipedia article that is a'' List of...'' would list instances of something that is clearly defined, usually in another article. The first sentence of this article should read something like "''This is a list of [[common misconceptions]] together with the truth in each case''". But look closely at that link. It points straight back here. It's a circular link. There is no definition! We have a list of undefinable things. Why? I shall partly nswer that. A lot of the entries are of the form "''I know something you don't know. Therefore I'm smarter than you.''" I don't think such a list belongs in a global encyclopaedia aiming to be as good as it can be. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 01:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:: I disagree with deletion. I think this article serves a useful purpose, and is documented and supported by reliable sources. Additionally, as long as we stick to finding sources which explicitly call something a common misconception, I think we have valid inclusion criteria which makes the list non-arbitrary. I discussed this briefly in one of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=408317228&oldid=408316483 my comments above]. If we have a problem now, it's that we're using only one article to encompass all possible fields of misconceptions, which makes this page unwieldy. If we split the article into specific topics, as has been proposed multiple times in the past week, I think many of these issues would go away. [[User:Mann_jess|Jess]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|talk]]|[[User:Mann_jess/Cs|edits]] 01:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:::You speak of depending on reliable sources saying that something is a ''common misconception''. Yes, that can be achieved for some entries, but if we looked for exactly those words in the sources, I suspect a lot of the article will just have to go. Are you happy if I delete all such entries right now? If we allow some flexibility, how much? That's venturing into [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:SYNTHESIS]]. Many times the word ''myth'' is used in the article and on this Talk page instead of ''misconception'', without any certainty as to what that means either. I can't see how splitting it up would help the absence of a reliable definition either. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 01:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

::::HiLo48 is hitting on my key point. If the article is going to be kept, we need to define ''exactly'' what the inclusion criteria are. We need to define whether or not the exact words have to be used, and, if not, what other words or ideas are compatible. We also need to clearly define among what population the conception must be "common". I'm thinking here of the 0.999... section, and whether or not its okay that this is a misconception is specifically among school students, or a previously rejected entry which was specifically a misconception among physicians, or the question before about something being a misconception specifically in France. I not only have no answers to these questions, but posit that we will never obtain answers that allow us to get beyond original research and notability problems. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 01:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::I stand by my comment. I think it's reasonable to expect quality sourcing can be found for enough content to constitute an article, if indeed there isn't quality sourcing for all of it now, along with sourcing which is explicit about the concept being a "common misconception" or using an obvious synonym of one of those words. I don't see any reason why any such issue could not be discussed on the talk page and develop into clear consensus, and ''hypothesizing'' that certain simple problems will be insurmountable in the future appears to be poor reasoning for deleting what is otherwise fine content. [[User:Mann_jess|Jess]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|talk]]|[[User:Mann_jess/Cs|edits]] 04:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::It's a nice thought, but we'll be debating "''obvious synonyms''" of "''common misconceptions''" until the cows come home. I just started checking existing sources, starting at the start of the article. It took until the seventeenth source to find the exact words "common misconception". Some said nothing of the kind. Some said ''myth''. One wittily said "''mythconception''" but not ''common''. Who is going to work on those first 16? (And obviously the 250 odd other sources.) [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 04:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Common = "Widespread; prevalent." 
Let's stick with that definition and keep this article which I personally find to be informative and fascinating. Go ahead and make some clearer criteria, but how hard is it to use your editorial judgment to determine if something is a widespread, false belief? [[User:AerobicFox|AerobicFox]] ([[User talk:AerobicFox|talk]]) 05:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:"does a "common legend" qualify? what about an "well-known urban legend"?"
:A list of well known Urban Legends would be good for that.[[User:AerobicFox|AerobicFox]] ([[User talk:AerobicFox|talk]]) 05:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
::Because our "editorial judgment" already disagrees, and I believe the problem is intractable until we get a strong, clear definition. For instance, I consider the "misconceptions" of teenagers in general to not qualify here (as that is a matter of lack of maturity), while the "misconceptions" of a country (France) or profession (physicians) probably qualify. Furthermore, I believe that if we are going to take this article for what it claims to be, then myths, many urban legends, old wive's tales, and the like, all qualify. I actually believe that if the article is called what it is currently, then we are fully justified in including almost anything that [[Mythbusters]] has ever covered (that was proven false), since basically the whole point of that show is to test common myths. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 05:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Clearer criteria is fine. Not all urban legends are false though, so those wouldn't appear here, and not all urban legends are commonly believed, some are even commonly ridiculed (Alligators in the sewers), and these would not qualify either. [[User:AerobicFox|AerobicFox]] ([[User talk:AerobicFox|talk]]) 05:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

::::@Hilo48 If you think we need a clearer understanding of the scope of this article, you should start a new discussion so we can hash out any of those issues. Proposing the article be deleted because you ''forsee'' that such a discussion won't be helpful seems premature. [[User:Mann_jess|Jess]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|talk]]|[[User:Mann_jess/Cs|edits]] 06:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::Just to clarify, I didn't propose deletion, but I did agree with the proposal. As Qwyrxian said, there has already been some discussion on the potential for definition, and it wasn't good. I'm getting no response from the "keepers" here to the issues I'm raising anyway. No response to the "1 out of 17" research I did. Lot's of disagreement in this thread. It all tells me that those hoping for cooperation on definition for every item have rocks in their heads. Please respond to the specific challenges already raised. Don't leave at generalisations like "I think it could work". [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 06:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::I understand you weren't the proposer, and I am not arguing "I think it could work". I'm arguing that deleting the entire article because you "think it won't work" without trying it first is premature. If we have an issue, we can address the issue then... but first start a new section to discuss the issues you want resolved, and if that fails, then we can talk about where to go next. [[User:Mann_jess|Jess]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|talk]]|[[User:Mann_jess/Cs|edits]] 07:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

===Another test case===
{{outdent}}I see another great test case that was added, removed, and just now re-added: the fairly commonly held belief (20-24% of US'ers) that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Does that belong? I can see a very sound, logical argument for both inclusion and exclusion. Under what criteria can we definitively determine whether this belongs in or not? [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 07:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:Either would be [[WP:OR|OR]]. Do we have a RS which explicitly says it's common? [[User:Mann_jess|Jess]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|talk]]|[[User:Mann_jess/Cs|edits]] 07:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

::Are you saying that we can't call 20-24% common? What if it was 80-90% Are you saying that the inclusion criteria is "must include the word common"? If so, what other words are you (and other editors) willing to accept that are synonymous? For me, 20-24% is a close enough synonym to anonymous. And, even ignoring all of that, if there is an RS which says it's common, can it then be included? [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 08:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Just to keep the threads in-tact, I replied to your section below. I don't care where we talk about this, but let's try to keep it in one place. [[User:Mann_jess|Jess]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|talk]]|[[User:Mann_jess/Cs|edits]] 09:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Common = "Widespread; prevalent." 
20-24% is neither, and from my experience it is a more common belief that people who think he is Muslim are stupid than it is that he is Muslim. [[User:AerobicFox|AerobicFox]] ([[User talk:AerobicFox|talk]]) 16:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:While someone said this below, your experience is irrelevant as far as this and all other Wikipedia articles are concerned--whatever we decide the article is about (if we can), each entry needs support from a reliable source to prove it meets the inclusion criteria. For me, 20-24% is common, widespread, and prevalent. But, again, here we see the problems with these "mushy" words. A more thorough followup is below. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 00:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

===Allow me to be pointy for a moment===
Can we interpret statistics to count something as common? For instance, a research study discussed in [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html this NYT article] One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth". That's 20%--that sounds common to me, and there's no doubt it's a "mistake" (which the article does of course point out). But the article doesn't say "misconception", so perhaps we can't include it here. If the article said "common mistake," could we include it? It says that, regarding examples like this, "Americans don't have a clue." That sounds close enough to me. What about the very common misconception that the Earth is only 6000 years old (I'm sure I could find a statistic about that as well). Or am I unfairly choosing sides in an "open debate" to call that a misconception? What if I find an article in a Hindu journal that says something like "50% of the world has the common misconception that there is only one God, something which we know to be false because of (cite religious text Y)." Now that obviously doesn't belong, but how is it different from the 6000 year old example? What if I find a reliable source claiming that Global Warming is a common misconception? Or, on the contrary, a reliable source that says that Global Warming denial is a misconception? Technically, if our definition is just "labeled as a common misconception in a reliable source" qualifies, then I have to put either one or both in, if I can find it. But, of course, I might have a problem if one is a "common misconception" and one is a "typical mistake..."

Note that, if I were adding these to the article, I would be being [[WP:POINT|pointy]]. I'm not, but I am putting them here to assert that this problem is insoluble--not because we haven't tried, but because we have an article without a clearly defined topic. Now, maybe, somehow, we can come up with a topic clear enough to resolve some of my pointiness...but I doubt it will solve anything in the long run. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 08:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:Proposing hypothetical examples doesn't help, largely because there are issues beyond their prevalence. For example, that a Hindu might say it's a "common misconception" that there is only one god is irrelevant, because that can't be documented as an actual misconception. It seems appropriate to stick to ''actual'' examples in the article. Your Obama section above is a good one. To use a certain percentage as common, we would have to first establish consensus, clearly label it within the article, and find some justification within reliable sources to use the figure. I don't expect that can be done. So, yes, we would have to find a reliable source which says the belief is "common", explicitly. Per [[WP:V]], "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"; It doesn't matter if it is ''actually'' common, it only matters if it's been documented in reliable sources that it is. [[User:Mann_jess|Jess]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|talk]]|[[User:Mann_jess/Cs|edits]] 09:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

::OK, picking up on the Obama example, you may well find a source that tells us the situation in America, but this is a global encyclopaedia (as you should be able to tell from my spelling there). There is unlikely to be a reliable source telling us the global situation. So, do we accept "''common in one country''"? "''Common in part of a country''"? How big does the country or part of a country have to be? [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 09:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

::: I am one of probably a lot of people who was made aware of this article through a recent xkcd comic. My initial reaction (although I liked the article and enjoyed reading it) was that I could not understand how this article could survive [[WP:NOR]] and other guidelines. Reading the article and the talk page, I found that my first reactions were not entirely unfounded. I enjoyed a lot of the article, but clearly a lot of the "misconceptions" put in here are not common, and some - like "does lightening strike twice" - are not (in my opinion) even misconceptions. Also, when you look at the discussions about things like 0.999..=1 and "birds are dinosaurs", it illustrates the difficulity in defining what a misconception is and what makes it common. And how much work and effort will need to be put into discussing every new item from every conceivable angle. I see Jess' point that anticipating a problem in the future is not a reason to delete, but I'm inclined to disagree. The best proposed inclusion criteria would probably be the suggested one about the exact phrase "common misconception" appearing in a reliable source. Of course, this has the problems outlined above that it would lead to items that are certainly not what most people would think of as common misconceptions being included just because someone, ''in some context'', described it as a common misconception. Maybe it could be solved by demanding multiple, independent, sources; but I'm not sure about that either. I don't think a deletion debate would lead anywhere, and if that is the case then the best thing would be to agree on some form of inclusion criteria and make the best of it. [[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 15:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

::"My initial reaction (although I liked the article and enjoyed reading it) was that I could not understand how this article could survive WP:NOR and other guidelines."
::Classic case of [[WP:IGNORE]].
::Common should be defined as before the reader reads this they will have thought it was true. Many people believe sushi is raw fish, and before reading this thought that was true. It's inclusion is therefore warranted.[[User:AerobicFox|AerobicFox]] ([[User talk:AerobicFox|talk]]) 16:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:::AerobicFox, we can't do that, because even for the most widespread misconception imaginable, there will still be a ''very sizeable'' portion of people (particularly among academic circles who pursue WP) who will correctly understand that it's complete junk. As we've seen, editors keep claiming that since ''they'' didn't believe it, that means the misconception isn't common enough. That's [[WP:OR|OR]]. We must have an objective standard, and finding the exact phrase in reliable sources seems reasonable. As Hilo and Dr bab correctly point out, this may lead to entries which are common among a non-global demographic. However, I don't see a problem. If 90% of India incorrectly believes the U.S. is really a province of Canada, and we have multiple reliable sources to document it, that fits the inclusion criteria implied by the title. Indeed, it is a "common misconception" in India. It simply doesn't need to be global in order to be useful or notable; If it's notable enough to be reported properly, then it's notable enough to be included. Some minor study conducted in a guy's broom closet which says that 90% of the people in a small hamlet incorrectly believe something, which then gets no publicity, therefore doesn't belong... no matter what phrasing it uses. This standard appears to be in-line with how we determine the reliability of sources and notability of topics within other articles on the site... so I don't see how it'll be any more problematic here. Can we just ''try it'', and if we have a problem, address the problem then? [[User:Mann_jess|Jess]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|talk]]|[[User:Mann_jess/Cs|edits]] 19:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::Going back to Obama and percentages, if we're not going to accept some percentage as equivalent to "common", then I don't think we should accept any other synonyms either. Thus, a "widespread misconception" is not acceptable, nor is a "common error". Either we accept a broad range of synonyms (i.e., we use editorial judgment), or we accept none. And as I think about how to write this, I feel like I'm getting, in my mind, to the core of why this article needs to be deleted: it doesn't meet [[WP:N]]. This is clearly an informational list, not a navigational list, so doesn't fall under one of our typical exceptions (like [[List of people from Country X]]) pages). As an informational list, the article must be about a topic of underlying notability. There is nothing fundamentally notable about the concept of "common misconceptions". And if we are requiring inclusion based on the phrase used (i.e., if we don't accept synonyms, we don't accept percentages, etc.), then we're literally saying "This is a list of things that have all been described using the same phrase." By that argument, we could have an article title "List of things that have been described as awesome" where we would, of course, require a reliable source to use the word "awesome". We cannot have an article that has no actual topic other than a shared descriptive phrase. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 00:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::Quite frankly, there is a lot of neat stuff compiled in this article. I would hate to see it go, but I also know that it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.[[User:Asher196|Asher196]] ([[User talk:Asher196|talk]]) 00:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

== Schizophrenia ==

I added a point about Schizophrenia to this article. All I did was copy some text from the Wikipedia article on the subject, including this: "The term [[schizophrenia]] is commonly misunderstood to mean that affected persons have a "split personality"."

My addition was removed shortly after with this comment: "No evidence that this is a COMMON misconception. Please provide a source stating that, or take it to the talk page."

I'm no Wikipedia expert in any way, so I'm taking it to the talk page. What do you guys think? In my experience (not a reliable source, of course), most people believe that Schizophrenia == split personality. The Wikipedia article about Schizophrenia states that this is common. There are many articles out there that says (very nearly) the same thing: eHealthMD[http://www.ehealthmd.com/library/schizophrenia/SCH_whatis.html], Helpguide.org[http://www.helpguide.org/mental/schizophrenia_symptom.htm], BBC's h2g2[http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A446393], and many more.

Is this evidence enough? Or how is this really done?

This is my first time going to the talk page to solve a dispute, so I hope you'll be kind to me. :)

PS: Even though this is further proof that it is difficult to know what is common enough to be included in this article, I don't agree that it should be deleted, as some people are debating above.

--[[User:Forteller|Forteller]] ([[User talk:Forteller|talk]]) 16:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
:I removed the item because the [[Schizophrenia]] article misrepresents the information in the cited source. Your eHealthMD source above states it more clearly; the other two links above are to the same eHealthMD article. For those interested, this item was discussed a few weeks ago. See [[Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive 11#Addition request: Schizophrenia]] [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 17:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

::Forteller - Unfortunately for you, you have arrived at this article at a time when there is a major discussion underway on exactly how we decide something is appropriate content here. Don't know if you've had a chance to read the immediately preceding topics yet. In my opinion it's just really difficult to decide if your material fits. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 20:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
:::(a) that wasn't much of a discussion in the archive, and it has been a pretty common misconception. The subjectivity of this page is considerable. Nevertheless there should be a source coming...[[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 20:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
::::Actually, as I said, the eHealthMD article does identify the misconception as a "popular belief", if someone thinks that's sufficient to add it to the article. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 22:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the links being all the same. I've fixed that now. --[[User:Forteller|Forteller]] ([[User talk:Forteller|talk]]) 00:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions

2011-01-24T16:25:41Z

Forteller: /* Schizophrenia */ new section

{{high traffic|date=4 January 2011|site=xkcd|url=http://www.xkcd.com/843/|small=}}
{{high traffic|date=12 January 2011|site=Boing Boing|url=http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/11/wikipedias-list-of-c.html}}
{{talk header |search=yes}}
{{ArticleHistory
| action1 = AFD
| action1date = 2006-10-29
| action1link = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of misconceptions
| action1result = no consensus
| action1oldid = 84390149

| action2 = AFD
| action2date = 2009-03-24
| action2link = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (2nd nomination)
| action2result = keep
| action2oldid = 279365308
| topic = history
}}
{{auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=5 |units=days }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 13
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(5d)
|archive = Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive index
|mask=Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}



== Misconceived to be a misconception ==

Some of these misconceptions are so dumb I have to assert that they are only "reportedly" common misconceptions, and aren't very common.

I'm trying to set up a dichotomy between "commonly reported as a common misconception" and "common misconception".

How common is it, really, for people to believe lightning never strikes the same place twice? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.187.99.79|72.187.99.79]] ([[User talk:72.187.99.79|talk]]) 07:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC) 

:What, you've never heard the expression? ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 07:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

::I agree it is a common quote, but I don't think the people who say it believe it. I may be wrong, but unless there is hard data, I may be right. The quote may simply be older than towers tall enough to attract lightning commonly. The same goes for Europeans believing in the world being flat. This makes me think this article should be split into two halves. True misconceptions and reportedly misconceptions. Respectively With, and Without, empirical research into the commonness. "Commonly reported as a common misconception" and "common misconception".~ ~ ~ [[Special:Contributions/72.187.99.79|72.187.99.79]] ([[User talk:72.187.99.79|talk]]) ~ ~ ~ [[Special:Contributions/72.187.99.79|72.187.99.79]] ([[User talk:72.187.99.79|talk]]) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 07:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC). 
:::I'm pretty sure lots of people are convinced people used to think the Earth was flat before America was discovered. I'm pretty sure I was told that in Elementary school whenever Columbus Day came around, so I'm sure that is being told to lots of school kids and some never learn otherwise.[[Special:Contributions/68.94.91.172|68.94.91.172]] ([[User talk:68.94.91.172|talk]]) 17:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
:::That sounds like a content fork, but it does give me an idea. Maybe there could be a separate article (again, at risk of it being endless) that examines the truth or falsehood of "well-known sayings". For example, "Lightning never strikes the same place twice." Obviously false, but it could be taken as a metaphor equivalent to "Opportunity only knocks once." "Water finds its level." Probably true. "Criminals always return to the scene of the crime." It only takes one exception to "prove" that one false, but a more interesting result would be if there is any reliable info on ''what percentage'' of criminals return to the scene of the crime, assuming they're even able to. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 17:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
::::We may be able to get good statistics about one particular class of criminals returning to the scene of the crime; arsonists. It is common enough for arsonists to be in the crowd that watches a fire that investigators photograph the crowd. The same face at three or four unrelated fires is a dead givaway. [[User:guymacon| Guy Macon ]] 08:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::An improvement, not a fork. Interesting idea. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:TheThomas|TheThomas]] ([[User talk:TheThomas|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheThomas|contribs]]) 11:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC) 

:::72.187.99.79: Where are you going to get [[WP:RS|sources]] which specifically state something is a common misconception '''but''' there's no empirical research into its commonness? [[User:AQFK|AQFK]] ([[User talk:AQFK|talk]]) 14:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

:Strong agree. Many things mentioned here are far from genuinely believed. [[User:Turkeyphant|'''''Turkeyphan''''']][[User talk:Turkeyphant|<big>t</big>]] 13:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a problem that I see no solution to. The only reliable source as to whether a misconception is commonly held would be an opinion poll, and nobody is going to pay for such a poll any time soon. Lacking that, (or perhaps convincing Snopes.com to put in "I was taught that was true", "I was taught that was a misconception" and "never heard that one before" buttons) all we have for a reliable source is someone who is of the opinion that a misconception is common, with no way for them to know that. And yet, there are beliefs listed on this page that I suspect everyone here agrees are commonly held, even if we cannot prove it. [[User:guymacon| Guy Macon ]] 21:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

::There is a solution and the issue of whether lightning strikes the same place twice is a good example of how to apply it. The phrase "lightning never strikes the same place twice" is said not as an statement of belief, but as an idiom. If you were to reply to someone saying it to you, "really? lightning doesn't strike the same place twice?" they would probably tell you that you missed the point of the phrase. My proposed solution is that if a phrase is an idiom, it's not a misconception. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.64.13.153|88.64.13.153]] ([[User talk:88.64.13.153|talk]]) 03:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC) 

I'm having the same problem with my 'refreezing defrosted foods' one (section 21, below). I'm struggling to find anything that specifically says it's a commonly-held misconception, but I think many people would agree that they think (or previously thought) that it is dangerous to refreeze thawed food - which turns out not to be true. So I would argue it's a commonly-held misconception, but won't be able to prove as much.
[[Special:Contributions/80.175.12.57|80.175.12.57]] ([[User talk:80.175.12.57|talk]]) 15:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

== Drinking a considerable amount of distilled (or "pure") water will kill you ==

I was going to add a section about this myth but it is surprisingly hard to prove that it is a common misconception in the first place. The facts are easy to source and are also basically covered in [[Purified_water#Health_effects]] and [[Distilled water]], but help is welcome to find sources that comment on this being a misconception. --[[User:Echosmoke|Echosmoke]] ([[User talk:Echosmoke|talk]]) 17:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
:"''it is surprisingly hard to prove that it is a common misconception in the first place''": Therein is the problem. I doubt very seriously that many people have even considered this "misconception". Please provide a reliable source that's it's common. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 17:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
::Maybe it is a common misconception in Germany only. w/e ;) --[[User:Echosmoke|Echosmoke]] ([[User talk:Echosmoke|talk]]) 22:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
:::It's probably due to conflation with regular water poisoning (see Leah Betts, et al.) [[User:Turkeyphant|'''''Turkeyphan''''']][[User talk:Turkeyphant|<big>t</big>]] 18:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
:::It's a common belief in the UK, too - perhaps '''because it's true''' ! See [[Leah Betts]] & [[Water intoxication]] ! --[[Special:Contributions/195.137.93.171|195.137.93.171]] ([[User talk:195.137.93.171|talk]]) 05:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
:::I'm from the UK and I'd never heard that. Leah Betts died from drinking far too much bottled water. I've never heard anyone suggest that it was particularly pure in any way and would be very surprised if it was. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.4.195.51|80.4.195.51]] ([[User talk:80.4.195.51|talk]]) 03:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC) 
::::That was my point. We're still waiting for sources that it's an actual misconception. I've personally never heard of it. [[User:Turkeyphant|'''''Turkeyphan''''']][[User talk:Turkeyphant|<big>t</big>]] 22:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Leah Betts did not die from just randomly deciding it would be fun to drink a lot of water, she had taken a bad ecstasy pill at her birthday party, which made her feel dehydrated. She drank a lot of water very quickly and ended up with swelling on the brain, causing her death. Her dad was/is a policeman and started a big advertising campaign to alert young people to the dangers of taking ecstasy after the loss of his daughter. I am English, and I remember the 1995 story very well. BBC News- <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/13/newsid_2516000/2516593.stm</ref> —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/194.176.105.41|194.176.105.41]] ([[User talk:194.176.105.41|talk]]) 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC) 
:This is a misleading summary on many levels. But the point is that she died from water intoxication, nothing to do with MDMA. For the purposes of this article and this talk page discussion, people have died from water intoxication.[[User:Turkeyphant|'''''Turkeyphan''''']][[User talk:Turkeyphant|<big>t</big>]] 22:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
::Whether or not it is common, it apparently is not a full-blown misconception - [[Water intoxication]]. --[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 23:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
:::You need to actually read what people are saying in this talk section. Water intoxication has already been brought up and it's nothing to do with this (alleged) misconception. [[User:Turkeyphant|'''''Turkeyphan''''']][[User talk:Turkeyphant|<big>t</big>]] 00:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
An expert stated at the inquest that if she'd have just drunk the water, she would have survived, and if she'd just taken the drug she would have survived.<ref> "The legacy of tragic Leah" (HTML). BBC. 2005-11-16.</ref> —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/194.176.105.41|194.176.105.41]] ([[User talk:194.176.105.41|talk]]) 14:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 
::Ref is broken. [[User:Turkeyphant|'''''Turkeyphan''''']][[User talk:Turkeyphant|<big>t</big>]] 19:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Well the "expert" was telling lies as they all do at these government-funded - anti-drug-hysteria-whip-up fests. For a start, all he would be able to say is that it was ''of his opinion that'' she ''might'' have survived. Bottom line is, she died of water poisoning. Whether the water is pure or has trace elements or is contaminated in any way is immaterial. Drinking that large a quantity of water is bad for you and will probably kill you. --[[User talk:WestwoodMatt|Matt Westwood]] 06:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

== 0.999... ==

The widely known fact that students believe .999... to fall short of 1 is discussed, for example, by

* {{cite journal |last1=Tall |first1=D. O. |last2=Schwarzenberger |first2=R. L. E.|title=Conflicts in the Learning of Real Numbers and Limits |journal=Mathematics Teaching |year=1978 |volume=82 |pages=44–49 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot1978c-with-rolph.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}
* {{cite journal |last=Tall |first=David |authorlink=David O. Tall |title=Conflicts and Catastrophes in the Learning of Mathematics |journal=Mathematical Education for Teaching |year=1976/7 |volume=2 |issue=4 |pages=2–18 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot1976a-confl-catastrophy.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}
* {{cite journal |last=Tall |first=David |title=Cognitive Development In Advanced Mathematics Using Technology |journal=Mathematics Education Research Journal |year=2000 |volume=12 |issue=3 |pages=210–230 |url=http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot2001b-merj-amt.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2009-05-03}}

Additional references are given at [[0.999...]]. It is widely known in education circles that a majority of the students believe that .999...<1. [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 19:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
:Several problems here. First, citations belong in the article, not the talk page. Secondly (and more importantly): the last two sources do not address it as a common misconception ''whatsover''. The first source identifies it as a misconception among some first-year university students; that's doesn't make it a common misconception ''in general''. Most people have never given it any thought, much less have a misconception about it. If you disagree, please wait for [[WP:CON|consensus]] before restoring the item. So far two editors disagree with you (Qwyrxian and me); thus currently no consensus for the item. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 19:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

::The other editor "disagreed" for a reason that is diametrically opposed to yours, as I recall. He felt it is not a misconception but merely "unintuitive", but seemed to acknowledge implicitly that it is a common problem. As far as your last point is concerned, I am not sure what you are arguing exactly. That most people are not interested in this problem? Certainly many people attend the first year of the university. Furthermore, this problem is routinely treated in highschool as well. Dubinsky et al recently published an article where they describe a program geared toward convincing students of the correctness of .999...=1 by using the formulas for sums of geometric series. There are literally dozens of articles written about this. If you think people don't care, just check [[Talk:0.999...]] ! [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 19:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Please let Qwyrxian speak for himself. And yes, I'm saying that most people other than mathematicians give it no thought, unless it is specifically pointed out to them by a mathematician. I've functioned in academic environments most of my life; I've never met one person other than a mathematician who has ever mentioned it. Looking at your edit history, I'm guessing you hang around mathematicians a lot; that would explain why you think it's a common misconception. If someone hangs around nuclear physicists a lot, he can come to the erroneous conclusion that the general population thinks a lot about the behavior of subatomic particles; in fact, most people never think about it. If this favorite misconception of yours is a common misconception among people in general, please provide sources. The fact that a mathematician developed a program to convince students does make it a common misconception. In any event, please wait for consensus before restoring the item. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 19:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

::::Actually, I was referring to user "Gump Stump", whereas Q seems to be bothered by the same sourcing issue as you. As I mentioned, many people do attend the first year of the university. Someone not majoring in the sciences is not likely to have heard about this, and I find nothing odd about the fact that in your "academic environment" this is not an issue. Incidentally, it is hardly an issue among mathematicians, either. The people mostly concerned are the students and the educationists, who have published voluminously on this, and find that a majority of their students feel that .999...<1. There are surely many people with little interest in this; but there are also surely many people with little interest in Roman circuses, as well. [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 20:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::"''Someone not majoring in the sciences is not likely to have heard about this.''": Precisely my point. Most people do not major in a science, making it less likely that it is a common misconception. I agree that most people have no interest in Roman circuses. In the past few days, tons of crap have been added to the article because it got some publicity. Eventually that will be pared down. In the mean time, the fact "[[WP:OSE|other stuff exists]]" is not a legitimate reason to continue adding uncommon misconceptions. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 20:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::You are in error. The page had an extensive science section prior to the current wave of edits, as you can see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&oldid=405392708#Science here]. Your current line of reasoning is a considerable radicalisation of your initial concern with sourcing. An anti-science position is merely another form of anti-intellectualism. [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 21:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
{{od}}
:::::
'''How does having "an extensive science section" make your misconception a common one?''' If the article never had a single science item, would that make your misconception more or less common? If you can explain that, you might have something worth talking about. How many of those in the "extensive science section" were properly sourced as common misconceptions? How many were accepted by consensus? The article needs a lot of cleanup (I never said it didn't if that's what you consider being "in error"), but nevertheless that is not an excuse for you to continue adding uncommon misconceptions. One reason the article has so many items that are unsourced as common misconceptions is that so many editors like yourself insist that their misconception be included because "everyone else is doing it" or "I think it's common so it must be" or "I asked a few of my friends and it is a common misconcpetion among them" or some other ridiculously arbitrary reason. The article has been nominated for deletion more than once ''for that very reason''. Read this talk page and the archives. There are pages and pages of debates about whether an unsourced misconception should be included. And once again, please read [[WP:OSE]]. You don't make a page with problems better by adding to the problems. Now this is my final time repeating this: wait to see if a consensus supports addition of this item. That's how things work on Wikipedia. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 21:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
:FWIW, [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] is one of the most misused guidelines on Wikipedia. It has to do with article ''deletions''. It has absolutely nothing to do with article ''content''. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 21:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks Quest. Technically you are right. My point is the priniciple applies to article content. "Other stuff exists" is no excuse for adding bad information to articles. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 22:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
*Resp to Cresix at this indent level, a few msgs above
*First, citations in Talk are not a ''problem,'', they're welcome here, since they serve to advance the discussion. It's wrong to object to their presence ''here,'' when the deleting editor would have hacked them out of the article ''without'' discussion. Since discussion is one of the [[WP:Five Pillars]] of Wikipedia, better to have them.
*If the argument is "it doesn't matter, the misconception is only held by college students,"
:# The first reference establishes that the problem stems from lack of mathematical preparation in '''high school,''' where the notion of sums of infinite series is discussed in '''pre-algebra.''' So the misconception exists in the (very large) set of all high school students, not "just" the somewhat smaller set of college students.
:# This article isn't about the importance-in-day-to-day-living of misconceptions, just their existence and prevalence. "Common" can mean ''commonly held'' among the population (everybody thinks it) or it can mean ''commonly heard'' (everybody knows that one guy who spouts this misconception) - it doesn't matter. Here, the misconception that "0.999... is not equal to 1.0" is ''commonly held'' - widely held by a large number of non-high-school-math-educated folks, even if it's not commonly ''professed.'' If asked, most people will spout the misconcept.
*If the argument is "it doesn't matter, it affects nobody," it's such a widespread misconception that it impacts design, mechanical and electrical engineering, economics, navigation - everything which involves real-world "messy" math. Where the lack of comprehension of the ''meaning'' of numbers (really, just the labels we hang on the numbers underneath) contrasts with "common sense", there's trouble. Consumers, anyone? Why do price tags end in ".99"? Because consumers ''behave'' as if $9.99 is substantially different from $10.00, whether or not they ''know'' there's no practical difference. Sadly, there's probably no study relating this pricing vulnerability directly to knowledge of sums of series ...
*The fact that mathematicians care about the issue does not minimize its importance in any way. The widespread misconception that "0.999... is not 1.0" is a kind of canary in the coalmine of widespread (and apparently growing) willful, indeed prideful ignorance of math and science, as promulgated by... but I digress.
*'''"No consensus" is not a brickbat.''' If more independent sources (by other authors, in other journals, books or magazines) are found, I'll support the item's inclusion over the objections raised so far, because the objections are neither well-formulated nor persuasive.
:--[[User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 22:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a mystery to me why we even have a [[0.999...]] article. All this is worth is a brief paragraph at [[1 (number)]].
This isn't really a common misconception, it is just a didactic tool for math teachers to familiarize their students with the concept of [[Repeating decimal]]. Nobody would form the idea of "0.999... < 1" on their own. The entire story is that the teacher sets up the scenario, students ''answer'' to the proposed scenario that it is smaller, and the teacher then shows that it isn't. If we are going to include a list of standard elementary math lessons in this article, we would never see the end of it.

Can people please stay focused of what it is this article is really trying to do, and what it isn't supposed to turn into by well meaning but misguided additions of random concepts.

From the 0.999... article:
:'' '''In popular culture''': With the rise of the [[Internet]], debates about 0.999... have escaped the classroom and are commonplace on [[newsgroup]]s and [[message board]]s, including many that nominally have little to do with mathematics. '' (I rest my case at this point) ''In the newsgroup <tt>sci.math</tt>, arguing over 0.999... is a "popular sport", and it is one of the questions answered in its [[FAQ]].''
So, unless we want this page to become a mirror of all usenet FAQs ever compiled, we should draw the line here. --[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] [[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]] 22:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
::Agree. And unless we want the article deleted, it can't be a repository for everyone's favorite misconception. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 23:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to Lexein:
*''citations in Talk are not a ''problem,'', they're welcome here'': You're right, but you also misunderstood me (or, more likely, I expressed it poorly). Tkuvho was adding the item to the article without sources (three times). My comment simply was related to my request that he add them to the article if and when the item is determined to be appropriate.
::Fine. It now has FIVE sources, count 'em. Cease the stubbornness. --05:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
*''The first reference establishes that the problem stems from lack of mathematical preparation in high school'': I don't agree with your reasoning. High school students have lots of misconceptions, and high school students don't make up a majority of the adult population. We don't need to include every misconception held by high school students unless there is evidence that the misconception is more commonly held.
::offs. Stop with the deliberate misunderstanding. It ''starts'' earlier than that, and is uncorrected as of high school, and carries through to college. It remains uncorrected, and therefore a misconception, in anyone who got no math in highschool or college. OK? --[[User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 05:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Where in the article does it state that it "carries through to college"? Please give us a direct quotation. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 16:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
*''The fact that mathematicians care about the issue does not minimize its importance in any way'': I never said it did. You twisted my point. I said that the fact that mathematicians consider it a common miconception does not mean it is common.
::Again weirdly deprecating the profession and the subject, as if "it's only maths", or as if you're a troll. It's a mis-taught and uncorrected misconception in grade, middle, and high school, which survives through college to adulthood. School attendance is required by law to be attended, and math is required to be taught, yet the misconception remains. That mathematicians point it out, again, reduces its truth value not at all. It's a bar bet. It's ludicrously common, and is quite well sourced. --[[User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 05:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Nothing "weirdly deprecating" about the statement that mathematicians are no better (or worse for that matter) at discerning common misconceptions than the other 99.9% of the population. If anything, stating that they ''are'' is a laughable falsehood. As for your "troll" comment, Lexein, you're a regular so I haven't templated you for personal attacks. But if you happen to need a warning, consider this a warning about [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]]. Comment on the issue, even on your inaccurate assessment of my opinion of mathematicians, but leave the personal comments about me or any other editor out of this discussion. Thanks. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 16:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

*''If the argument is "it doesn't matter, it affects nobody"'': Again, I never said that's the argument. If it affects the design of thousands of products, that doesn't mean it is a widely held misconception among the large majority of people who have nothing to do with the designs.
*''If more independent sources (by other authors, in other journals, books or magazines) are found, I'll support the item's inclusion'': So will I, if you mean more good sources that the misconception is common among the general population. The sources listed above provide little, if any, support for that.
*''"No consensus" is not a brickbat'': In matters of disputed content or dispute about how adequate sources are, consensus trumps just about everything except [[WP:BLP]]. In any event, if this article stays on its current trajectory of adding everyone's favorite misconception with very little evidence that the misconception is common, it will be soon be deleted. I truly fail to see the logic here: We add dozens and dozens of uncommon misconceptions because someone "likes it", only to have the entire article deleted. I have always opposed deletion of this article. But if this frenzy of adding anything and everything to the article doesn't diminish and more reasonable editors begin to accept limiting the article to the misconceptions that are clearly common, I'll support deletion. As it is right now, the article is largely a miscellaneous collection of favorites. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 23:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

::Your current position represents a further radicalisation of your position. Your original contention was well-taken, namely that this particular misconception should be sourced. When the source was duly provided, you argued that scientific misconceptions are not relevant, and were only added in the current wave of edits. When I pointed out that even before the current wave of edits there was a substantial science section, you went on a further limb and apparently you currently hold that '''no''' misconceptions by highschool students should be included here. This apparently amounts to a proposal to delete the article, since most people after all do go through high school. Your deletion of this misconception is therefore misguided and the right address is an AFD if that's the course you wish to pursue. [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 03:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
::::You're better off if you drop the hyperbole, Tkuvho. There is no "radicalisation" or "anti-intellectualism" or "going out on a limb" or a claim that "'''no''' misconceptions by highschool students should be included" or a "proposal to delete the article" or "anti-science position" (even more absurd since I have a medical degree). You're not improving your case by misrepresenting what I have said through ridiculous exaggeration or creation of straw-men to attack because you have no good source or consensus; those are very weak debating strategies that are used when there's nothing else to fall back on. You would serve your goal better by simply letting the consensus process play out. Now, unless much stronger sources are supplied or a consensus develops, I'm finished with this exchange. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 04:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Apologies, I'm leaving in just a few minutes, so I haven't read all of this, but I saw my name so wanted to leave a brief comment: my concern was that the entry had no sources to verify it is a common misconception. If the new sources state that unambiguously, then perhaps it can be included. Looking at just the comment above me: we absolutely should not have entries that are misconceptions of high school students, as, by definition, high school students hold countless misconceptions about the world, which is one of the reasons why they go to school. In any event, I want to see very strong documentation on this one, because at least at my school, we learned it in junior high school, and I didn't see anyone who disbelieved it; it's like saying that students have a "misconception" about the pythagorean theorem before they study it. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 03:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I went to google books and I found "Intuition suggests that this means that the repeating decimal <math>0.\bar{9}</math> is also less than 1, and this is a common misconception." in ''An introduction to mathematical reasoning: numbers, sets, and functions'' Peter J. Eccles, 1997, Cambridge University press, p 167. I am sure there are many more such sources, because this really is a common misconception. — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 03:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:A claim about "intuition" by a mathematician provides no additional evidence that this is a ''common'' misconception held by people other than mathematicians. And if there are "many more such sources", please let's see them. But not sources written by mathematicians. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 04:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
::What a ridiculous demand. Why should material about subject X be sourced only by people who are not knowledgeable about X? —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 04:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Maybe I didn't express it clearly. It's fine for mathematicians to claim that this is a common misconception, but what makes mathematicians better at determining what percentage of the populations holds the misconception? In my opinion, not much. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 04:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
::::Why would mathematicians make good sources for this fact? Because some of them write popular books about mathematics, which are thereby usable by us as reliable sources. People who are not mathematicians are less likely to do that, for reasons I'll let you guess at yourself. And also, because mathematicians are the ones that have to deal with students who hold this misconception. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 04:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::Is your point that mathematicians are better at knowing the number of people in the general population who hold a misconception (not students; that's not the general population; this is an article about common misconceptions among people in general, not students)? If so, then it would logically follow that an expert on a subject (not just math, any subject: philosophy, biology, economics, etc.) is in the best position to determine if some misconception related to his/her field is a common misconception. Continuing to follow that logic, that means that if an expert publishes a statement that he/she has observed misconceptions in his/her field, they should automatically be accepted in this article. Is that your argument? [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 04:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
::A book published by CUP that directly says that something is a common misconception is a perfectly reliable source for the fact that it's a common misconception. The fact that it was written by a mathematician (if it was) would only make it a stronger source, since we can presume mathematicians are familiar with mathematics. There is no basis in policy for the idea that sources by mathematicians would be discounted.

::You won't find anything more direct than a source that literally includes the phrase "this is a common misconception". However, the first source that Tkuhvo gave a bove is also pretty good: "First year university students in mathematics, fresh from school, were asked the question: "Is 0.999 . . . (nought point nine recurring) equal to one, or just less than one?". ... The majority of students thought that 0.999 . . . was less than one. " — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 04:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::''The fact that it was written by a mathematician (if it was) would only make it a stronger source'': Yes, if the issue was what is mathematically correct, but no one is disputing whether 0.999... is equivalent to 1. The dispute is whether this is a common misconceptions. There's nothing inherent in mathematical expertise that enables someone to be a better judge of how many people hold a certain misconception. This is often the point of confusion in this article. I'm not asking for a source as to whether the misconception is true or false; I'm asking for better sourcing that it is a ''common'' misconception. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 04:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
::::It's a book published by Cambridge University Press that literally says "this is a common misconception". That's a reliable source as far as Wikipedia goes. — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 04:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::If anyone cares, here's the link to the exact page: {{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ImCSX_gm40oC&pg=PA167#v=onepage&q&f=false |title=An introduction to mathematical reasoning: numbers, sets, and functions|first=Peter J. |last=Eccles |year=1997|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|page=167}} --[[User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 05:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's another source, btw: {{citation|first=Eli|last=Maor|title=To infinity and beyond: a cultural history of the infinite|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=1991|isbn=9780691025117|page=32|quote=Many people find it hard to accept this simple fact [that 0.999 = 1 — DE], and one can often hear a heated discussion as to its validity.}} The author, [[Eli Maor]], is not so much a mathematician as a historian of mathematics. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 04:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm calling it ''sourced'' and putting the item back in with the above 3 sources. Stubbornness and shifting weak arguments are now swept aside in the face of overwhelming sourcitudiness. --[[User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 05:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:It's already in the article, Lexein. It was there 30 minutes before you made your official pronouncement. And I assume it will stay until the article is deleted. I disagree with your disdain for complete discussion. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 05:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
::The irony (and my joke) missed. I was attempting to make light of the error made in this discussion: as sources were found, the arguments shifted to attack the sources, the authors, the field, the origin, the generality, anything ''but'' relaxing and seeing the point. My declaration was merely a mirror held up to the repeated declaration of "no consensus." --[[User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 05:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Yeah ... right ... a joke. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 16:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
::Incidentally, if you happen secretly to believe that .999... is less than 1, there is good news for you: there is sourced material claiming that the students have been right all along, but simply misunderstood by their instructors. The infinite repeated "9" can be understood as a number less than one, just not in the complete ordered field misleadingly referred to as the "real" numbers. [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 05:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

:There is a question as to the word "misconception" is applicable here. To me, a misconception is something that most people believe but is false. The research on .999...=1 seems to indicated that many people doubt the statement when confronted by it, but I think most people give this little thought either way so it's hard to claim they actively believe the contrary statement. To me, the real misconception is that there is a one-one correspondence between real numbers and their decimal representations. I don't think this implies that the entry should be removed however, it belongs on at least one list of kind and, unless there is a "List of facts people find difficult to accept because they are misinformed on other matters" article, it should go here.--[[User:RDBury|RDBury]] ([[User talk:RDBury|talk]]) 16:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

: I'm slightly intimidated by the length of this discussion. But I would say that this belief is an extremely common misconception at the high-school level, and clearly suitable for this article. I see a lot of sources for it as well -- though I'm not going to review them now (I assume in the large discussion above their contents have already been discussed). [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]] ([[User talk:CRGreathouse|t]] | [[Special:Contributions/CRGreathouse|c]]) 16:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
::I secretly believe that .999 is less than 1. I'm not sure how common this misconception is though, and this example shows the problem with this article. This article has no boundry to its growth.[[User:Asher196|Asher196]] ([[User talk:Asher196|talk]]) 18:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Without reference to the 0.999... issue (which was added with a legitimate consensus), the article had adequate boundaries until the recent flood of "it's-common-because-I-like-it" newcomers. Only time will tell if the article can ever be restored to sanity. At this point, I'm not optimistic. Right now the article is largely an indiscriminant collection of favorite misconceptions. The ironic thing is that those who have shoved their favorite misconception into the article may very well see the entire article deleted because of it. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 18:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

::::@Asher196: ''You'' don't know how common this misconception is, but a number of editors have mentioned ample sources stating this this is a common misconception. If this article is being flooded by items that are not sourced, by all means they should be deleted. @Cresix: I am glad we ere able to reach a consensus regarding this particular subsection. There are several administrators currently monitoring the page. If a strong case can be made that the page should be placed under stronger edit-protection, we should pursue this route. [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::My problem is with the definition of "common" as used in this article. Is it common amoung American high school students? The general public? College math majors? This seems like a misconception in search of an audience.[[User:Asher196|Asher196]] ([[User talk:Asher196|talk]]) 18:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sixty-something year old teacher of Mathematics here. Just came upon this topic. I just read this whole section because I didn't see the point of the heading. It's simply not a common problem. I have never heard the issue discussed outside the classroom, and never seen it to be a continuing problem after a '''brief''' explanation was given to a student. It seems trivial. Some may believe it. It would be interesting to meet them. This topic should not be in the article. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 18:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::@Asher196: "Common" by wiki standards means that there are reputable sources that call it a "common misconception". @HiLo48: Do you teach decimals? [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 18:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
: Those "sources" which supposedly show that this is a common misconception only seem to show me why .999 is 1. I'm tempted to delete this entry if you can't show better sourcing than this.[[User:Asher196|Asher196]] ([[User talk:Asher196|talk]]) 18:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

::'''Of course''' they show that .999... is 1. Do you want them to show that it is less than 1? For that you have to look in the "infinitesimal" section of [[0.999...]]. But in addition to showing the equality, the sources mention that is is a common misconception, as discussed above. [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 18:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:::I don't need the source to show WHY .999 is 1. I need them to show THAT IT IS A COMMON misconception, not just some guy saying "this is a common misconception".[[User:Asher196|Asher196]] ([[User talk:Asher196|talk]]) 18:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

::::What would you like to see exactly: statistics on people holding such misconceptions? [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 19:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

::::Actually, reliable references that say it is a common misconception are all that we need for the article to claim it's a common misconception. The article is not trying to explain why it is a common misconception, so we don't need sources for that.

::::It seems to me that the standard being asked for here is higher than for the other items on the list: they also seem to just use sources that claim the misconception is common, without explaining why it's common or quantifying how common it is. So the references already provided in the article are (more than) enough, and they are just as strong as the references used for the other claims. — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 20:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::It is possible that many claims here will have to go. At any rate, here is what I have been able to find: K Weller, I Arnon, and E. Dubinsky. Preservice Teachers' Understanding of the Relation Between a Fraction or Integer and Its Decimal Expansion. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1942-4051, Volume 9 (2009), no. 1, 5--28.

:::::The study by Weller et al (2009) states that "Tall and Schwarzenberger (1978) asked first year university mathematics students whether is equal to 1. The majority of the students thought that is less than 1."

:::::Weller et al go on to describe their own controlled experiment, performed "during the 2005 fall semester at a major research university in the southern United States. Pre-service elementary and middle school teachers from all five sections of a sophomore-level mathematics content course on number and operation participated in the study." The results are striking: "On the question of whether .999...=1, 72% of the control group and 83% of the experimental group expressed their view that .999... is not equal to 1."

:::::Four out of five sophomores think that .999... is less than 1. And these are the future math teachers. Maybe they are right ? [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 21:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

For me, life's too short to read all of the tedious (to me, excuse my impatience) waffle above. What I will say is that IMO it ''is'' a valid misconception at least as important as the ones about vomitoria, ostriches and lemmings. I have watched discussions on facebook getting quite heated on the subject. It appears to boil down to an inability to handle the concept of infinity. It certainly merits its one line on this page, and I also suggest a link to a page on infinite series might be worth adding. Oh by the way: shameless plug for proofwiki: [http://www.proofwiki.org/wiki/0.999...%3D1 0.999...=1] --[[User talk:WestwoodMatt|Matt Westwood]] 21:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

:I'd like to meet just one person who thinks that 0.999... does not equal 1. Can those convinced that it's a common belief find such a person and get them to post here please? If it's a common misconception that should be pretty easy to do. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 22:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

::That's not how we do things on Wikipedia (not that finding one person would confirm that the misconception is common anyway). Several sources, published by academic presses, have been presented for the fact that it's a common misconception. That means those who think it isn't common need to present some sources to the contrary, or at least sources that add some extra context. Lacking that, our policy presumes that books from academic presses such as Cambridge press and Princeton press are reliable sources for their claims. — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 22:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

::{{ec}}Is that the standard we use for inclusion on this page? Tracking down individuals who believe them? Personally, I wouldn't think this item should be included since it seems to me to be more of a counter-intuitive but really-true factoid, rather than a myth that gets spread around despite being untrue. That said, we seem to have reliable sources which ''explicitly'' state it's a "common misconception", which would seem to warrant inclusion on the page. Judging our sources to determine which items that are sourced as "common misconceptions" are really common falls into the realm of [[WP:OR|original research]]. Either having reliable sources which say it's a common misconception is enough, or this page has inclusion criteria which violates WP policy. [[User:Mann_jess|Jess]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|talk]]|[[User:Mann_jess/Cs|edits]] 22:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Oh, go on, add the darn thing. It just adds to the fact that this whole article is being filled with trivial garbage. We don't have a meaningful definition of the the term "common misconception". I really don't know what people are trying to achieve. In some cases I think it's a case of "I know something thing that you don't know." Not a very useful or meaningful article at all. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 23:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

::::Perhaps I didn't come across clearly enough. Having reliable sources which explicitly state "this is a common misconception" seems to be a reasonable standard for inclusion in this article. Judging those sources by our own standards would also appear to be counter to WP policy. Therefore, it doesn't matter if we have a meaningful definition of the term or not... because we aren't the ones deciding. Our reliable sources are. Further, whether the article is useful seems to be rather irrelevant to whether it is notable, and therefore WP-worthy. [[User:Mann_jess|Jess]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|talk]]|[[User:Mann_jess/Cs|edits]] 01:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::I think what's bothering me here is that we are not working with a consistent definition of what a ''common misconception'' is. Logically, one should be able to key ''common misconception'' into Wikipedia, find an article of that name, and it would start off with a definition. But guess what? [[Common misconception]] redirects to this article! So the only way a reader can determine what a ''common misconception'' is is by some form of [[WP:SYNTHESIS|synthesis]] of their own by reading the list and trying to figure it out. Saying that a ''common misconception'' is whatever any source deems it to be seems just not quite right to me. It's all very clumsy. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 01:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::That is because "common", by its very nature, is both subjective and dependent on the current social climate. We simply can't define "common misconception" because what that label applies to will vary significantly depending on numerous factors. This wouldn't be true if we could poll the world population about every fact imaginable, but we simply don't have those kinds of polls, so we have to work with what we do have. With that in mind, that doesn't mean the article is arbitrary. Some things are going to be presented by reliable sources as "common misconceptions", and others will not. The misconception that the Earth is flat, for instance, is not going to enjoy its own article in the NYT which labels it as such, so it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in this article. This is so even though some people really do believe it, even today. However, if a misconception is so prevalent that it does get printed in a major newspaper or another notable reliable source, and explicitly labeled "common", then it's certainly common enough to enjoy that kind of publicity, and per [[WP:V]] we have to represent what the sources say. That seems pretty non-arbitrary to me, and perfectly in line with how we choose what information to represent across the rest of the site. Perhaps you disagree... but if so, do you have a suggestion for determining what misconceptions we include which doesn't involve original research by means of editors choosing which proposals go in? [[User:Mann_jess|Jess]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|talk]]|[[User:Mann_jess/Cs|edits]] 02:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::::Do I have a suggestion for determining what misconceptions we include? The more I think about it the more I'm leaning towards including none at all, i.e. scrap the whole article. Other sources, no matter how normally reliable, will inevitably vary incredibly widely in their usage and definition of the term ''common misconception''. It will vary by topic, by author, but intended audience, by location, by culture, by time. I suspect this post is unlikely to convince anybody, but I really don't like the idea of a list of things satisfying such an ill-defined (or non-defined?) criterion. Leave the misconceptions to the primary articles on topics. This one, for example ([[0.999...]]), already has a primary article. That will do. [[Lemmings]] have their own article. Leave the misconception about their suicides in that article. Many others just shouldn't be here. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 02:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

: Anecdote: This subject is so common that its discussion has been banned at several math forums I frequent. [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]] ([[User talk:CRGreathouse|t]] | [[Special:Contributions/CRGreathouse|c]]) 23:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

::People who frequent math forums are, by definition, not very [[Common misconceptions|common]]. (They are, of course, very nice people.) [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 00:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

:::I don't frequent math forums other than wiki discussion pages, but since the comparison of .999... and 1 is treated in highschool, we are talking about potentially billions of people exposed to this subject. The underlying issue is indeed tied to the treatment of the concept of infinity, of which there is more than 1. By the way, reliable sources have found the student intuitions to the effect that .999...<1 to be not erroneous, but rather nonstandard and fruitful. Read the article by Robert Ely cited at [[0.999...]]. [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 04:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

::::Based on our current loose definition of "common misconception," and the fact that one of the sources uses that exact phrase, I am comfortable with that entry remaining in the list now. As to whether or not the whole list needs to go...well...I'll table that for the moment. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 04:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I spent a large part of my life teaching mathematics in high schools. This misconception came up year after year. Time and again I found myself trying to teach the (to me) simple idea that saying a number is 12 to the nearest whole number means that it lies in a range with the bounds 11.5 and 12.5. Time and again, year after year, I was confronted by a blank refusal ''by whole classes'' to accept this. There were several reasons for this problem, but one of them was a conviction that the upper bound was 12.49999... rather than 12.5. This severely obstructed attempts to teach methods of dealing with ranges of possible values of measured values. ''Never once was it I who brought up the question of recurring decimals with endless strings of nines, as that was totally irrelevant to what I was trying to teach'': it was my pupils who brought it up, because they mistakenly thought it was relevant. Anyone who thinks that this idea never occurs to anyone other than mathematicians, or that it only occurs to other people if mathematicians suggest it, or that it doesn't ever cause any real problems, is quite mistaken. [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] ([[User talk:JamesBWatson|talk]]) 14:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

:Thanks for your detailed comment. There does seem to be a consensus in this direction. What I was going to propose next is an even more common misconception among education professionals, namely that .999... must ''necessarily'' be equal to 1. [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 15:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

::In what sense is that a misconception? It is necessary within the accepted framework of the real number system. Outside that accepted framework anything is possible, such as that 2+2=1. That .999... equals one is no more and no less necessary than any other fact of arithmetic. Without context that indicates otherwise, it is reasonable to take the word "necessarily" as meaning necessarily within the accepted real number system, just as without context indicating otherwise it is reasonable to assume that statements about 2+5 refer to the accepted integer system, not (for example) the field of integers modulo 3. Therefore, unless there is context which indicates that something other than the standard real number system is under consideration, ".999... must ''necessarily'' be equal to 1" is not a misconception. [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] ([[User talk:JamesBWatson|talk]]) 09:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Pursuing the idea that 2+2=1 is not a fruitful direction. What Robert Ely argues in his paper last year is that student nonstandard intuitions that ".999..." falls short of 1 by an infinitesimal amount ''are'' fruitful. Students are routinely told that .999...=1 '''before''' they are taught anything about the complete Archimedean ordered field (which is what I assume you mean when you refer to "the standard real number system"). The ''context'' you referred to is therefore generally only in the mind of the instructor. As we saw above, it is not in the minds of between 70 to 80 percent of the students. [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 12:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

::::The suggestion that "student nonstandard intuitions that .999... falls short of 1 by an infinitesimal amount are fruitful" is an interesting one. Can you give a brief summary of how it is "fruitful"? [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] ([[User talk:JamesBWatson|talk]]) 13:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::This discussion is getting a bit off the subject of "common misconceptions" and should eventually move to a talkpage, but the main point is that Robert Ely's article published last year in the top education journal argues that these are fruitful intuitions, if you get a chance to read it. [[User:Tkuvho|Tkuvho]] ([[User talk:Tkuvho|talk]]) 13:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::Briefly, R. Ely reports the results of a field study suggesting that intuitions of an [[infinitesimal]] difference 1-.999... can be helpful in learning [[infinitesimal calculus]]. 05:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this item touches on an important distinction: something that people commonly reason incorrectly about ''when asked'', and things that people commonly believe (already have thought about and have formed a belief about) that are incorrect. Here, people seem to be discussing which type the 0.999... issue falls into. It's not enough for it to be in the first, because then you get into a very large number of things that most people would reason incorrectly about if asked, but have never thought about before and thus do not hold any belief about whatosever. It's true that pointing out these errors of thought and ways of working around them is useful, but that's not what this page is for. This page seems more for things that people believe simply because they were told them by others. [[Special:Contributions/72.48.75.131|72.48.75.131]] ([[User talk:72.48.75.131|talk]]) 20:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
:That's an excellent perspective. One I totally agree with at this stage. Yes, if most people never think about something, it cannot be a '''common''' misconception. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 22:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be four (at least) threads of thought here:

1. Professional mathematicians and educators, and enthusiastic amateurs, who regular encounter (through their activities in communication) the misconception 0.999... < 1. To them it is a common misconception which is prevalent everywhere. (I'm in this category, btw.)

2. Mathematically literate people who no longer have the need to think about such things, who understand well enough that 0.999 ... = 1 but no longer have any interest in thinking about it and the subject never arises in the course of day-to-day life. To them it is a misconception, but not a common one.

3. People who, if they think about it, intuitively believe that 0.999... < 1 and think the equality is a combination of fakery and deviltry. To them it's not a misconception in the first place.

4. People who haven't really thought about it because they hate mathematics, and having some intellectually challenging math suddenly appear in the middle of a wikipedia is offensive and upsetting. Because "mathematics" (or what they conceive as being "mathematics" does not even feature in their thinking) they can not believe that it would appear in anyone else's thinking except among those people about whom they have a mental stereotype based on their unfruitful encounters with their teachers in high school. To those people, whether 0.999 < 1 is or is not true is not the issue, it's: "But surely most people never waste their time even letting such a question enter their heads?"

To put the question into perspective: consider the furore if someone posted up the "common misconception" that, for example, a certain historical figure whose initials are commonly rendered "JC" is the direct son by biological descent of "God." Wikipedia would erupt in a flame war that would destroy the universe. --[[User talk:WestwoodMatt|Matt Westwood]] 09:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

== Edit request from Kittiquel, 17 January 2011 ==

{{tlx|edit semi-protected}}


Please add the following to the section titled ''Physics'', because many people still believe Sir Isaac Newton founded the theory of gravity. The information supporting this can be found under the section titled "''4. Astronomy and gravitation''

It is a common misconception that Sir Isaac Newton founded the idea of the Inverse Square Law of Gravity; however, there is evidence that Robert Hooke, an English scientist and inventor, gave Newton the idea of this law and had even worked with Newton on other gravity related work. After the publication of Newton's ''Principia'' in 1687, Hooke was left with no credit of his efforts towards the work he and Newton had done on the gravitational theories. [http://home.clara.net/rod.beavon/leonardo.htm Source]



[[User:Kittiquel|Kittiquel]] ([[User talk:Kittiquel|talk]]) 05:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

:{{notdone}}. While that source is a fascinating read, it doesn't really establish that it's a common misconception that Newton formulated the inverse square law of gravity. I think a more common misconception may relate to the apocryphal story of an apple inspiring Newton by falling his head — but sources saying it's common would need to be found first. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] ([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]]) 00:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

::The really interesting research would be to find the source of the apple myth. From a perspective of considering how this story could possibly have originated, all I can come up with is someone asking Newton (many years later, perhaps when he was a celebrity): "So how did you come up with your crazy idea about gravity?" to which he probably replied something like: "I was lazing around in the orchard one day when I happened to see an apple fall, and it got me thinking." Then the story probably got garbled, possibly by the influence of his enemies, "An apple fell on his head and knocked some sense into him ..."

:: Of course, unless one finds the original materials that were written at the time (there ''must'' be ''something'' written down) then it remains speculation. Maybe such material does exist in the public domain but just hasn't been made popular. --[[User talk:WestwoodMatt|Matt Westwood]] 09:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

== Edit request - Misconception: Re-freezing defrosted foods such as meat is dangerous ==

It is a common misconception that once food (particularly raw meat) has been defrosted, it must not be re-frozen. Many sources (such as http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/focus_on_freezing/index.asp#14) state that this is not true. While the quality of meat may be degraded by cell-wall damage with each freezing (including the first), there is no intrinsic danger in the defrost/refreeze process itself.

[[Special:Contributions/80.175.12.57|80.175.12.57]] ([[User talk:80.175.12.57|talk]]) 13:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
:{{notdone}}. Please provide a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that this is a '''''common''''' misconception. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 21:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
::Sure - I take your point. I'm going to find it difficult to find something that clearly states it's a common misconception - it's just one of those things that most people think they know. But I realise and agree that's not a 'reliable source' in itself, so I guess we'll have to leave this one out then...

[[Special:Contributions/80.175.12.57|80.175.12.57]] ([[User talk:80.175.12.57|talk]]) 09:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Glad you get the point. I'm afraid if it can be sourced or accepted here by consensus, it can't go in the article. My personl opinion is that this is ''not'' a common misconception. Most people that I've ever heard mention this only refer to it reducing the taste quality of the food, not any danger. I think refreezing is in the same category as eating molded bread: most people would never do it because of the taste, but they know it's not a health problem. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 16:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

== Standardize format ==

Most items in this list start with "xxx is/was/did not yyy", which clearly states a misconception. Some start with "it is a common misconception that yyy". The second format is redundant (we already know that it is about a common misconception) and confusing when contrasted with most items in the first format.

I propose that items should be standardised so that the misconception is stated in the first form, and that items not in this format be changed to conform to this format. It might help if a small section titled something like "Format rules for this list" was placed at the top of this talk page and not archived.

A similar issue has already been discussed above in the section "Contrary to the common myth" but has not reached a consensus because only one other editor apart from me has been involved. I would be grateful if we could get more than one person to comment here. [[User:Andreclos|Andreclos]] ([[User talk:Andreclos|talk]]) 21:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

:As previously discussed, I think that the best way to handle this is to rewrite the article in a Misconception - Fact format like [http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?ucpg=3&pgnew=False&cp-documentid=100236538&ucsort=4&= this]. Anyway, given the recent high traffic to the article and the constant edit requests, this probably isn't the best time to reformat the article. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 18:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

::Fair enough, and I can see nobody else is interested, so it is not worth pursuing. [[User:Andreclos|Andreclos]] ([[User talk:Andreclos|talk]]) 21:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

:::I would strongly agree with the Misconception - Fact format. As well as improving readability, having to explicitly set each item out that way would make it easier to put sources in a logical place, and point out where they haven't been supplied for either the misconception or fact. (Which is far too often in this article.) [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 22:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

::::After the edit requests finally die down and we've cleaned up the entries that don't belong, I'd like to try to address this issue again. Since the article is ''long'', it might be a good idea to split up the work. Maybe each editor can volunteer to handle different sections. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 17:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

:::I think this is a good idea. I've seen a book about misconceptions that use a similar format. The misconception is stated as a heading, and the text underneath explains the misconception. We could do something like that, for example:
<div style="border:1px solid green; margin: 0 3em 0 9em;">
;The moon is made of green cheese.
The moon is actually made of pumice. In 1969 the Apollo 11 brought back samples of... etc...
</div>
:::Then there would be no need to have the labels "Misconception" and "Fact" repeated over and over. In this case we would use the semicolon as the lead character for the header, as I have done above. That creates a heading on Wikipedia without including it in the table of contents. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] ([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]]) 21:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

== Zero is an even number ==

{{User|JamesBWatson}} restored this item. Before it is restored again, I am asking for quotation(s) from the source indicating that it is a ''common'' misconception among adults. I acknowledge that I have not looked at the source because it is unavailable online, but given the necessity for sourcing that a misconception is common (and the virtually infinite number of potential additions to the article without it), I think this is a reasonable request. Stating that it is sourced simply because it has a citation does not convince me that the source provides evidence that it is a common misconception among the general population. This is similar to the 0.999...<1 misconception, which eventually was accepted because of both reliable sources and consensus. I don't think we should expect any less from this item. Judging from the title of the source, it appears it is a book pertaining to mathematics for children. If so, I doubt that it provides such evidence for adults. Thanks. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 19:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
:Agree. This is far from a ''common'' misconception even if anyone anywhere actually thinks it! [[User:Turkeyphant|'''''Turkeyphan''''']][[User talk:Turkeyphant|<big>t</big>]] 20:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
::Just to be clear here, the alleged misconception is that zero ''isn't'' an even number right, the title of this section is confusing on that point. There's some information in the [[Parity of zero]] article that might be a starting point if anybody did want to pursue this. Quite surprised at the number of elementary school teachers who got this incorrect 2/3rds in one study mentioned there, but then is that a misconception, where they have an incorrect belief that it isn't an even number, or just a lack of knowledge/education when trying to answer the question, even the statistics about students are fairly surprising. Obviously will need a fairly convincing ref to support its inclusion here.[[User:Number36|Number36]] ([[User talk:Number36|talk]]) 00:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Just to clarify even further, it's not whether zero is even or not that is the issue - it's whether zero is actually a number at all that causes the intellectual problems: [http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Mathematics/?view=usa&ci=9780195142372 The Nothing That Is by Robert Kaplan] is a work I'm familiar with about the history of this. Once the acceptability of zero as an actual number is resolved, its even-ness follows automatically. So I would argue '''against''' this entry. --[[User talk:WestwoodMatt|Matt Westwood]] 09:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

== Edit Request: Elephants (not) afraid of mice. ==

Mythbusters aired an episode concerning the popular "elephants are afraid of mice" belief. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpTSA_25wGE Video Link]
Considering the current source disproving this common misconception is of a small sample size (1) and that the only elephant tested was a trained circus elephant, I suggest removing the misconception altogether, as no truly verifiable source exists and the two that we have (ABC News/Mythbusters) are contradictory. If we keep the misconception, it could read "Not all elephants are afraid of mice" instead of simply "Elephants are not afraid of mice" — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:WoodyTrombone|WoodyTrombone]] ([[User talk:WoodyTrombone|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/WoodyTrombone|contribs]]) 19:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 
:Hm, I think this is a myth. See [http://books.google.com/books?id=fBT-s3KdwSMC&pg=PA7&dq=elephants+afraid+of+mice&hl=en&ei=N2w3TfqUMoGBlAe07JjbBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=elephants%20afraid%20of%20mice&f=false this], [http://books.google.com/books?id=ohjY-nt401IC&pg=PA26&dq=elephants+afraid+of+mice&hl=en&ei=N2w3TfqUMoGBlAe07JjbBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=elephants%20afraid%20of%20mice&f=false this], [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=1wQpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=dkgDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6738,3440510&dq=elephants+afraid+of+mice&hl=en this], [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=et8jAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SCcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6850,315252&dq=elephants+afraid+of+mice&hl=en this], [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=pAcvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IikEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6807,2932585&dq=elephants+afraid+of+mice&hl=en this], [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=T_1NAAAAIBAJ&sjid=iYsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4227,3901544&dq=elephants+afraid+of+mice&hl=en this], and [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1308415/Elephants-NOT-afraid-mice-terrified-ants.html this]. '''/[[User:Fetchcomms|ƒETCH]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|COMMS]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|/]]''' 23:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
::I'm not sure what you mean by "this is a myth". If you are equating "myth" with "common misconception", there's nothing in the sources verifying that it's a ''common'' misconception. Essentially, the sources ask the question ("Are elephants afraid of mice?"), and then answer it ("no", followed by some evidence that elephants aren't afraid of mice). There's nothing about the misconception being common. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 00:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

: It may be a common cartoon theme but I don't see a source establishing that a greater number of people actually believe it. And come on, both the source given here and mythbusters are a joke as far as actual research goes. Indeed you would need a bigger sample size, check for variables like surprise, reaction to other unknown animals, color of the mouse, a variation of different ways of exposure...one could even claim the Elephant is carefully avoiding stepping on the mouse :) So again I was bold and took it out. --[[User:Echosmoke|Echosmoke]] ([[User talk:Echosmoke|talk]]) 05:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

== Edit Request: Alexander Graham Bell Invented the Telephone. ==

I think it's pretty clear that this is a common misconception. Here are sources that show that the US Govt has formally recognized that the telephone was invented by an Italian inventor named Meucci:
<ref>http://hnn.us/articles/802.html</ref> and <ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/17/humanities.internationaleducationnews</ref>
JW Depew 19:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Jw depew — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jw depew|Jw depew]] ([[User talk:Jw depew|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jw depew|contribs]])  
:My personal opinion is that most people believe Bell invented the telephone. But there are a few problems here. First, the item does need a reliable source that it is a common misconception, or otherwise be accepted here by consensus. More importantly, however, a resolution by the U.S. House of Representatives is not unequivocal evidence that Bell did not invent the telephone. A House resolution has no force of law (it's just the opinion of the majority of members; and even U.S. laws must also be passed by the U.S. Senate); and even if it were a law, a law does not determine historical fact. The U.S. Congress could pass a "law" that the Earth is flat, but that wouldn't make the Earth flat. I realize that there has long been controversy about who invented the telephone, and I think if you look at reliable sources you will not get a firm answer. For one thing, how do we define "invent"? Bell was the first to get a U.S. patent; does that mean he invented the telephone if someone else had the idea first but didn't get the patent on time. And often it is not clear when the actual moment of "invention" occurred when two or more people have similar but not identical ideas. Bell got the legal rights with his patent. But who actually invented the telephone is very much a matter of debate. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 21:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
::"''I think it's pretty clear that...''" and "''...most people believe Bell invented the telephone''" are perfect examples of [[WP:OR|original research]], without reliable sources to back up the claims. To the latter comment I would respond "''How many of the world's six billion people have you checked with to justify a claim of '''most'''?''" and to the former "''Well, that's a sample of one.''" Personally I'm well aware that there were a number of parallel efforts underway that together led to voice communication over wires. That's a sample of one too, but at least I'm honest about it. I wonder if there would be an American bias towards believing in Bell, an Italian/British bias towards Marconi, and a healthier mix elsewhere? No, we have not been presented with decent evidence that it's a '''common''' misconception. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 22:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Actually the issue with Marconi is whether he invented radio (wireless telegraphy) -- he didn't-- not the telephone (a debate on that one is in the archives). In the U.S., the debate generally is between Bell and [[Elisha Gray]] for the telephone. Italians (and those of Italian descent) may be more likely to credit [[Antonio Meucci]]. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 22:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
::::Talking about his book on Bell/Gray, Seth Shulman calls the Bell misconception "accepted history". [http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2008/01/02/hang_on_a_minute/] [[User:Pepso2|Pepso2]] ([[User talk:Pepso2|talk]]) 12:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

== Cotton swabs ==

It's a common misconception that cotton swabs should be used to clear the inside of the ear and remove earwax, but doctors say otherwise. In fact, cotton swabs can damage the ear. Could someone add this since the page's protected? There're references on the [[Cotton swab]] and [[Earwax]] articles. [[Special:Contributions/201.81.88.100|201.81.88.100]] ([[User talk:201.81.88.100|talk]]) 01:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
:{{notdone}}. Please provide a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that this is a '''''common''''' misconception. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 01:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
::Does this one really need a source that it's a common misconception, given that so many others on this page lack sources. It's a very widely held belief not only that q-tips are useful for cleaning ears, but that this use is their main function.
:::Yes, it does. Each proposed new entry is judged on its merits alone, not in comparison to existing junk that still needs cleaning up. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] ([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]]) 21:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

== Edit Request: The Misconceoption Concerning the Great Wall of China being seen from "Space" ==

Further evidence for the veracity of this section can be added by the words of Taikonaut Yang Liwei who was the first Chinese national in space, where he regretted to report that he could see no evidence of the Great Wall, although he had specifically looked for it.
<ref>http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200310/17/eng20031017_126232.shtml</ref>

== Mathematics "reliable sources"/"primary sources" ==

Someone temporarily added a "primary source" tag to the "Mathematics" section. These are the sources provided:
*{{Cite book|last=Eccles|first=Peter J. |title= An introduction to mathematical reasoning: numbers, sets, and functions|year= 1997|publisher= [[Cambridge University Press]]|page=167|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ImCSX_gm40oC&pg=PA167#v=onepage&q&f=false|isbn=0521597188|quote=Intuition suggests that this means that the repeating decimal<math>0.\bar{9}</math> is also less than 1, and this is a common misconception.}}
*{{Cite book|last=Maor|first=Eli |year= 1991 |title= To infinity and beyond: a cultural history of the infinite|publisher=[[Princeton University Press]]|page=32| ISBN=9780691025117|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=lXjF7JnHQoIC&pg=PA32#v=onepage&q&f=false|quote=Many people find it hard to accept this simple fact, and one can often hear a heated discussion as to its validity.}}
These references are both textbooks published by scholarly presses – they are not primary sources. — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 11:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

:I'm not sure how you can have a primary source on mathematics. Sounds like nonsense to me. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 16:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
::Maybe you could call a research paper a primary source. But not a textbook. — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 16:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
:::The last remark is clearly not written by a mathematician. Textbooks aren't always just the things you use in a high-school math class. Many mathematicians publish textbooks on cutting edge topics, collecting the new results in the field from theirs and others' papers, as well as introducing new contributions. There's no reason to rule a paper a primary source but a textbook not. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.64.22.7|88.64.22.7]] ([[User talk:88.64.22.7|talk]]) 20:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC) 
::::I can't claim to be an expert on the difference between primary and secondary sources, but doesn't "''collecting the new results in the field from theirs and others' papers''" make something a secondary source (at least that part of the information), i.e., a source that "[[WP:PSTS|analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research]]"? [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 22:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::Finish reading the sentence you quoted: "as well as introducing new contributions." --[[Special:Contributions/88.65.240.64|88.65.240.64]] ([[User talk:88.65.240.64|talk]]) 04:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Anon 88, snide, condescending remarks are neither necessary nor appropriate, and it does nothing to promote your argument. You would do well to read [[WP:CIVIL]]. I read the sentence. My point (which I clearly stated) is that the portion of the source that involves "collecting the new results in the field from theirs and others' papers" could be secondary, even though new contributions may be primary. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 04:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::From [[WP:NOR]] [[User:Asher196|Asher196]] ([[User talk:Asher196|talk]]) 22:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published [[secondary sources]] and, to a lesser extent, on [[tertiary sources]]. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about [[primary sources]] must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of [[WP:COMMON|common sense]] and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages. For the purposes of this policy, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are defined as follows:<ref>[http://www.lib.umd.edu/guides/primary-sources.html This University of Maryland library page] provides typical examples of primary, secondary and tertiary sources.</ref>

* '''[[Primary source]]s''' are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper is a primary source about the experiments performed by the authors. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources; ancient works (even if they cite earlier lost writings) are generally considered primary sources.<ref>Further examples include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. For definitions of primary sources:
* The [http://www.library.unr.edu/instruction/help/primary.html University of Nevada, Reno Libraries] define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: '''original documents''', such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage, official records, photographs, raw research data, and speeches; '''creative works''', such as art, drama, films, music, novels, poetry; and '''relics or artifacts''', such as buildings, clothing, DNA, furniture, jewelry, pottery.
* The [http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/instruct/guides/primarysources.html University of California, Berkeley library] offers this definition: "Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during an historical event or time period. Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied, or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs) and they reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer."
* [http://library.duke.edu/research/finding/primarysource.html Duke University, Libraries] offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents."</ref>

::{{fontcolor|maroon|'''''Policy'''''}}: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. '''Do not''' make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. '''Do not''' base articles entirely on primary sources. '''Do not''' add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]], which is policy.

* '''[[Secondary source]]s''' are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them.<ref>[http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/instruct/guides/primarysources.html University of California, Berkeley library] defines "secondary source" as "a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the event".</ref> For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.<ref>The [http://www.ithacalibrary.com/sp/subjects/primary Ithaca College Library] compares research articles (primary sources) to review articles (secondary sources).</ref> Whether a source is primary or secondary may depend on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source of material about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source of material about those experiences.

::{{fontcolor|maroon|'''''Policy'''''}}: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.{{underdiscussion-inline|talk=dubious}}

* '''[[Tertiary source]]s''' are publications such as encyclopedias or other [[Compendium|compendia]] that mainly summarize secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.

::{{fontcolor|maroon|'''''Policy'''''}}: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself.

== Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds is not LSD reference John Lennon son Jules (Julian Lennon) made a drawing en he called it ==

{{tl|edit semi-protected}}

Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds is not LSD reference John Lennon tells that his son Jules (Julian Lennon) made a drawing en he called it "lucy in the sky with diamonds" because the woman in de drawing was flying. Happiness is a warm gun and Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! both was misunderstood as he explains it in this interview from Dick Cavett in The Dick Cavett Show (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dick_Cavett_Show) John Lennon talks about drugs & Kyoko Cox - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LftibKEA7U&feature=related

[[User:Lvssvl|Lvssvl]] ([[User talk:Lvssvl|talk]]) 02:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
:{{notdone}}. Please provide a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that this is a '''''common''''' misconception. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 02:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

== cold weather really does spread flu ==

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12808-cold-weather-really-does-spread-flu.html
I saw the above article in 2007. I do not know if it has been verified by additional study.
While I agree that Influenza is not the "common cold", the findings in the article do support the common conception.
[[Special:Contributions/98.116.27.157|98.116.27.157]] ([[User talk:98.116.27.157|talk]]) 14:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Joseph Kohn MD, DrKohn@WeAreOne.cc
:{{notdone}}. Please provide a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that this is a '''''common''''' misconception. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 16:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

== For discussion: double-jointedness ==

For some reason, lots of people think being "double-jointed" is a real thing. As if they have extra joints the rest of the human race doesn't have. Yes, it is just a colloquialism for flexibility, but it might be something worth discussing for inclusion in the list. I know, you want lots of sources to prove a misconception that everyone's heard of... Google "double-jointed" and you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm just throwing this out there for discussion, not presenting a dissertation on it (as some people feel the need to do on here...) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/208.64.91.43|208.64.91.43]] ([[User talk:208.64.91.43|talk]]) 06:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC) 

== A few potential additions ==

This article and the ones it links to seem like they may merit inclusion:
:[http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/the-ideology-of-health-care/ Believing in Treatments That Don’t Work]
The article lists the misconceptions, and in some cases states itself that the beliefs are common, so it'd need to be sourced on a case-by-case basis. — [[User:DanPMK|MK]] ([[User Talk:DanPMK|t]]/[[Special:contributions/DanPMK|c]]) 20:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
:I did a quick read, including some of the links in the article. The only suggestion that any of them are "common" misconceptions is that they are commonly held by physicians. Without additional sourcing, I don't think we can include a misconception just because it's commonly held by physicians and not the broader population. If I missed something, please let me know. [[User:Cresix|Cresix]] ([[User talk:Cresix|talk]]) 22:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

== Question for the audience--who supports deletion? ==

Because of my experience with past AfDs on topics like this, I'm hesitant to take this article to AfD, as my gut feeling is that it will be kept under the grounds that the fundamental idea isn't flawed even if the current instance is. I disagree with this, because I don't believe that the topic of this article is sufficiently well defined or notable for it to ever reach an acceptable form. That is, I don't believe that we can adequately define what a "common misconception" is (does a "common legend" qualify? what about an "well-known urban legend"? how about something that is "regularly taught in school but is actually incorrect?"). I think that if we restrict this to only subjects for which the term "common misconception" is used in an RS, then we have a non-notable topic, because, as far as I know, there is no reliable research do document "Common Misconceptions" as itself notable. If we expand this to include other similar terms, we start running into all sorts of problems, as we've seen--does it have to be common among "everyone?" Does everyone mean worldwide (clearly not)? Does it mean "English speakers?" Can we include common misconceptions among only people in the U.S.? How about among physicians, or teenagers, or middle class people between the ages of 20 and 25 living on the west coast of the US of non-white ethnic descent? And if we really expand, I would argue that we could reasonably include half of what appears in [[Mythbusters]], nearly everything in ''[[Lies My Teacher Told Me]]'', and who knows how many other books of "Common but False" anecdotes. In other words, I'm arguing that not only is this article currently broken, because it lacks a clear inclusion criteria, but that we cannot produce a suitable inclusion criteria that will make this list notable and not original research.

I'd like to get a sense if anyone else feels the same way I do, as there's no point in me AfDing this just to get a nebulous "no consensus" result that doesn't actually improve the article. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 01:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

: I agree completely that this article is pointless. A good Wikipedia article that is a'' List of...'' would list instances of something that is clearly defined, usually in another article. The first sentence of this article should read something like "''This is a list of [[common misconceptions]] together with the truth in each case''". But look closely at that link. It points straight back here. It's a circular link. There is no definition! We have a list of undefinable things. Why? I shall partly nswer that. A lot of the entries are of the form "''I know something you don't know. Therefore I'm smarter than you.''" I don't think such a list belongs in a global encyclopaedia aiming to be as good as it can be. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 01:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:: I disagree with deletion. I think this article serves a useful purpose, and is documented and supported by reliable sources. Additionally, as long as we stick to finding sources which explicitly call something a common misconception, I think we have valid inclusion criteria which makes the list non-arbitrary. I discussed this briefly in one of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=408317228&oldid=408316483 my comments above]. If we have a problem now, it's that we're using only one article to encompass all possible fields of misconceptions, which makes this page unwieldy. If we split the article into specific topics, as has been proposed multiple times in the past week, I think many of these issues would go away. [[User:Mann_jess|Jess]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|talk]]|[[User:Mann_jess/Cs|edits]] 01:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:::You speak of depending on reliable sources saying that something is a ''common misconception''. Yes, that can be achieved for some entries, but if we looked for exactly those words in the sources, I suspect a lot of the article will just have to go. Are you happy if I delete all such entries right now? If we allow some flexibility, how much? That's venturing into [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:SYNTHESIS]]. Many times the word ''myth'' is used in the article and on this Talk page instead of ''misconception'', without any certainty as to what that means either. I can't see how splitting it up would help the absence of a reliable definition either. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 01:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

::::HiLo48 is hitting on my key point. If the article is going to be kept, we need to define ''exactly'' what the inclusion criteria are. We need to define whether or not the exact words have to be used, and, if not, what other words or ideas are compatible. We also need to clearly define among what population the conception must be "common". I'm thinking here of the 0.999... section, and whether or not its okay that this is a misconception is specifically among school students, or a previously rejected entry which was specifically a misconception among physicians, or the question before about something being a misconception specifically in France. I not only have no answers to these questions, but posit that we will never obtain answers that allow us to get beyond original research and notability problems. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 01:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::I stand by my comment. I think it's reasonable to expect quality sourcing can be found for enough content to constitute an article, if indeed there isn't quality sourcing for all of it now, along with sourcing which is explicit about the concept being a "common misconception" or using an obvious synonym of one of those words. I don't see any reason why any such issue could not be discussed on the talk page and develop into clear consensus, and ''hypothesizing'' that certain simple problems will be insurmountable in the future appears to be poor reasoning for deleting what is otherwise fine content. [[User:Mann_jess|Jess]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|talk]]|[[User:Mann_jess/Cs|edits]] 04:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::It's a nice thought, but we'll be debating "''obvious synonyms''" of "''common misconceptions''" until the cows come home. I just started checking existing sources, starting at the start of the article. It took until the seventeenth source to find the exact words "common misconception". Some said nothing of the kind. Some said ''myth''. One wittily said "''mythconception''" but not ''common''. Who is going to work on those first 16? (And obviously the 250 odd other sources.) [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 04:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Common = "Widespread; prevalent." 
Let's stick with that definition and keep this article which I personally find to be informative and fascinating. Go ahead and make some clearer criteria, but how hard is it to use your editorial judgment to determine if something is a widespread, false belief? [[User:AerobicFox|AerobicFox]] ([[User talk:AerobicFox|talk]]) 05:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:"does a "common legend" qualify? what about an "well-known urban legend"?"
:A list of well known Urban Legends would be good for that.[[User:AerobicFox|AerobicFox]] ([[User talk:AerobicFox|talk]]) 05:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
::Because our "editorial judgment" already disagrees, and I believe the problem is intractable until we get a strong, clear definition. For instance, I consider the "misconceptions" of teenagers in general to not qualify here (as that is a matter of lack of maturity), while the "misconceptions" of a country (France) or profession (physicians) probably qualify. Furthermore, I believe that if we are going to take this article for what it claims to be, then myths, many urban legends, old wive's tales, and the like, all qualify. I actually believe that if the article is called what it is currently, then we are fully justified in including almost anything that [[Mythbusters]] has ever covered (that was proven false), since basically the whole point of that show is to test common myths. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 05:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Clearer criteria is fine. Not all urban legends are false though, so those wouldn't appear here, and not all urban legends are commonly believed, some are even commonly ridiculed (Alligators in the sewers), and these would not qualify either. [[User:AerobicFox|AerobicFox]] ([[User talk:AerobicFox|talk]]) 05:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

::::@Hilo48 If you think we need a clearer understanding of the scope of this article, you should start a new discussion so we can hash out any of those issues. Proposing the article be deleted because you ''forsee'' that such a discussion won't be helpful seems premature. [[User:Mann_jess|Jess]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|talk]]|[[User:Mann_jess/Cs|edits]] 06:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::Just to clarify, I didn't propose deletion, but I did agree with the proposal. As Qwyrxian said, there has already been some discussion on the potential for definition, and it wasn't good. I'm getting no response from the "keepers" here to the issues I'm raising anyway. No response to the "1 out of 17" research I did. Lot's of disagreement in this thread. It all tells me that those hoping for cooperation on definition for every item have rocks in their heads. Please respond to the specific challenges already raised. Don't leave at generalisations like "I think it could work". [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 06:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::I understand you weren't the proposer, and I am not arguing "I think it could work". I'm arguing that deleting the entire article because you "think it won't work" without trying it first is premature. If we have an issue, we can address the issue then... but first start a new section to discuss the issues you want resolved, and if that fails, then we can talk about where to go next. [[User:Mann_jess|Jess]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|talk]]|[[User:Mann_jess/Cs|edits]] 07:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

===Another test case===
{{outdent}}I see another great test case that was added, removed, and just now re-added: the fairly commonly held belief (20-24% of US'ers) that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Does that belong? I can see a very sound, logical argument for both inclusion and exclusion. Under what criteria can we definitively determine whether this belongs in or not? [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 07:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:Either would be [[WP:OR|OR]]. Do we have a RS which explicitly says it's common? [[User:Mann_jess|Jess]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|talk]]|[[User:Mann_jess/Cs|edits]] 07:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

::Are you saying that we can't call 20-24% common? What if it was 80-90% Are you saying that the inclusion criteria is "must include the word common"? If so, what other words are you (and other editors) willing to accept that are synonymous? For me, 20-24% is a close enough synonym to anonymous. And, even ignoring all of that, if there is an RS which says it's common, can it then be included? [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 08:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Just to keep the threads in-tact, I replied to your section below. I don't care where we talk about this, but let's try to keep it in one place. [[User:Mann_jess|Jess]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|talk]]|[[User:Mann_jess/Cs|edits]] 09:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

===Allow me to be pointy for a moment===
Can we interpret statistics to count something as common? For instance, a research study discussed in [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html this NYT article] One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth". That's 20%--that sounds common to me, and there's no doubt it's a "mistake" (which the article does of course point out). But the article doesn't say "misconception", so perhaps we can't include it here. If the article said "common mistake," could we include it? It says that, regarding examples like this, "Americans don't have a clue." That sounds close enough to me. What about the very common misconception that the Earth is only 6000 years old (I'm sure I could find a statistic about that as well). Or am I unfairly choosing sides in an "open debate" to call that a misconception? What if I find an article in a Hindu journal that says something like "50% of the world has the common misconception that there is only one God, something which we know to be false because of (cite religious text Y)." Now that obviously doesn't belong, but how is it different from the 6000 year old example? What if I find a reliable source claiming that Global Warming is a common misconception? Or, on the contrary, a reliable source that says that Global Warming denial is a misconception? Technically, if our definition is just "labeled as a common misconception in a reliable source" qualifies, then I have to put either one or both in, if I can find it. But, of course, I might have a problem if one is a "common misconception" and one is a "typical mistake..."

Note that, if I were adding these to the article, I would be being [[WP:POINT|pointy]]. I'm not, but I am putting them here to assert that this problem is insoluble--not because we haven't tried, but because we have an article without a clearly defined topic. Now, maybe, somehow, we can come up with a topic clear enough to resolve some of my pointiness...but I doubt it will solve anything in the long run. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 08:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:Proposing hypothetical examples doesn't help, largely because there are issues beyond their prevalence. For example, that a Hindu might say it's a "common misconception" that there is only one god is irrelevant, because that can't be documented as an actual misconception. It seems appropriate to stick to ''actual'' examples in the article. Your Obama section above is a good one. To use a certain percentage as common, we would have to first establish consensus, clearly label it within the article, and find some justification within reliable sources to use the figure. I don't expect that can be done. So, yes, we would have to find a reliable source which says the belief is "common", explicitly. Per [[WP:V]], "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"; It doesn't matter if it is ''actually'' common, it only matters if it's been documented in reliable sources that it is. [[User:Mann_jess|Jess]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|talk]]|[[User:Mann_jess/Cs|edits]] 09:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

::OK, picking up on the Obama example, you may well find a source that tells us the situation in America, but this is a global encyclopaedia (as you should be able to tell from my spelling there). There is unlikely to be a reliable source telling us the global situation. So, do we accept "''common in one country''"? "''Common in part of a country''"? How big does the country or part of a country have to be? [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 09:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

::: I am one of probably a lot of people who was made aware of this article through a recent xkcd comic. My initial reaction (although I liked the article and enjoyed reading it) was that I could not understand how this article could survive [[WP:NOR]] and other guidelines. Reading the article and the talk page, I found that my first reactions were not entirely unfounded. I enjoyed a lot of the article, but clearly a lot of the "misconceptions" put in here are not common, and some - like "does lightening strike twice" - are not (in my opinion) even misconceptions. Also, when you look at the discussions about things like 0.999..=1 and "birds are dinosaurs", it illustrates the difficulity in defining what a misconception is and what makes it common. And how much work and effort will need to be put into discussing every new item from every conceivable angle. I see Jess' point that anticipating a problem in the future is not a reason to delete, but I'm inclined to disagree. The best proposed inclusion criteria would probably be the suggested one about the exact phrase "common misconception" appearing in a reliable source. Of course, this has the problems outlined above that it would lead to items that are certainly not what most people would think of as common misconceptions being included just because someone, ''in some context'', described it as a common misconception. Maybe it could be solved by demanding multiple, independent, sources; but I'm not sure about that either. I don't think a deletion debate would lead anywhere, and if that is the case then the best thing would be to agree on some form of inclusion criteria and make the best of it. [[User:Dr bab|Dr bab]] ([[User talk:Dr bab|talk]]) 15:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

== Schizophrenia ==

I added a point about Schizophrenia to this article. All I did was copy some text from the Wikipedia article on the subject, including this: "The term [[schizophrenia]] is commonly misunderstood to mean that affected persons have a "split personality"."

My addition was removed shortly after with this comment: "No evidence that this is a COMMON misconception. Please provide a source stating that, or take it to the talk page."

I'm no Wikipedia expert in any way, so I'm taking it to the talk page. What do you guys think? In my experience (not a reliable source, of course), most people believe that Schizophrenia == split personality. The Wikipedia article about Schizophrenia states that this is common. There are many articles out there that says (very nearly) the same thing: eHealthMD[http://www.ehealthmd.com/library/schizophrenia/SCH_whatis.html], Helpguide.org[http://www.ehealthmd.com/library/schizophrenia/SCH_whatis.html], BBC's H2G2[http://www.ehealthmd.com/library/schizophrenia/SCH_whatis.html], and many more.

Is this evidence enough? Or how is this really done?

This is my first time going to the talk page to solve a dispute, so I hope you'll be kind to me. :)

PS: Even though this is further proof that it is difficult to know what is common enough to be included in this article, I don't agree that it should be deleted, as some people are debating above.

--[[User:Forteller|Forteller]] ([[User talk:Forteller|talk]]) 16:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions

2011-01-23T23:37:20Z

Forteller: /* The brain */ Fixed one typo and added Schizophrenia

{{Redirect|Misconception|the Law & Order episode|Misconception (Law & Order)}}
{{pp-semi-indef}}
{{Dynamic list}}

This list describes fallacious ideas and beliefs which are documented and widespread as well as the actual facts concerning those ideas, where appropriate.

==History==
{{see also|List of misquotations}}

===Ancient to early modern history===
* In [[ancient Rome]], Romans did not build rooms called vomitoria in which to purge themselves after a meal.<ref>{{cite web|title=Vomitorium|url=http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/vomitorium|work=Oxford Dictionary|publisher=Oxford Dictionaries|accessdate=2010-12-02}}</ref> [[Vomitorium|Vomitoria]] were the entranceways through which crowds entered and exited a stadium.<ref>{{cite book|last=McKeown|first=J.C.|title=A Cabinet of Roman Curiosities: Strange Tales and Surprising Facts from the World’s Greatest Empire|year=2010|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=0195393759, 9780195393750|pages=153–154|url=http://books.google.com/?id=YGYwlMZ3ursC&pg=PA153&dq=vomitorium+misconception#v=onepage&q=vomitorium%20misconception&f=false}}</ref>
* There is no evidence that [[Vikings]] wore horns on their helmets.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Did Vikings Wear Horned Helmets?|first=Robert |last=Wilde|url=http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/thevikings/a/histmyths6.htm|publisher=About.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Did Vikings really wear horns on their helmets?|url=http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2189/did-vikings-really-wear-horns-on-their-helmets|publisher=StraightDope.com}}</ref>
* There is no evidence that [[Iron maiden (torture)|iron maiden]]s were invented in the [[Middle Ages]] or even used for torture, despite being shown so in some media, but instead were pieced together in the 18th century from several [[artifact (archaeology)|artifacts]] found in museums in order to create spectacular objects intended for (commercial) exhibition.<ref>{{cite book
| first = Wolfgang
| last = Schild
| year = 2000
| title = Die eiserne Jungfrau. Dichtung und Wahrheit (Schriftenreihe des Mittelalterlichen Kriminalmuseums Rothenburg o. d. Tauber Nr. 3)
| pages =
| publisher =
| location = Rothenburg ob der Tauber
| id =
| url =
}}</ref>
*[[Christopher Columbus]]'s efforts to obtain support for his voyages were not hampered by a [[Europe]]an belief in a [[flat Earth]]. [[Sailor]]s and [[navigator]]s of the time knew that the [[spherical Earth|Earth was spherical]], but (correctly) disagreed with Columbus' estimate of the distance to [[India]], which was approximately {{frac|1|6}}th of the actual distance. If the Americas did not exist, and had Columbus continued to India, he would have run out of supplies before reaching it at the rate he was traveling. Without the ability to determine [[longitude]] at sea, he could not have corrected his error.{{clarify|reason=What is his error that he is correcting?|date=January 2011}} This problem remained unsolved until the 18th century, when the [[lunar distance (navigation)|lunar distance]] method emerged in parallel with efforts by inventor [[John Harrison]] to create the first [[marine chronometer]]s. The intellectual class had known<ref name="aquinas">{{Cite web|url=http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm#1|accessdate=July 31, 2010|title=Summa Theologica Question 1|last=Aquinas|first=St Thomas}}</ref> that the Earth was spherical since the works of the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle.<ref name="dicks">{{Cite book|last=Dicks|first=D.R.|title=Early Greek Astronomy to Aristotle|page=68|year=1970|isbn=9780801405617|publisher=Cornell University Press.|location=Ithaca, NY}}</ref> [[Eratosthenes]] made a very good estimate of the Earth's diameter in the third century BC.<ref>{{Cite book|url=http://www.lonelyplanet.com/shop_pickandmix/previews/panama-veraguas-province-preview.pdf |title=Panama - Veraguas Province |publisher=LonelyPlanet.com |page=174 |date=|accessdate=2010-06-23}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Stengle|first=Jamie|url=http://www.philly.com/inquirer/health_science/daily/20080220_Lunar_eclipse__The_view_from_historys_perspective.html|title=Lunar eclipse: The view from history's perspective|publisher= Philadelphia Inquirer |date=February 20, 2008 |publisher=Philly.com |accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref> (See also: [[Myth of the Flat Earth]])
[[Image:Thanksgiving-Brownscombe.jpg|thumb|left|"The First Thanksgiving at Plymouth" (1914) By Jennie A. Brownscombe]]
*Contrary to the popular image of the [[Pilgrim Fathers]], the early settlers of the [[Plymouth Colony]] in present-day [[Plymouth, Massachusetts]], did not dress in black, wear buckles, or wear black steeple hats. According to [[Plimoth Plantation]] historian James W. Baker, this image was formed in the 19th century when buckles were a kind of emblem of [[wikt:quaint|quaintness]]. This is also the reason illustrators gave [[Santa Claus]] buckles.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Shenkman|first=Rick|url=http://hnn.us/articles/406.html|title=Top 10 Myths about Thanksgiving|work=HNN.us|publisher=George Mason University|date=November 21, 2001 |accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Pollak|first=Michael|url=http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/26/technology/screen-grab-mayflower-descendant-digs-deep-into-the-lore.html|title=Screen Grab; Mayflower Descendant Digs Deep Into the Lore|publisher=The New York Times|date=November 26, 1998|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wnet/colonialhouse/print/p-teach_lesson1_answers.html|title="Mythconceptions" Quiz Answer Key |publisher=PBS.org| year=2004| work=Colonial House}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.history.com/topics/mayflower-myths|title=Mayflower Myths - Thanksgiving Holiday|publisher=History.com|date=January 4, 2008|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref>
* [[Marie Antoinette]] did not actually use the phrase "[[let them eat cake]]" when she heard that the French peasantry was starving due to a dearth of bread. The phrase was first published in Rousseau's Confessions when Marie was only 10 years old and most scholars believe that [[Rousseau]] coined it himself, or that it was said by [[Maria Theresa of Spain|Maria-Theresa]], the wife of [[Louis XIV]]. Even Rousseau (or Maria-Theresa) did not use the exact words but actually "Qu'ils mangent de la [[brioche]]" ("Let them eat brioche [a rich type of bread]"). Marie Antoinette was a very unpopular ruler and many people therefore attribute the phrase "let them eat cake" to her, in keeping with her reputation as being hard-hearted and disconnected from her subjects.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Keener|first=Candace|url=http://history.howstuffworks.com/european-history/top-5-marie-antoinette-scandals1.htm|title=HowStuffWorks "Let Them Eat Cake"|publisher=History.howstuffworks.com|date=|accessdate=2010-06-23}}</ref>
*[[George Washington]] did not have wooden teeth. According to a study of Washington's four known dentures by a forensic anthropologist from the [[University of Pittsburgh]] (in collaboration with the [[National Museum of Dentistry]], itself associated with the [[Smithsonian Museum]]), the dentures were made of gold, hippopotamus ivory, lead, and human and animal teeth (including horse and donkey teeth).<ref>{{Cite web|author=|url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6875436/|title=Washington's False Teeth Not Wooden |publisher=MSNBC|date=January 27, 2005|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref>
*It is a common misconception that the signing of the [[United States Declaration of Independence|Declaration of Independence]] occurred on July 4, 1776. The final language of the document was approved by the [[Second Continental Congress]] on that date, it was printed and distributed on July 4 and 5,<ref>{{cite web| title=Declaration of Independence - A History |url=http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_history.html |publisher=U.S. National Archives and Records Administration |work=archives.gov}}</ref> but the actual signing occurred on August 2, 1776.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/new-poll-gauges-americans-general-knowledge-levels.aspx|date=July 6, 1999|title=New Poll Gauges Americans' General Knowledge Levels|first=Steve |last=Crabtree|quote=Fifty-five percent say it commemorates the signing of the Declaration of Independence (this is a common misconception, and close to being accurate; July 4th is actually the date in 1776 when the Continental Congress approved the Declaration, which was officially signed on August 2nd.) Another 32% give a more general answer, saying that July 4th celebrates Independence Day.|publisher=Gallup News Service|accessdate=2011-01-13}}</ref>
* The [[United States Constitution]] was written on [[parchment]], not [[hemp]] paper.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q145.html |title=Constitutional FAQ Answer #145|publisher=USConstitution.net.|work= The U.S. Constitution Online.|accessdate=2011-01-13}}</ref> It is likely that drafts of the document were written on hemp, since a large portion of paper at the time was made from the material.<ref>{{cite web |first=Jack |last=Herer |title=The Emperor Wears No Clothes -- Chapter 2: Fiber and Pulp Paper|publisher=ElectricEmperor.com |url=http://www.electricemperor.com/eecdrom/HTML/EMP/02/ECH02_03.HTM |accessdate=2011-01-15 }}</ref>

===Modern history===
[[Image:Eastlake - Napoleon on the Bellerophon.jpg|thumb|''Napoleon on the Bellerophon'', a painting by [[Charles Lock Eastlake]] depicting [[Napoleon I]], who was taller than his nickname, The Little Corporal, suggests]]
* [[Napoleon I]] (Napoleon Bonaparte) (pictured) was not particularly short,<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/theory-of-napoleon-complex-is-debunked-442338.html|title=Theory of ‘Napoleon complex’ is debunked|accessdate=2009-07-13|work=The Independent|location=London|first=Terry|last=Kirby|date=2007-03-29}}</ref> and did not have a [[Napoleon complex]]. After his death in 1821, the French emperor’s height was recorded as 5 [[Foot (length)|feet]] 2 inches in [[Foot (length)#Obsolete use in different countries|French feet]]. This corresponds to 5 feet 6.5 inches in modern [[International foot|international feet]], or 1.686 [[metres]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.napoleon.org/en/essential_napoleon/faq/index.asp#ancre54|title=www.napoleon.com Fondation Napoléon|publisher=Napoleon.org|date=|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=LA TAILLE DE NAPOLÉON|url=http://www.napoleon.org/fr/salle_lecture/articles/files/Taillenapo_RIN_89_oct1963_2006.asp|language=French|accessdate=2010-07-22}}</ref> There are competing explanations for why he was nicknamed ''le Petit Caporal'' (The Little Corporal),<ref>The Harrap’s Shorter English-French French-English Dictionary on CD-ROM</ref> but few modern scholars believe it referred to his physical stature. Another explanation is that Napoleon was often seen with his [[Imperial Guard (Napoleon I)|Imperial Guard]], which contributed to the perception of him being short because the Imperial Guards were above average height.{{citation needed|date=December 2010}}
*[[Abraham Lincoln]]'s [[Emancipation Proclamation]] of January 1863 did not immediately free all [[Slavery in the United States|American slaves]].<ref>{{Cite news|last=Cruz|first=Gilbert|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1815936,00.html|title=A Brief History of Juneteenth|publisher=TIME|date=2008-06-18|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref> The Proclamation pertained only to areas within rebelling states that were not under Union control. Since those states did not recognize the power of the federal government, most slaves were not immediately freed as a direct result of the Proclamation. Regions in the South that were under [[Confederate Army|Confederate]] control when the Proclamation was issued ignored its dictum, so slave ownership persisted until Union troops captured further Southern territory. Immediately affected regions were [[Tennessee]], southern [[Louisiana]], and parts of [[Virginia]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/chronol.htm|title=Chronology of the Civil War|publisher=History.umd.edu|date=2008-10-13|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref> It was only with the adoption of the [[Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Thirteenth Amendment]] in 1865 that slavery was officially abolished in all of the United States. Thirty-six of the United States recognize June 19 as a holiday, [[Juneteenth]], celebrating the anniversary of the day the abolition of slavery was announced in Texas in 1865.
* Italian dictator [[Benito Mussolini]] did not “make the trains run on time”. Much of the repair work had been performed before Mussolini and the [[National Fascist Party|Fascists]] came to power in 1922. Accounts from the era also suggest that the Italian railways’ legendary adherence to timetables was more myth than reality.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/rear-window-making-italy-work-did-mussolini-really-get-the-trains-running-on-time-1367688.html|title=Rear Window: Making Italy work: Did Mussolini really get the trains running on time|accessdate=2010-09-2013|work=The Independent|location=London|first=BRIAN|last=CATHCART|date=1994-04-03}}</ref> Mussolini's trains were subject to frequent labour disruptions due to his conflict with labour unions.
* During the German [[Invasion of Poland]] in 1939, there is no evidence of [[Polish Cavalry]] mounting a brave but futile charge against German [[tank]]s using lances and sabres. This seems to have its origins in German propaganda efforts following the [[Charge at Krojanty]] in which a Polish cavalry brigade surprised German infantry in the open and charged with sabres until driven off by [[armoured car (military)|armoured cars]]. While Polish cavalry still carried the sabre for such opportunities, they were trained to fight as highly mobile, dismounted infantry and issued with light anti-tank weapons.<ref>''If a single image dominates the popular perception of the Polish campaign of 1939, it is the scene of Polish cavalry bravely charging the Panzers with their lances. Like many other details of the campaign, it is a myth that was created by German wartime propaganda and perpetuated by sloppy scholarship. Yet such myths have also been embraced by the Poles themselves as symbols of their wartime gallantry, achieving a cultural resonance in spite of their variance with the historical record.'' - Steven J. ZALOGA: ''Poland 1939 - The birth of Blitzkrieg''. Oxford: [[Osprey Publishing]], 2002. [http://www.panzerworld.net/fallweiss.html#polishcavalry Panzerworld.net]</ref>
* During [[World War II]], King [[Christian X of Denmark]] did not thwart [[Nazi]] attempts to identify [[Jew]]s by wearing a yellow star himself. Jews in Denmark were never forced to wear the Star of David. The Danes did [[Rescue of the Danish Jews|help most Jews flee the country]] before the end of the war.<ref>{{Cite web|title=The King and the Star — Myths created during the Occupation of Denmark
|url=http://www.diis.dk/graphics/CVer/Personlige_CVer/Holocaust_and_Genocide/Publikationer/holocaust_DK_kap_5.pdf|author=Vilhjálmur Örn Vilhjálmsson|publisher=Danish institute for international studies}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Some Essential Definitions & Myths Associated with the Holocaust|url=http://www.chgs.umn.edu/histories/myths.html|publisher=Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies - University of Minnesota }}</ref>
* [[John F. Kennedy]]'s words "{{lang|de|[[Ich bin ein Berliner]]}}" are standard German for "I am a Berliner".<ref>{{Cite book|last=Daum|first=Andreas W.|title=Kennedy in Berlin|publisher=Cambridge University Press|pages=148–149|year=2007|url=http://books.google.com/?id=IrK1TG34vw8C&lpg=PP1&pg=PT156#v=onepage&q=|isbn=3506719912}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/Wort/Artikel/Gebrauch/ArtIndef.html|title=Gebrauch des unbestimmten Artikels (German, "Use of the indefinite article")|author=Canoo Engineering AG|accessdate=2010-07-05}}</ref> An [[urban legend]] has it that due to his use of the indefinite article ''{{lang|de|ein}}'', ''{{lang|de|Berliner}}'' is translated as ''jam doughnut'', and that the population of Berlin was amused by the supposed mistake. The word ''{{lang|de|Berliner}}'' is not commonly used in Berlin to refer to the ''{{lang|de|[[Berliner (pastry)|Berliner Pfannkuchen]]}}''; they are simply called ''{{lang|de|Pfannkuchen}}''.<ref>[[:de:Ich bin ein Berliner|German wikipedia article on the speech in question]]</ref> In other parts of Germany, though, the term "Berliner" actually also is used for the product in question, so there is a grain of truth in the myth, but of course no Berliner assumed a mistake in the quote.

==Legislation and crime==
*[[Entrapment]] law in the [[United States]] does not require police officers to identify themselves as police in the case of a sting or other undercover work.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/risque/hookers/cop.asp|title=Snopes on Entrapment|publisher=Snopes.com|date=|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref> The law is specifically concerned with enticing people to commit crimes they would not have considered in the normal course of events.<ref>''Sloane'' (1990) 49 A Crim R 270. See also [[agent provocateur]]</ref>
*It is frequently rumored that the expression "[[rule of thumb]]", which is used to indicate a technique for generating a quick estimate, was originally coined from a law allowing a man to beat his wife with a stick, provided it was not thicker than the width of his thumb.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lincolnminutemen.org/history/articles/hafner_rule_of_thumb.html|title=Another Myth in Splinters: “Rule of Thumb”|accessdate=January 6, 2011}}</ref> In fact, the origin of this phrase remains uncertain, but the false etymology has been broadly printed in papers and media such as ''[[The Washington Post]]'' (1989), [[CNN]] (1993), and ''[[Time Magazine]]'' (1983).<ref>{{cite book|title=Who stole feminism?: how women have betrayed women|publisher=Simon and Schuster|year=1995|author=Christina Hoff Sommers|isbn=0684801566|url=http://books.google.com/?id=EIUtJziqIqAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Who+Stole+Feminism%3F+How+Women+Have+Betrayed+Women#v=onepage&q&f=false}}</ref>
*It is often asserted that [[Knife fight|knife attacks]] are more dangerous than an attack with a [[firearm]] ("knives are more lethal than guns").<ref>E.g., [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3950331.ece The Times, 17 May 2008]</ref> While [[self-defense]] instructors often make a point of emphasizing that a knife attack may very easily result in death,<ref>E.g., [http://www.bladecombat.com/knifemyths.html bladecombat.com], [http://www.alljujitsu.com/self-defense-programs.html alljujitsu.com]</ref> there is no statistical evidence that knife attacks are more likely to result in death than an attack with a handgun. A 1968 study claimed that gun attacks are five times more lethal than knife attacks. This figure has since become a controversial point of dispute in [[gun politics]]. A review of several studies published in 1983 concluded that lethality of wounds from handguns is between 1.3 and 3 times higher than lethality of wounds from knives.<ref>Lethality Effects of Guns, in ''Guns in American Society'', ed. Gregg Lee Carter , 2002, ISBN 9781576072684, p. 356-358. The 1968 study cited is F. E. Zimring, 'Is Gun Control Likely to Reduce Violent Killings?', ''University of Chicago Law Review'' 35 (1968), 721-737. Zimring's study classes as "knives" any edged or pointed weapon, resulting in a reduced death rate compared to attacks with long knives. The 1983 study cited is J. D. Wright, P. H. Rossi and K. Daly, ''Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in America'', New York (1983), pp. 199-209.</ref>

== Everyday life ==
*It is often believed that [[mechanical fan]]s are used to cool rooms, but in fact they only cool people who are inside the room. This is because the [[Air current|current of air]] that the fan produces remove the warm layer of air that is next to, and is pre-heated, by the skin.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Kruszelnicki|first=Dr Karl|authorlink=Karl Kruszelnicki|title=Great Myth Conceptions|location=Australia|publisher=[[HarperCollins]]|pp=26–28|isbn=9-780732-280628}}</ref> This air also has the added effect of helping the subject's sweat to evaporate.

==Food and cooking==
[[Image:Western Sushi.jpg|thumb|right|180px|Roll-style Western sushi. Contrary to a popular myth, sushi can contain any number of raw ingredients, including vegetables and other non-meat products.]]
*[[Searing]] meat does not "seal in" moisture, and in fact may actually cause meat to lose moisture. Generally, the value in searing meat is that it creates a brown crust with a rich flavor via the [[Maillard reaction]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.cookthink.com/reference/7/Does_searing_meat_really_seal_in_moisture|title=Does searing meat really seal in moisture?|publisher=Cookthink.com|date=|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref><ref name=McGee>{{Cite book|author=McGee, Harold|title=On Food and Cooking (Revised Edition)|publisher=Scribner|year=2004|isbn=0-684-80001-2}} Page 161, "The Searing Question".</ref>
*[[Mussel]]s that do not open when cooked may still be fully cooked and safe to eat.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Kruszelnicki|first=Karl S.|url=http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/10/29/2404364.htm|title=Mussel myth an open and shut case|publisher=Abc.net.au|date=2008-10-29|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref>
*Some cooks believe that food items cooked with wine or liquor will be non-alcoholic, because [[ethanol|alcohol's]] low boiling point causes it to evaporate quickly when heated. However, a study found that much of the alcohol remains: 25% after 1 hour of baking or simmering, and 10% after 2 hours.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ochef.com/165.htm|title=Does alcohol burn off in cooking?|publisher=Ochef.com|date=|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref>
*''[[Sushi]]'' does not mean "raw fish", and not all sushi includes raw fish.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=xlZ_uopejK8C ''The complete idiot's guide to Asian cooking''] by Annie Wong, Jeffrey Yarbrough; Alpha Books, 2002; ISBN 0-02-864384-4, 9780028643847.</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=q6tl1FmWDdQC How to Do Everything: Everything You Should Know How to Do] Rosemarie Jarski; Published by Globe Pequot, 2007; ISBN 1-59921-221-8, 9781599212210.</ref> The name sushi refers to the vinegared rice used in it. Sushi is made with ''sumeshi'', rice which has been gently folded with rice vinegar, salt, and sugar dressing.<ref>[recipes.howstuffworks.com/sushi.htm]</ref> The rice is traditionally topped by raw fish, cooked seafood, fish [[roe]], [[tamagoyaki|egg]], and/or vegetables such as [[cucumber]], [[daikon]] radish, and [[avocado]]. The related Japanese term, ''[[sashimi]]'', is closer in definition to "raw fish", but still not quite accurate: Sashimi can also refer to any uncooked meat or vegetable, and usually refers more to the dish's presentation than to its ingredients. The dish consisted of sushi rice and other fillings wrapped in [[nori|seaweed]] is called [[makizushi]], and includes both "long rolls" and "hand rolls".
*[[Microwave oven]]s do not cook food from the inside out. Microwave radiation penetrates food and causes direct heating only a short distance from the surface. This distance is called the [[skin depth]]. As an example, lean muscle tissue (meat), has a skin depth of only about 1 cm at microwave oven frequencies.<ref name=VanderVorst>{{Cite book|author=Vander Vorst, Andre|title=RF/Microwave Interaction with Biological Tissues|publisher=John Wiley and Sons|year=2006|isbn=978-0471732778}} Page 43, "Figure 1.8.</ref>
*Placing metal inside a [[microwave oven]] does not damage the oven's electronics. There are, however, other safety-related issues: [[Electric arc|Electrical arcing]] may occur on pieces of metal not designed for use in a microwave oven, and metal objects may become hot enough to damage food, skin, or the interior of the microwave oven. Metallic objects that are designed for microwave use can be used in a microwave with no danger; examples include the metalized surfaces used in [[browning sleeve]]s and pizza-cooking platforms.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7112771/description.html|title=US Patent 7112771 - Microwavable metallic container}}</ref>
*Swallowed chewing gum does not take seven years to digest. In fact, chewing gum is mostly indigestible, but passes through the digestive system at the same rate as other matter.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-or-fiction-chewing-gum-takes-seven-years-to-digest|title=Fact or Fiction?: Chewing Gum Takes Seven Years to Digest}}</ref>

==Science==
===Astronomy===
[[Image:Great Wall of China, Satellite image.jpeg|thumb|left|300px|A satellite image of a section of the [[Great Wall of China]], running diagonally from lower left to upper right (not to be confused with the much more prominent river running from upper left to lower right). The region pictured is 12 × 12 km (7.5 × 7.5 miles).]]
*The discovery of the [[spherical Earth|spherical shape of the Earth]] does not date to the modern era or to the Middle Ages. It was well known throughout the [[Hellenistic period]]. See ''[[Myth of the Flat Earth]]''.
*It is commonly claimed that the [[Great Wall of China]] is the only man-made object visible from the Moon.<ref>''The Family Memoirs of the Rev. William Stukeley''. Durham: Surtees Society, 1882-1887. Vol. 3, p. 142.</ref> This is false. None of the [[Project Apollo|Apollo]] astronauts reported seeing ''any'' specific man-made object from the Moon, and even earth-orbiting astronauts can barely see it, but city lights are easily visible on the night side of Earth from orbit.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/24mar_noseprints/ |title=Space Station Astrophotography |publisher=[[NASA]]|date=March 24, 2003|accessdate=2011-01-13}}</ref> The misconception is believed to have been popularized by [[Richard Halliburton]] decades before the first moon landing. Shuttle astronaut Jay Apt has been quoted as saying "…the Great Wall is almost invisible from only 180 miles up."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/science/greatwall.asp |title=Great Walls of Liar]|publisher=Snopes.com|accessdate=2011-01-13}}</ref>
*[[Black hole]]s, unlike their common image, do not act as "cosmic vacuum cleaners" any more than other stars.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Wolfson|first=Richard|title=Simply Einstein: relativity demystified|publisher=W. W. Norton & Company|year=2002|page=261|url=http://books.google.com/?id=OUJWKdlFKeQC&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219&dq=%22black+hole%22+%22misconception%22+%22cosmic+vacuum+cleaner%22+-wikipedia|isbn=0393051544}}</ref> The collapse of a star into a black hole is an explosive process, which means, according to [[Mass–energy equivalence]], that the resulting black hole would be of lower mass than its parent object, and actually have a weaker gravitational pull.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Misner|first=Charles W|coauthors=Kip S. Thorne, John Archibald Wheeler|title=[[Gravitation (book)|Gravitation]]|year=1973|isbn=978-0716703440|publisher=W. H. Freeman|location=New York}}{{Page needed|date=September 2010}}</ref> The source of the confusion comes from the fact that a black hole exists in a space much smaller but orders of magnitude more dense than a star, causing its gravitational pull to be much stronger closer to its surface. But, as an example, were the Sun to be replaced by a black hole of the same mass, the orbits of all the planets surrounding it would be unaffected.
*When a [[meteorite#meteor|meteor]] lands on Earth (after which it is termed a [[meteorite]]), it is not necessarily hot. A meteoroid's great speed during [[atmospheric reentry|entry]] is enough to melt or [[Sublimation (phase transition)|vaporize]] its outermost layer, but any molten material would probably be quickly blown off ([[ablation|ablated]]). The interior of the meteoroid probably does not have time to heat up because the hot rocks are poor [[conduction (heat)|conductors of heat]]. Also, atmospheric drag can slow small meteoroids to [[terminal velocity]] by the time they hit the ground, giving the surface time to cool down.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.amsmeteors.org/fireballs/faqf/#9|title=American Meteor Society FAQ|publisher=AMSMeteorS.org|accessdate=2010-01-08}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|author=Plait, Philip|authorlink=Philip Plait|year=2002|title=Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Astrology to the Moon Landing "Hoax"|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|isbn=0-471-40976-6}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=September 2010}}
*It is a common misconception that [[season]]s are caused by the [[Earth]] being closer to the [[Sun]] in the summer than in the winter. In fact, the Earth is actually farther from the Sun when it is summer in the [[Northern Hemisphere]]. Seasons are the result of the Earth being [[Axial tilt|tilted on its axis]] by 23.5 degrees. As the [[Earth's orbit|Earth orbits the Sun]], different parts of the world receive different amounts of direct sunlight. When an area of the Earth's surface is oriented perpendicular to the incoming sunlight, it will receive more radiation than it will when it is oriented at an angle to the incoming sunlight. In July, the Northern Hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun giving longer days and more direct sunlight; in January, it is tilted away. The seasons are reversed in the [[Southern Hemisphere]], which is tilted towards the Sun in January and away from the Sun in July. In [[tropics|tropical areas]] of the world, there is no noticeable change in the amount of sunlight.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/education/resources/sunearth/section06i.shtml|publisher=Adler Planetarium |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20071216004548/http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/education/resources/sunearth/section06i.shtml|archivedate=2007-12-16|title=Sun-Earth Connection|accessdate=2009-05-08}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/outreach/sunearthmiscons.html|title=Ten Things You Thought You Knew about Sun-Earth Science|publisher=[[NASA]]|accessdate=2009-05-08}}</ref> {{see|Effect of sun angle on climate}}
*It is not easier to balance an egg on its end on the [[equinox|first day of spring]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/science/equinox.asp|title=Egg Balancing on Equinox|publisher=Snopes.com|date=|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref> In fact, the ease or difficulty of balancing an egg is the same 365 days a year. This myth is said to originate with the ''[[egg of Li Chun]]'', an ancient Chinese folk belief that it is easier to balance an egg on ''Li Chun'', the first day of spring in the [[Chinese calendar]]. In Chinese ''Li'' means setup/erect, ''Chun'' spring/egg. ''Setup spring'' is a Chinese [[solar term]], literally interpreted as erecting an egg for fun. It was introduced to the western world in a ''[[Life (magazine)|Life]]'' article in 1945, and popularized once again by self-titled "urban shaman" [[Donna Henes]], who has hosted an annual egg-balancing ceremony in New York City since the mid-1970s.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Carlson|first=Jen|url=http://gothamist.com/2007/10/31/donna_henes_urb.php|title=Donna Henes, Urban Shaman - Gothamist: New York City News, Food, Arts & Events|publisher=Gothamist|date=October 31, 2007|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/mar/20/you-can-balance-an-egg-on-its-end-today-and-any/|title=You can balance an egg on its end today … and any other day|publisher=[[Knoxville News Sentinel]]|work=Knoxnews.com|date=March 20, 2008|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/errata/a/equinox_eggs.htm|title=Can You Balance Eggs on End During the Spring Equinox|publisher=Urbanlegends.about.com|date=March 25, 2009| accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref>

===Biology===
[[File:AD2009Aug08 Bombus pratorum.jpg|thumb|right|''[[Bombus pratorum]]'' over an ''[[Echinacea purpurea]]'' inflorescence; a widespread myth holds that bumblebees should be incapable of flight.]]
*The claim<ref>[[Mythbusters]] Does a Duck's Quack Echo? (Season 1, Episode 8)</ref> that a [[duck]]'s quack does not [[echo (phenomenon)|echo]] is false, although the echo may be difficult to hear for humans under some circumstances.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/acoustics_info/duck/|title=A Duck's Quack Doesn't Echo, and no-one knows the reason why?|publisher=University of Salford Acoustics |work=Acoustics.salford.ac.uk |date=|accessdate=2010-01-13}}</ref>
*[[DNA]] is not made of [[protein]].<ref>{{Cite book|last=Regis|first=Ed|title=What Is Life?: Investigating the Nature of Life in the Age of Synthetic Biology|page=44|year=2009|isbn=978-0195383416|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=USA}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lakin |first1=Liz |title=The golden age of protein: an initial teacher training perspective on the biological role of proteins in our everyday lives |journal=International Journal of Consumer Studies |volume=28 |pages=127–34 |year=2004 |doi=10.1111/j.1470-6431.2003.00359.x}}</ref> The two are closely interrelated, however. DNA is always accompanied by proteins in the [[chromatin]] of plants and animals.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://chromatin.net/|title=Chromatin Network Home Page.|accessdate=2011-01-07}}</ref> See [[protein biosynthesis]] for DNA's involvement in assembling protein. See [[DNA replication]] for [[Enzyme|enzymatic]] proteins' involvement in assembling DNA.
*The notion that [[goldfish]] have a memory of only three seconds is false.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hipsley|first=Anna|url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/19/2166204.htm|title=Goldfish three-second memory myth busted - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)|publisher=Abc.net.au|date=2008-02-19|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref><ref>Mythbusters Goldfish Memory (Season 1, Episode 14)</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://nootropics.com/intelligence/smartfish.html|title=''Goldfish Pass Memory Test''|publisher=nootropics.com|date=2003-10-01|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref>
*[[Lemming]]s do not engage in mass suicidal dives off cliffs when migrating. They will, however, occasionally, and unintentionally fall off cliffs when venturing into unknown territory, with no knowledge of the boundaries of the environment. The misconception is due largely to the [[Disney]] film ''[[White Wilderness (film)|White Wilderness]]'', which shot many of the migration scenes (also staged by using multiple shots of different groups of lemmings) on a large, snow-covered turntable in a studio. Photographers later pushed the lemmings off a cliff.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp|title=Lemmings|publisher=Snopes|date=|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref> The misconception itself is much older, dating back to at least the late nineteenth century.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Scott|first=W.|journal=The Monthly chronicle of North-country lore and legend|year=1891|title=The Monthly chronicle of North-country lore and legend: v.1-5; Mar. 1887-Dec. 1891|month=November|volume=5|pages=523|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=W8rUAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA523#v=onepage&q&f=false|accessdate=7 January 2011}}</ref>
*[[Bat]]s are not blind. While most bat species do use [[animal echolocation|echolocation]] to augment their vision, all bat species have eyes and are capable of sight.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.fws.gov/endangered/bats/miscon.htm|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20080519095139/http://www.fws.gov/endangered/bats/miscon.htm|archivedate=2008-05-19|title=Common Misconceptions About Bats|accessdate=2009-04-07}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2003/American-Heritage-Animal-Cliches.aspx|title=The Truth About Animal Clichés|accessdate=2009-04-07}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.collegenews.org/x2682.xml|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20080607080055/http://www.collegenews.org/x2682.xml|archivedate=2008-06-07|title=Blind as a Bat?|accessdate=2009-04-07}}</ref>
*It's a common myth that an [[earthworm]] becomes two worms when cut in half. However, only a limited number of earthworm species<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jez.1401170102/abstract|title=Simultaneous anterior and posterior regeneration and other growth phenomena in Maldanid polychaetes|year=1942}}</ref> are capable of anterior [[Earthworm#regeneration|regeneration]]. When most earthworms are bisected, only the front half of the worm (where the mouth is located) can survive, while the other half dies.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/gardening/gardening_with_children/didyouknow_worms.shtml|title=Gardening with children - Worms|publisher=BBC|date=|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref> Also, species of the [[planaria]] family of [[flatworm]]s actually ''do'' become two new planaria when bisected or split down the middle.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Reddien |first1=Peter W. |last2=Alvarado |first2=Alejandro Sanchez |title=FUNDAMENTALS OF PLANARIAN REGENERATION |journal=Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology |volume=20 |pages=725–57 |year=2004 |pmid=15473858 |doi=10.1146/annurev.cellbio.20.010403.095114}}</ref>
*According to urban myth, the daddy longlegs spider (''[[Pholcus phalangioides]]'') is the most venomous spider in the world, but the shape of their mandibles leaves them unable to bite humans, rendering them harmless to our species. In reality, they can indeed pierce human skin, though the tiny amount of venom they carry causes only a mild burning sensation for a few seconds.<ref>Mythbusters Daddy-longlegs (Season 1, Episode 16)</ref> In addition, there is also confusion regarding the use of the name ''daddy longlegs'', because harvestmen (order ''[[Opiliones]]'', which are not spiders) and [[crane fly|crane flies]] (which are insects) are also known as ''daddy longlegs'', and share (also incorrectly) the myth of being venomous.<ref>{{Cite web|title=UCR Entomology Spiders - Daddy Long Legs|url=http://spiders.ucr.edu/daddylonglegs.html}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Spider Myths - If it could only bite|url=http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/spidermyth/myths/daddyvenom.html}}</ref>
*[[Euphorbia pulcherrima#Rumoured toxicity|Poinsettias]] are not [[Toxicity|toxic]]. While it is true that they are mildly irritating to the skin or stomach<ref name = southern>{{cite encyclopedia | title = Euphorbia | encyclopedia = The Southern Living Garden Book | editor-last = Bender | editor-first = Steve | year = 2004 | month = January | edition = 2nd | ISBN = 0-376-03910-8 | publisher = Oxmoor House | location = Birmingham, Alabama | page = 306}}</ref> and may sometimes cause [[diarrhea]] and [[vomiting]] if eaten,<ref name = fiction>{{cite web| url=http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=55606| title= Are Poinsettia Plants Poisonous? Fact or Fiction?|accessdate=2007-12-21 }}</ref> an [[American Journal of Emergency Medicine]] study of 22,793 cases reported to the American Association of Poison Control Centers showed no fatalities, and furthermore that a strong majority of poinsettia exposures are accidental, involve children, and usually do not result in any type of medical treatment.<ref name = ajem>{{cite journal |author=Krenzelok EP, Jacobsen TD, Aronis JM |title=Poinsettia exposures have good outcomes…just as we thought |journal=[[American Journal of Emergency Medicine|Am J Emerg Med]] |volume=14 |issue=7 |pages=671–4 |year=1996 |month=November |pmid=8906768 |doi=10.1016/S0735-6757(96)90086-8 |url=}}</ref>
*[[Ostrich]]es do not bury their heads in the sand. This tale originates from the fact that the male ostrich will dig a large hole (up to 6 to 8 feet wide and 2 to 3 feet deep) in the sand for the eggs. Predators cannot see the eggs across the countryside which gives the nest some measure of protection. The female and male take turns sitting on the eggs and, because of the indention in the ground, usually just blend into the horizon. All birds turn their eggs (with their beak) several times a day during the incubation period. From a distance it may appear as though the bird has its head in the sand.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Facts about ostriches|url=http://www.ostriches.org/factor.html#head}}</ref>
*The flight mechanism and aerodynamics of the [[bumblebee]] (as well as other insects) are actually [[Insect_flight#Basic_aerodynamics|quite well understood]], in spite of the urban legend that calculations show [[Bumblebee#Myths|that they should not be able to fly]]. In the 1930s a German scientist, using flawed techniques, indeed postulated that bumblebees theoretically should not be able to fly,<ref>[http://naturenet.net/blogs/index.php/2008/01/04/can_bees_fly Can bees fly? The Virtual Ranger]</ref> although he later retracted the suggestion. However, the theory became generalized to the false notion that "scientists think that bumblebees should not be able to fly."
*[[Shark]]s can actually suffer from [[cancer]]. The myth that sharks do not get cancer was spread by the [[1992]] book ''Sharks Don't Get Cancer'' by I. William Lane and used to sell extracts of shark [[cartilage]] as cancer prevention treatments. Reports of [[carcinoma]]s in sharks exist, and current data do not allow any speculation about the incidence of tumors in sharks.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ostrander |first1=G. K. |last2=Cheng |first2=KC |last3=Wolf |first3=JC |last4=Wolfe |first4=MJ |title=Shark Cartilage, Cancer and the Growing Threat of Pseudoscience |journal=Cancer Research |volume=64 |issue=23 |pages=8485 |year=2004 |pmid=15574750 |doi=10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-2260}}</ref>
*It is not harmful to baby birds to pick them up and return them to their nests, despite the common belief that doing so will cause the mother to reject it.<ref>{{cite news|last=Lollar|first=Michael|title=Fine feathered infirmary for sick songbirds |url=http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jun/16/fine-feathered-infirmary-for-sick-songbirds/|accessdate=12 January 2011|newspaper=Knoxs News|date=16 June 2008}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/babybird.asp|title=Rejected baby birds|publisher=|date=|accessdate=2011-01-22|archiveurl=}}</ref>
*Bulls are not enraged by the color red, used in capes by professional [[matador]]s. Cattle are color-blind. It is not the color of the cape that angers the bull, but rather the movement of the fabric that irritates the bull and incites it to charge.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.itla.net/index.cfm?sec=Longhorn_Information&con=handling|title=Longhorn_Information - handling|publisher=ITLA|date=|accessdate=2010-06-23}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://iacuc.tennessee.edu/pdf/Policies-AnimalCare/Cattle-BasicCare.pdf|title=Cattle – Basic Care|publisher=|date=|accessdate=2010-06-23|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20080625012822/http://iacuc.tennessee.edu/pdf/Policies-AnimalCare/Cattle-BasicCare.pdf|archivedate=2008-06-25}}</ref>

====Evolution====
{{See|Objections to evolution|Introduction to evolution}}
[[File:Palais de la Decouverte Tyrannosaurus rex p1050042.jpg|thumb|left|230px|''[[Tyrannosaurus rex]]''. Non-[[bird|avian]] [[dinosaur]]s died out in the [[Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event]] at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period.]]
*The word ''[[theory]]'' in ''the theory of evolution'' does not imply mainstream scientific doubt regarding its validity; the concepts of ''theory'' and ''hypothesis'' have specific meanings in a scientific context. While ''theory'' in colloquial usage may denote a hunch or conjecture, a ''[[scientific theory]]'' is a set of principles that explains ''observable phenomena'' in [[naturalism (philosophy)|natural]] terms.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/papers/Pennock_TeachingEvoNatureSci.pdf|format=PDF|title=Evolutionary Science and Society: Educating a New Generation (TOC)|publisher=MSU.edu|work=Revised Proceedings of the BSCS, AIBS Symposium|month=November |year=2004|accessdate=2011-01-13}}{{Page needed|date=January 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0308/theo/index.html|title=It Is Not Just a Theory… It Is a Theory!|date=July 7, 2008|publisher=[[Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics]]|work=Chandra Chronicles|accessdate=2009-04-08}}</ref> Evolution is a theory in the same sense as [[germ theory]], [[gravitation]], or [[plate tectonics]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://evoled.dbs.umt.edu/lessons/miscon.htm#3|title=Misconceptions about the Nature of Science|publisher=[[University of Montana]], Div. Biological Sciences|work=UMT.edu|accessdate=2009-04-08}}</ref> {{see also|Objections to evolution#Status as a theory}}
[[File:Aegyptopithecus NT.jpg|thumb|A reconstruction of ''[[Aegyptopithecus]]'', a primate—and not a monkey—predating the split between the human and [[Old World monkey]] lineages in [[human evolution]].]]
*Evolution does not claim humans evolved from [[monkey]]s,<ref name="pbs_evolution_faq">{{Cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html#Q01|title=Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions|publisher=PBS.org|date=|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref> [[chimpanzee]]s<ref>{{cite news|first=Amy |last=Harmon, New York Times|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/30/MNSK12HD6J.DTL|title=Teaching evolution to young Christian skeptics|publisher=San Francisco Chronicle|date=August 31, 2008|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref> or any other modern-day primates. Instead, humans and monkeys share a [[common descent|common ancestor]] that lived about 40 million years ago.<ref>{{cite book|title=Primates in Perspective|author=Hartwig, W.|chapter=Primate Evolution |editor=Campbell, C., Fuentes, A., MacKinnon, K., Panger, M. & Bearder, S.|year=2007|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|isbn=978-0-19-517133-4}}</ref> This common ancestor diverged into separate lineages, one evolving into so-called [[New World monkey]]s and the other into [[Old World monkey]]s and [[ape]]s.<ref>{{MSW3 Groves|pages=111–184|id=12100001}}</ref> Humans are included in the [[Hominidae]] (great ape) family, which also includes chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Similarly, the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, which lived between 5 and 8 million years ago, evolved into two lineages, one eventually becoming modern humans and the other the two extant [[chimpanzee]] species.<ref name="pbs_evolution_faq" />
*Evolution is not a progression from inferior to superior organisms, and it also does not necessarily result in an [[evolution of complexity|increase in complexity]]. A population can evolve to become simpler, having a smaller [[genome]], but ''[[devolution (biology)|devolution]]'' is a [[misnomer]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-the-human-race-evolvin |title=Is the human race evolving or devolving? |date=July 20, 1998 | publisher=''[[Scientific American]]'' |first=|last=}} see also [[biological devolution]].</ref><ref name="pmid11893328">{{cite journal |last1=Moran |first1=Nancy A. |title=Microbial MinimalismGenome Reduction in Bacterial Pathogens |journal=Cell |volume=108 |issue=5 |pages=583–6 |year=2002 |pmid=11893328 |doi=10.1016/S0092-8674(02)00665-7}}</ref>
*It is a common misconception, even among adults, that humans and [[dinosaur]]s coexisted: According to the [[California Academy of Sciences]], around 41% of U.S. adults mistakenly believe they co-existed.<ref name=science_daily>{{cite web|url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090312115133.htm |title=American Adults Flunk Basic Science |publisher=''[[Science Daily]]''|date= March 13, 2009}}</ref> The last of the dinosaurs died around 65 million years ago, after the [[Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event]], whereas the earliest ''[[Homo]]'' genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago.
*Evolution does not violate the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]]. A common argument against evolution is that entropy, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, increases over time, and thus evolution could not produce increased [[evolution of complexity|complexity]]. However, the law does not refer to complexity and only applies to closed systems,<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html |title=Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution |year=2003 |first=Mark |last=Isaak| publisher=The Talk Origins Archive|work=TalkOrigins.org}}</ref> which the Earth is not as it absorbs and radiates the Sun's energy.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm |title=Does Life On Earth Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics? |first=Robert N. |last=Oerter |publisher=[[George Mason University]] Dept. of Physics and Astronomy |accessdate=2011-01-11}}</ref>

===Chemistry===
[[File:Blowing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Glass manufacturing in older eras was a slower process, which often resulted in unevenness and impurities when finished in its solid state. Varying thickness throughout older window panes is the result of these impurities, not due to movement of the glass over time.]]
*[[Glass]] is not a high-[[viscosity]] liquid at room temperature: it is an [[amorphous solid]], although it does have some chemical properties normally associated with liquids. Panes of [[stained glass]] windows often have thicker glass at the bottom than at the top, and this has been cited as an example of the slow flow of glass over centuries. However, this unevenness is due to the window manufacturing processes used in earlier eras, which produced glass panes that were unevenly thick at the time of their installation. Normally the thick end of glass would be installed at the bottom of the frame, but it is also common to find old windows where the thicker end has been installed to the sides or the top. In fact, the lead frames of the windows are less viscous than the panes, and if glass was indeed a slow moving liquid, the panes would warp at a higher degree.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/science/29glass.html|work=The New York Times|title=The Nature of Glass Remains Anything but Clear|first=Kenneth|last=Chang|date=2008-07-29|accessdate=2010-04-04}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.glassnotes.com/WindowPanes.html|title=Does Glass Flow|publisher=Glassnotes.com|date=1998-05-30|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref>

===Human body and health===
{{see also|Misconceptions about HIV and AIDS}}

====The senses====
[[Image:Taste buds.svg|thumb|right|100px|An '''incorrect''' [[tongue map|map of the tongue]] showing zones which taste [[Bitter_(taste)#Bitter|bitter]] (1), [[Sour#Sour|sour]] (2), [[Taste#Salty|salty]] (3) and [[Sweetness|sweet]] (4). In reality, all zones can sense all tastes.]]
*Different [[taste]]s can be detected on all parts of the [[tongue]] by [[taste bud]]s,<ref>{{Cite journal|author=Huang AL, Chen X, Hoon MA, ''et al.''|title=The cells and logic for mammalian sour taste detection|journal=Nature|volume=442|issue=7105|pages=934–8|year=2006|month=August|pmid=16929298|pmc=1571047|doi=10.1038/nature05084}}</ref> with slightly increased sensitivities in different locations depending on the person, contrary to the popular belief that specific tastes only correspond to specific mapped sites on the tongue.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.asha.org/Publications/leader/2002/021022/f021022a.htm|title=Beyond the Tongue Map|publisher=Asha.org|date=2002-10-22|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref> The original [[tongue map]] was based on a mistranslation of a 1901 German thesis<ref>Hänig, D.P., 1901. Zur Psychophysik des Geschmackssinnes. Philosophische Studien, 17: 576–623.</ref> by [[Edwin Boring]]. In addition, there are not 4 but 5 primary tastes. In addition to [[Bitter_(taste)#Bitter|bitter]], [[Sour#Sour|sour]], [[Taste#Salty|salty]], and [[Sweetness|sweet]], humans have taste receptors for [[umami]], which is a savory or meaty taste.<ref>{{cite book |title=Food Science and Technology |last=Campbell-Platt |first=Geoffrey |url=http://books.google.com/?id=E7GXHploJasC&lpg=PA31&pg=PA31 |year=2009 |publisher=Wiley |isbn=9780632064212 |page=31 |accessdate=2011-01-05}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rtc.edu/programs/generaleducation/biology/biology220/files/Senses_notes.pdf |title=Senses Notes |accessdate=2011-01-13}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15819485 |title=Sweet, Sour, Salty, Bitter … and Umami |author=Robert Krulwich |date=5 November 2007 |work=Krulwich Wonders, an NPR Science Blog |publisher=NPR |accessdate=2011-01-13}}</ref>
*There is no single theory that satisfactorily explains [[myopia]]—in particular, studies show that so-called eyestrain from close reading and computer games can lead to myopia, but the underlying physiologic mechanism is poorly understood. There is also no evidence that reading in dim light or sitting close to a television causes vision to deteriorate.<ref>{{cite|title=Myths about Vision and Eyes|publisher=The Eye Digest, University of Illinois Eye & Ear Infirmary, Chicago, IL|date=2009-05-19|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20080731001016/http://www.agingeye.net/visionbasics/visionmyths.php Vision myths|accessdate=2009-06-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite|title=Does reading in poor light actually hurt vision|publisher=Google Answers|date=2003-02-09|url=http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=159098}}</ref>
* Humans have more than five [[senses]]. Although definitions vary, the actual number ranges from 9 to more than 20. In addition to [[visual perception|sight]], [[olfaction|smell]], [[taste]], [[somatosensory system|touch]], and [[hearing (sense)|hearing]], which were the senses identified by [[Aristotle]], humans can sense balance and acceleration ([[equilibrioception]]), pain ([[nociception]]), body and limb position ([[proprioception]] or kinesthetic sense), and relative temperature ([[thermoception]]).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://harvardmedicine.hms.harvard.edu/fascinoma/fivesenses/beyond/extra.php |title=Extra Sensory Perceptions |author=Jessica Cerretani |date=Spring 2010 |work=Harvard Medicine |publisher=Harvard College |accessdate=2011-01-13}}</ref> Other senses sometimes identified are the sense of time, itching, pressure, hunger, thirst, fullness of the stomach, need to urinate, need to defecate, and blood [[carbon dioxide]] levels.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://health.howstuffworks.com/mental-health/human-nature/perception/question242.htm |title=How many senses does a human being have? |work=Discovery Health |publisher=Discovery Communications Inc. |accessdate=2011-01-13}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Human-Senses.topicArticleId-8741,articleId-8725.html |title=Biology: Human Senses |work=CliffNotes |publisher=Wiley Publishing, Inc |accessdate=2011-01-13}}</ref>

====Skin and hair====
*Shaving does not cause [[terminal hair]] to grow back thicker or coarser or darker. This belief is because hair that has never been cut has a tapered end, whereas, after cutting, there is no taper. Thus, it appears thicker, and feels coarser due to the sharper, unworn edges. The fact that shorter hairs are "harder" (less flexible) than longer hairs also contributes to this effect.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://snopes.com/oldwives/hairgrow.asp|title=Shaved Hair Grows Darker|publisher=snopes.com|date=|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref> Hair can also appear darker after it grows back because hair that has never been cut is often lighter due to sun exposure.
*Hair and fingernails do not continue to grow after a person dies. Rather, the skin dries and shrinks away from the bases of hairs and nails, giving the appearance of growth.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Graham-Brown|first=Robin|coauthors=Tony Burns|title=Lecture Notes on Dermatology|publisher=Blackwell|year=2007|page=6|isbn=1-4051-3977-3}}</ref>
*Hair care products cannot as such "repair" [[Trichoptilosis|split ends]] and damaged hair. They can, however, prevent damage from occurring in the first place, smooth down the cuticle in a glue-like fashion so that it appears repaired and generally make hair appear in better condition.<ref>http://beauty.about.com/library/bltips531.htm About.com</ref><ref>http://wwweHow.com/how-does_4569485_hair-conditioner-work.html How does hair conditioner work</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=disabled-world.com|url=http://www.disabled-world.com/health/dermatology/hair/hair-care.php|accessdate=2009-04-13}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|title=cbc.ca|url=http://www.cbc.ca/streetcents/features/front_question_of_the_week.html |title=Question: What is up with colour-enhancing shampoos? Do they work?|accessdate=2010-01-13|publisher=CBC News|work=CBC.ca}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Hair Myths|url=http://www.glamour.com/beauty/2008/09/hair-myths|publisher=Glamour.com| accessdate=2009-04-13}}</ref>

====Nutrition, food, and drink====
*Eight glasses of water a day is not necessary to maintain health, nor is it specifically recommended.<ref name=NPR/>
*Sugar does not cause hyperactivity in children.<ref name="festive myths">{{Cite journal|author=Vreeman RC, Carroll AE|title=Festive medical myths|journal=BMJ|volume=337|issue=|pages=a2769|year=2008|pmid=19091758|doi=10.1136/bmj.a2769}}</ref> [[Double-blind test|Double-blind trials]] have shown no difference in behavior between children given sugar-full or sugar-free diets, even in studies specifically looking at children with [[Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder|attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder]] or those considered "sensitive" to sugar. The difference in behaviour proved to be psychological.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Fullerton-Smith|first=Jill|title=The Truth About Food|publisher=Bloomsbury|year=2007|pages=115–117|isbn=9780747586852|quote="Most parents assume that children plus sugary foods equals raucous and uncontrollable behaviour.[…] according to nutrition experts, the belief that children experience a "sugar high" is a myth."}}</ref>
*Alcohol does not in fact make one warmer.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=kG5BAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QKkMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5953,3984482|title=Popular Misconceptions Regarding Intoxication|last=Brandstadt|first=William G.|date=December 19, 1967|work=Middlesboro Daily News|accessdate=2011-01-13}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Y7QOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=voIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6314,2739204|title=Hypothermia main outdoors threat|last=Pierson|first=Rebecca|date=December 9, 2004|work=Elizabethton Star|accessdate=2011-01-13}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6QxOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3q0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6238,1782448|title=Writer Tells Of Alcohol Dangers, Misconceptions|last=Seixas|first=Judy|date=April 15, 1977|work=The Virgin Islands Daily News|accessdate=2011-01-13}}</ref> The reason why alcoholic drinks create the sensation of warmth is that they cause blood vessels to dilate and stimulate nerve endings near the surface of the skin with an influx of warm blood. This can actually result in making the core body temperature lower, as it allows for easier heat exchange with a cold external environment.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://firstaid.about.com/od/heatcoldexposur1/f/07_alcohol_warm.htm|title=Alcohol for Warmth}}</ref>
*It's a common misconception that alcohol kills brain cells.<ref name="StudyFindsAlcoholDoesntKillOffBrainCells">{{cite web|url=http://www.news.com.au/study-finds-alcohol-doesnt-kill-off-brain-cells/story-e6frfkp9-1111113923217|title=Study finds alcohol doesn't kill off brain cells | News.com.au|publisher=[[News Limited]]|accessdate=2011-01-08}}</ref><ref name="BrainMythsBusted">{{cite web|url=http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?ucpg=3&pgnew=False&cp-documentid=100236538&ucsort=4&=|title=Brain Myths—Busted|author=Rich Maloof|publisher=[[MSN]]|accessdate=2011-01-08}}</ref> Early temperance writers promoted the idea that drinking causes brain cells to die (as well as the assertion that the alcohol in the blood stream could cause people to catch fire and burn alive).<ref name="DoesDrinkingAlcoholKillBrainCells">{{cite web|url=http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/HealthIssues/1103162109.html|title=Does Drinking Alcohol Kill Brain Cells?|author=David J. Hanson|publisher=[[State University of New York]]|accessdate=2011-01-08}}</ref> According to [[University of Queensland|Queensland Brain Institute]] director Professor Perry Bartlett, there is no evidence drinking alcohol leads directly to the death of brain cells.<ref name="StudyFindsAlcoholDoesntKillOffBrainCells" /> In fact, alcohol has positive health benefits when used moderately<ref name="StudyFindsAlcoholDoesntKillOffBrainCells" /><ref name="DoesDrinkingAlcoholKillBrainCells" /> and new brain cells are generated on a daily basis.<ref name="StudyFindsAlcoholDoesntKillOffBrainCells" /> Alcohol can lead ''indirectly'' to the death of brain cells in chronic, heavy alcohol users whose brains have adapted to the effects of alcohol, where abrupt cessation following heavy use can cause [[excitotoxicity]] leading to cellular death in multiple areas of the brain.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Lovinger, D. M.|year=1993| title=Excitotoxicity and Alcohol-Related Brain Damage |journal=Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research |volume=17 |pages=19–27 |doi=10.1111/j.1530-0277.1993.tb00720.x}}</ref>
*Bottled water, vitamin-enriched water, and sparkling water are not healthier than tap water.<ref name=NPR>{{cite news |title=Five Myths About Drinking Water |author=Aubrey, Allison |url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89323934 |newspaper=National Public Radio |date=April 3, 2008 |accessdate=January 16, 2011}}</ref> In fact, many studies have shown that bottled water often contains mixtures of bacteria, fertilizers, and a variety of pollutants.<ref>{{cite news |title=Bottled Water Quality Investigation: 10 Major Brands, 38 Pollutants|author=Olga Naidenko, PhD, Senior Scientist; Nneka Leiba, MPH, Researcher; Renee Sharp, MS, Senior Scientist; Jane Houlihan, MSCE, Vice President for Research|url=http://www.ewg.org/reports/BottledWater/Bottled-Water-Quality-Investigation|newspaper=Environmental Working Group |date=October 2008 |accessdate=January 20, 2011}}</ref>

====Human sexuality====
*A popular myth regarding [[human sexuality]] is that men think about sex every seven seconds. In reality, there is no scientific way of measuring such a thing and, as far as researchers can tell, this statistic greatly exaggerates the frequency of sexual thoughts.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.livescience.com/bestimg/index.php?url=myths_men_sex_03.jpg&cat=myths|title=LiveScience.com: The Most Popular Myths in Science|publisher=LiveScience|date=|accessdate=2010-06-23}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Ahuja|first=Anjana|title=Every 7 seconds? That's a fantasy|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article723673.ece|accessdate=18 June 2010|newspaper=The Times|date=1 February 2006|location=London}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Mikkelson|first=Barbara|title=Daydream Deceiver|url=http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/thinksex.asp|work=Snopes.com|accessdate=18 June 2010}}</ref>
*Another popular myth is that having sex in the days leading up to a sporting event or contest is detrimental to performance. Numerous studies have shown that there is no physiological basis to this myth.<ref>{{Cite web
|url=http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060609/full/news060605-16.html
|title=Sex before the big game?
|publisher=Nature
|date=2006-06-09|accessdate=2011-01-16}}</ref> Additionally, it has been demonstrated that sex during the 24 hours prior to sports activity can elevate the levels of [[testosterone]] in males, which potentially could enhance their performance.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Sex and Sports: Should Athletes Abstain Before Big Events?|url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0222_060222_sex.html
|publisher=National Geographic|date=2006-02-22|accessdate=2011-01-16}}</ref>

====The brain====
*Mental abilities are not absolutely separated into the left and right [[cerebral hemisphere]]s of the brain.<ref name="Westen 2006">Westen et al. 2006 "Psychology: Australian and New Zealand edition" John Wiley p.107</ref> Some mental functions such as [[Speech communication|speech]] and [[language]] (cf. [[Broca's area]], [[Wernicke's area]]) tend to activate [[lateralization of brain function|one hemisphere of the brain more than the other]], in some kinds of tasks. If one hemisphere is damaged at a very early age, however, these functions can often be recovered in part or even in full by the other hemisphere (see [[Neuroplasticity]]). Other abilities such as [[somatic nervous system|motor control]], memory, and general reasoning are served equally by the two hemispheres.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Goswami |first1=U |title=Neuroscience and education: from research to practice? |journal=Nature reviews. Neuroscience |volume=7 |issue=5 |pages=406–11 |year=2006 |pmid=16607400 |doi=10.1038/nrn1907}}</ref>
[[Image:Gyrus Dentatus 40x.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Golgi-stained neurons in human hippocampal tissue. It is commonly believed that humans will not grow new brain cells, but research has shown that some neurons can reform in humans.]]
*Until very recently medical experts believed that humans were born with all of the brain cells they would ever have.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sfn.org/index.aspx?pagename=brainbriefings_adult_neurogenesis|name=Socity for Neuroscience|title=Adult Neurogenisis}}</ref> However, we now know that new [[neuron]]s can be created in the [[postnatal]] brain. Researchers have observed adult neurogenesis in [[bird|avians]],<ref>{{cite journal|author=Goldman SA, Nottebohm F|title=Neuronal production, migration, and differentiation in a vocal control nucleus of the adult female canary brain|journal=Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.|volume=80|issue=8|pages=2390–4|year=1983|month=April|pmid=6572982|pmc=393826|doi=10.1073/pnas.80.8.2390|url=http://www.pnas.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=6572982}}</ref> [[primates|Old World Primates]],<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1073/pnas.96.9.5263 |last1=Gould |first1=E |last2=Reeves |first2=AJ |last3=Fallah |first3=M |last4=Tanapat |first4=P |last5=Gross |first5=CG |last6=Fuchs |first6=E |title=Hippocampal neurogenesis in adult Old World primates |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America |volume=96 |issue=9 |pages=5263–7 |year=1999 |pmid=10220454 |pmc=21852}}</ref> and humans.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Eriksson |first1=Peter S. |last2=Perfilieva |first2=Ekaterina |last3=Björk-Eriksson |first3=Thomas |last4=Alborn |first4=Ann-Marie |last5=Nordborg |first5=Claes |last6=Peterson |first6=Daniel A. |last7=Gage |first7=Fred H. |title=Neurogenesis in the adult human hippocampus |journal=Nature Medicine |volume=4 |issue=11 |pages=1313–7 |year=1998 |pmid=9809557 |doi=10.1038/3305}}</ref> Adult humans retain multipotent (see [[cell potency]]) neural stem cells in the [[subventricular zone|subventricular]] of the lateral ventricles and [[subgranular zone]]s of the dentate gyrus.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Reh |first1=Thomas A. |last2=Ponti |first2=Giovanna |last3=Peretto |first3=Paolo |last4=Bonfanti |first4=Luca |title=Genesis of Neuronal and Glial Progenitors in the Cerebellar Cortex of Peripuberal and Adult Rabbits |journal=PLoS ONE |volume=3 |issue=6 |pages=e2366 |year=2008 |pmid=18523645 |pmc=2396292 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0002366}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Zhao |first1=Chunmei |last2=Deng |first2=Wei |last3=Gage |first3=Fred H. |title=Mechanisms and Functional Implications of Adult Neurogenesis |journal=Cell |volume=132 |issue=4 |pages=645–60 |year=2008 |pmid=18295581 |doi=10.1016/j.cell.2008.01.033}}</ref> Both of these zones are [[allocortex|allocortical]], possessing fewer than six layers. Some studies have suggested that post-natal neurogenesis also occurs in the [[neocortex]],<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1126/science.286.5439.548 |last1=Gould |first1=E |last2=Reeves |first2=AJ |last3=Graziano |first3=MS |last4=Gross |first4=CG |title=Neurogenesis in the neocortex of adult primates |journal=Science |volume=286 |issue=5439 |pages=548–52 |year=1999 |pmid=10521353}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Zhao |first1=M |last2=Momma |first2=S |last3=Delfani |first3=K |last4=Carlen |first4=M |last5=Cassidy |first5=RM |last6=Johansson |first6=CB |last7=Brismar |first7=H |last8=Shupliakov |first8=O |last9=Frisen |first9=J |title=Evidence for neurogenesis in the adult mammalian substantia nigra |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America |volume=100 |issue=13 |pages=7925–30 |year=2003 |pmid=12792021 |pmc=164689 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1131955100}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1007/s100249900120 |last1=Shankle |first1=WR |last2=Rafii |first2=MS |last3=Landing |first3=BH |last4=Fallon |first4=JH |title=Approximate doubling of numbers of neurons in postnatal human cerebral cortex and in 35 specific cytoarchitectural areas from birth to 72 months |journal=Pediatric and developmental pathology |volume=2 |issue=3 |pages=244–59 |year=1999 |pmid=10191348}}</ref> an idea that is disputed.<ref name="pmid11826088">{{cite journal |last1=Rakic |first1=P |title=Adult neurogenesis in mammals: an identity crisis |journal=The Journal of neuroscience |volume=22 |issue=3 |pages=614–8 |year=2002 |pmid=11826088}}</ref> Neurological changes, including from learning, can occur without neurogenesis through development of [[white matter]], a neurological tissue that facilitates connections between neurons.
*[[Vaccine]]s do not cause [[autism]]. [[MMR vaccine controversy|Fraudulent research]] by [[Andrew Wakefield]] claimed a connection. The results could not be [[Reproducibility|reproduced]]. Subsequently the research was shown to be flawed and fraudulent.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full|title=British Medical Journal: Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent|accessdate=2011-01-05}}</ref>
*People do not use [[10% of brain myth|only ten percent of their brains]]. While it is true that a small minority of neurons in the brain are actively firing at any one time, the inactive neurons are important too.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp|title=Snopes on brains|publisher=Snopes.com|date=|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Radford|first=Benjamin|date=March/April 1999|title=The Ten-Percent Myth|journal=Skeptical Inquirer|publisher=Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal|issn=0194-6730|url=http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_ten-percent_myth/|accessdate=2009-04-15|quote=It's the old myth heard time and again about how people use only ten percent of their brains}}</ref> This myth has been commonplace in American culture at least as far back as the start of the 20th century, and was attributed to [[William James]], who apparently used the expression metaphorically.<ref name="beyersteinbrain">{{Cite book|last=Beyerstein|first=Barry L.|title=Mind Myths: Exploring Popular Assumptions About the Mind and BRain|editor=Sergio Della Sala|publisher=Wiley|year=1999|pages=3–24|chapter=Whence Cometh the Myth that We Only Use 10% of our Brains?|isbn=0471983039}}</ref> Some findings of brain science (such as the high ratio of [[glial cell]]s to [[neurons]]) have been mistakenly read as providing support for the myth.<ref name="beyersteinbrain"/>
*The term [[schizophrenia]] is commonly misunderstood to mean that affected persons have a "split personality". Although some people diagnosed with schizophrenia may hear voices and may experience the voices as distinct personalities, schizophrenia does not involve a person changing among distinct multiple personalities. The confusion arises in part due to the literal interpretation of Bleuler's term ''schizophrenia''. The first known misuse of the term to mean "split personality" was in an article by the poet [[T. S. Eliot]] in 1933.<ref name="fn_3">{{vcite book|author=Porter, Roy; Berrios, G. E. |title=A history of clinical psychiatry: the origin and history of psychiatric disorders |publisher=Athlone Press |location=London |year=1995 |isbn=0-485-24211-7}}</ref>

====Disease====
*Prolonged exposure to cold weather such as rain or winter conditions does not increase the likelihood of catching a [[common cold|cold]].<ref name="pmid12357708">{{Cite journal|author=Eccles R|title=Acute cooling of the body surface and the common cold|journal=Rhinology|volume=40|issue=3|pages=109–14|year=2002|pmid=12357708}}</ref> Although common colds are seasonal, with more occurring during winter, experiments so far have failed to produce evidence that short-term exposure to cold weather or direct chilling increases susceptibility to infection, implying that the seasonal variation is instead due to a change in behaviours such as increased time spent indoors close to others.<ref name="NIAID2006">{{Cite web|title=Common Cold|publisher=[[National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases]]|date=2006-11-27|url=http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/healthscience/healthtopics/colds/|accessdate=2007-06-11}}</ref><ref name="pmid13559211">{{Cite journal|author=Dowling HF, Jackson GG, Spiesman IG, Inouye T|title=Transmission of the common cold to volunteers under controlled conditions. III. The effect of chilling of the subjects upon susceptibility|journal=American journal of hygiene|volume=68|issue=1|pages=59–65|year=1958|pmid=13559211}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Douglas |first1=R. Gordon |last2=Lindgren |first2=Keith M. |last3=Couch |first3=Robert B. |title=Exposure to Cold Environment and Rhinovirus Common Cold |journal=New England Journal of Medicine |volume=279 |pages=742–7 |year=1968 |doi=10.1056/NEJM196810032791404}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Douglas |first1=R. C. |title=Cold doesn't affect the "common cold" in study of rhinovirus infections |journal=JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association |volume=199 |pages=29–30 |year=1967 |doi=10.1001/jama.199.7.29}}</ref> Viruses spread more easily when humidity is low which is the case during wintertime.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lowen |first1=Anice C. |last2=Mubareka |first2=Samira |last3=Steel |first3=John |last4=Palese |first4=Peter |title=Influenza Virus Transmission Is Dependent on Relative Humidity and Temperature |journal=PLoS Pathogens |volume=3 |pages=e151 |year=2007 |doi=10.1371/journal.ppat.0030151 |laysummary=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071019090004.htm |laysource=ScienceDaily |laydate=October 19, 2007}}</ref> A lowering of body temperature can, however, reduce the body's resistance to an infection that is already present, and cause temporary sneezing and runny nose.<ref name="FapPrac22:608–613">{{cite journal |last1=Johnson |first1=C. |last2=Eccles |first2=R |title=Acute cooling of the feet and the onset of common cold symptoms |journal=Family Practice |volume=22 |issue=6 |pages=608–13 |year=2005 |pmid=16286463 |doi=10.1093/fampra/cmi072}}</ref>
*It is a common misconception that those suffering from flu or cold congestion should avoid dairy because it may increase mucus production. Drinking milk and/or consuming other dairy products does not increase mucus production.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Pinnock |first1=CB |last2=Graham |first2=NM |last3=Mylvaganam |first3=A |last4=Douglas |first4=RM |title=Relationship between milk intake and mucus production in adult volunteers challenged with rhinovirus-2 |journal=The American review of respiratory disease |volume=141 |issue=2 |pages=352–6 |year=1990 |pmid=2154152}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Handbook of pediatric nutrition |author1=Patricia Queen Samour |author2=Kathy King Helm |publisher=Jones & Bartlett Learning |year=2005 |isbn=0763783560 |url=http://books.google.com/?id=J8Xgyvr9038C&pg=PA337&lpg=PA337&dq=milk+mucus+misconception#v=onepage&q=milk%20mucus%20misconception&f=false}}</ref>
*[[Wart]]s on human skin are caused by viruses that are unique to humans ([[human papillomavirus]]). Humans cannot catch warts from [[toad]]s or other animals; the bumps on a toad are not warts.<ref>{{Cite web|author=London Drugs|url=http://www.londondrugs.com/Cultures/en-US/FocusOnHealth/Fall2002/Warts.htm|title=''Putting an End to Warts''|publisher=www.londondrugs.com|date=|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref>
*[[Fever]] does not harm the brain or the body, though it does increase the need for fluids. Fever does not cause brain damage or death in children if untreated. In fact, fever is normally a signal that the immune system is working well. Extreme fever (hyperpyrexia, a body temperature above 41.5 °C or 106.7 °F) is, however, harmful if left untreated.<ref name=EM01>{{cite journal |author=McGugan EA |title=Hyperpyrexia in the emergency department |journal=Emerg Med (Fremantle) |volume=13 |issue=1 |pages=116–20 |year=2001 |month=March |pmid=11476402 |doi= 10.1046/j.1442-2026.2001.00189.x|url=}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Lifting a Veil of Fear to See a Few Benefits of Fever |work=New York Times |date=January 10, 2011|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/health/11klass.html |author=Perri Klaus}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=Fever Phobia Revisited: Have Parental Misconceptions About Fever Changed in 20 Years? |journal=Pediatrics |date=June 6, 2001 |vol=107 |no=6 |date=June 2001|pages=1241–1246|author=Michael Crocetti, Nooshi Moghbeli, and Janet Serwint |url=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/107/6/1241}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=Fever Phobia: Misconceptions of Parents About Fevers |author= Barton D. Schmitt |journal=Am J Dis Child |year=1980 |vol=134 |no=2 |pages=176–181 |url=http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/134/2/176}}</ref>

====Miscellaneous====
*It is a common misconception that [[sleepwalking|sleepwalkers]] should not be awakened. While it is true that a person may be confused or disoriented for a short time after awakening, this does not cause them further harm. In contrast, sleepwalkers may injure themselves if they trip over objects or lose their balance while sleepwalking. Such injuries are common among sleepwalkers.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.medicinenet.com/sleepwalking/article.htm|title=Sleepwalking: Causes, Symptoms, and Treatments|publisher=MedicineNet, Inc|accessdate=2009-05-10}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.sleepfoundation.org/article/sleep-related-problems/sleepwalking|title=Sleepwalking|publisher=National Sleep Foundation|accessdate=2009-05-10}}</ref>
*In [[South Korea]], it is commonly believed that sleeping in a closed room with an [[electric fan]] running can be fatal. According to the Korean government, "In some cases, a fan turned on too long can cause death from [[asphyxia|suffocation]], [[hypothermia]], or fire from overheating." The Korea Consumer Protection Board issued a consumer safety alert recommending that electric fans be set on timers, direction changed and doors left open. Belief in [[fan death]] is common even among knowledgeable medical professionals in Korea. According to Yeon Dong-su, dean of Kwandong University's medical school, "If it is completely sealed, then in the current of an electric fan, the temperature can drop low enough to cause a person to die of hypothermia."<ref>{{cite press release|title=Beware of Summer Hazards!
|publisher=Korea Consumer Protection Board (KCPB)|date=2006-07-18|url=http://english.cpb.or.kr/user/bbs/code02_detail.php?av_jbno=2006071800002|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20070927051420/http://english.cpb.or.kr/user/bbs/code02_detail.php?av_jbno=2006071800002|archivedate=2007-09-27|accessdate=2009-09-05}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Surridge|first=Grant|title=Newspapers fan belief in urban myth|work=JoongAng Daily|date=2004-09-22|url=http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200409/22/200409222123324579900091009101.html|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20070110052746/http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200409/22/200409222123324579900091009101.html|archivedate=2007-01-10|publisher=Chicago Reader, Inc.|accessdate=2007-08-02 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Adams|first=Cecil|title=Will sleeping in a closed room with an electric fan cause death?|work=The Straight Dope|date=1997-09-12|url=http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1245/will-sleeping-in-a-closed-room-with-an-electric-fan-cause-death|publisher=Chicago Reader, Inc.|accessdate=2007-08-02 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Adams|first=Cecil|url=http://www.esquire.com/style/answer-fella/korean-fan-death-0209|title=Why Fan Death Is an Urban Myth|accessdate=2009-09-06}}</ref> Although an [[air conditioner]] transfers heat from the air and cools it, a fan moves air to increase the [[Evaporative_cooler#Physical_principles|evaporation of sweat]]. Due to [[Energy conversion efficiency|energy losses]], a fan will slowly heat a room.
*Although it is commonly believed that most body heat is lost through a person's head, heat loss through the head is not more significant than other parts of the body when naked.<ref>
{{cite journal
| doi = 10.1097/00000542-199010000-00011
| author = Sessler, D.I., Moayeri, A., et al.
| year = 1990
| title = Thermoregulatory vasoconstriction decreases cutaneous heat loss
| journal = Anesthesiology
| volume = 73
| issue = 4
| pages = 656
| issn = 0003-3022
| url = http://journals.lww.com/anesthesiology/Abstract/1990/10000/Thermoregulatory_Vasoconstriction_Decreases.11.aspx
| pmid = 2221434
}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|author=Ian Sample, science correspondent|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/dec/17/medicalresearch-humanbehaviour|title=Scientists debunk myth that most heat is lost through head | Science|publisher=The Guardian|date=2008-12-18|accessdate=2010-06-23|location=London}}</ref> This may be a generalization of situations in which it is true, such as when the head is the only uncovered part of the body. For example, it has been shown that hats effectively prevent hypothermia in infants.<ref>{{cite journal| author = Stothers, JK| year=1981| title=Head insulation and heat loss in the newborn.| journal=British Medical Journal| volume=56| issue=7| pages=530| publisher=Royal Coll Paediatrics}}</ref>
*Eating less than an hour before swimming doesn't increase the risk of experiencing muscle [[cramp]]s or drowning. One study shows that a correlation between alcohol consumption and drowning, but there is no evidence cited regarding stomach cramps or the consumption of food.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/health/28real.html|title=The Claim: Never Swim After Eating |publisher=New York Times|date=2005-06-28|accessdate=2011-01-16}}; {{Cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/oldwives/hourwait.asp|title=Hour Missed Brooks|publisher=Snopes|date=2005-01-03|accessdate=2011-01-16}}</ref>
*A person who is [[drowning]] does not always wave and call for help. In the final stages, raising the arms and vocalising are even usually impossible due to the [[instinctive drowning response]].<ref>{{Cite |last=Vittone|first=Mario|title=It Doesn't Look Like They're Drowning|work=On Scene: The Journal of U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue|url=http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg534/On%20Scene/OSFall06.pdf |page=14}}</ref> The technical term for the situation where a "drowning" person is capable of waving and calling for help is "aquatic distress".

===Mathematics===
*Contrary to a widespread perception, the [[real number]] [[0.999...]] - where the dot is followed by an infinite sequence of nines - is exactly equal to 1 by definition.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Eccles|first=Peter J. |title= An introduction to mathematical reasoning: numbers, sets, and functions|year= 1997|publisher= [[Cambridge University Press]]|page=167|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ImCSX_gm40oC&pg=PA167#v=onepage&q&f=false|isbn=0521597188|quote=Intuition suggests that this means that the repeating decimal<math>0.\bar{9}</math> is also less than 1, and this is a common misconception.}}</ref> They are two different ways of writing the same real number.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Maor|first=Eli |year= 1991 |title= To infinity and beyond: a cultural history of the infinite|publisher=[[Princeton University Press]]|page=32| ISBN=9780691025117|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=lXjF7JnHQoIC&pg=PA32#v=onepage&q&f=false|quote=Many people find it hard to accept this simple fact, and one can often hear a heated discussion as to its validity.}}</ref> A 2009 study by Weller ''et al.''<ref>K Weller, I Arnon, and E. Dubinsky. Preservice Teachers' Understanding of the Relation Between a Fraction or Integer and Its Decimal Expansion. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1942-4051, Volume 9 (2009), no. 1, 5--28.</ref> states that "[[David O. Tall|Tall]] and Schwarzenberger (1978) asked first year university mathematics students whether 0.999... is equal to 1. The majority of the students thought that is less than 1." Weller ''et al'' go on to describe their own controlled experiment, performed "during the 2005 fall semester at a major research university in the southern United States. Pre-service elementary and middle school teachers from all five sections of a sophomore-level mathematics content course on number and operation participated in the study." The results are striking: "On the question of whether .999...=1, 72% of the control group and 83% of the experimental group expressed their view that .999... is not equal to 1."

===Physics===
*Contrary to the common myth,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadCoriolis.html|first=Alistair |last=Frasier |title=Bad Coriolis |publisher=[[Penn State]] College of Earth an Materials Sciences|work=ems.psu.edu|date=October 16, 1996 |accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref> the [[Water vortex|Coriolis effect]] does not determine the direction that water rotates in a bathtub drain or a flushing toilet. The Coriolis effect induced by the Earth's rotation becomes significant and noticeable only at large scales, such as in weather systems or oceanic currents.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/science/coriolis.asp|title=Coriolis Force Effect on Drains|publisher=snopes.com|date=|accessdate=2010-06-23}}</ref> In addition, most toilets inject water into the bowl at an angle, causing a spin too fast to be significantly affected by the Coriolis effect.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Which way will my bathtub drain|url=http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/bathtub.html|publisher=Usenet Physics FAQ|accessdate=2008-08-07}}</ref>
*[[Gyroscope|Gyroscopic forces]] are not required for a rider to [[bicycle and motorcycle dynamics#Other hypotheses|balance]] a [[bicycle]].<ref name="whitt">{{Cite book|title=Bicycling Science|edition=Second|last=Whitt|first=Frank R.|first2=David G. |last2=Wilson|year=1982|publisher=Massachusetts Institute of Technology| isbn=0-262-23111-5| pages=198–233}}</ref><ref name="klein">{{Cite web|url=http://www.losethetrainingwheels.org/default.aspx?Lev=2&ID=34 |publisher=LoseTheTrainingWheels.org| archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20061010070125/http://www.losethetrainingwheels.org/default.aspx?Lev=2&ID=34 |archivedate=2006-10-10|title=Bicycle Science|last=Klein|first=Richard E.|coauthors=et al.|accessdate=2006-08-04}}</ref><ref name="jones">{{Cite journal |last1=Jones |first1=David E. H. |pages=34–40 |title=The Stability of the Bicycle |volume=23 |journal=Physics Today |year=1970 |url=http://socrates.berkeley.edu/%7Efajans/Teaching/MoreBikeFiles/JonesBikeBW.pdf |doi=10.1063/1.3022064}}</ref><ref name="DCL">{{cite web|url=http://www.dclxvi.org/chunk/tech/trail/ |title=An Introduction to Bicycle Geometry and Handling |author=Megulon5 |publisher=DCLXVI.org |work=CHUNK666 |quote=negated the gyroscopic action of the front wheel by mounting another wheel on the same axle and spinning it in the opposite direction. He says that it felt strange, but was easily ridable. However, when set in motion without a rider, it collapsed much quicker than normal, and he found it difficult (although not impossible) to ride with his hands off of the handlebars.}}{{dubious|date=January 2011}}</ref> Although gyroscopic forces are a factor, the stability of a bicycle is determined primarily by inertia,<ref name="DCL"/> steering geometry, and the rider's ability to counteract tilting by steering.

[[Image:Equal transit-time NASA wrong1.gif|thumb|right|250px|An illustration of the equal transit-time fallacy.]]
*It is not true that air takes the same time to travel above and below an aircraft's wing.<ref name=NASA_Incorrect_Theory1>{{Cite web|url=http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html |title=Incorrect Lift Theory |publisher=NASA Glenn Research Center |work=grc.nasa.gov |date=July 28, 2008 |accessdate=2011-01-13}} (Java applet).</ref> This misconception, illustrated at right, is widespread among textbooks and non-technical reference books, and even appears in pilot training materials. In fact the air moving over the top of an airfoil generating lift is always moving much faster than the equal transit theory would imply,<ref name=NASA_Incorrect_Theory1/> as described in the [[Lift_(force)#.22Popular.22_explanation_based_on_equal_transit-time|incorrect]] and [[Lift_(force)#A_more_rigorous_physical_description|correct explanations]] of lift force.
*The idea that [[lightning]] never strikes the same place twice is one of the oldest and most well-known [[superstition]]s about lightning. There is no reason that lightning would not be able to strike the same place twice; if there is a thunderstorm in a given area, then objects and places which are more prominent or conductive (and therefore minimize distance) are more likely to be struck. For instance, lightning strikes the [[Empire State Building]] in [[New York City]] about 100 times per year.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2005/ps_3.html|title=spinoff 2005-Lightning Often Strikes Twice|publisher=Office of the Chief Technologist, [[NASA]]|work = Spinoff |date=March 25, 2010|accessdate=2010-06-23}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|author=Staff |url=http://weather.weatherbug.com/weather-news/weather-reports.html?story=6571 |title=Full weather report story from WeatherBug.com |publisher=Weather.weatherbug.com|date=May 17, 2010|accessdate=2010-06-23}}</ref>
*Although frequently repeated as fact, a [[penny]] dropped from the [[Empire State Building]] will not kill a person or crack the sidewalk. Due to [[terminal velocity]] the speed of a falling penny cannot exceed 30–50 miles per hour regardless of the distance from which it is dropped,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.misconceptionjunction.com/index.php/2010/10/dropping-a-penny-from-the-top-of-the-empire-state-building-isnt-dangerous/|title=Dropping A Penny From The Top Of The Empire State Building Isn't Dangerous|publisher=misconceptionjunction.com}}</ref> as demonstrated on an episode of [[MythBusters_(2003_season)#Penny_Drop|Mythbusters]].

===Psychology===
*The notion of [[catharsis]] holds that frustration and anger should not be bottled up or else a person risks allowing those feelings to accrue and eventually explode in some harmful way. Instead, it recommends that frustration and anger should be released through harmless expression, such as by screaming or punching a pillow. However, experimental psychology has shown that such expression can increase rather than decrease harmful behavior.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://devoidarex.newsvine.com/_news/2006/02/28/112741-the-myth-of-catharsis-maybe-you-ought-to-leave-that-pillow-alone|title=The Myth of Catharsis: Maybe You Ought to Leave that Pillow Alone|publisher=newsvine.com}}</ref> In one experiment, people who engaged in catharsis (by hitting a punching bag) were significantly more likely to aggress toward a peer shortly afterward than were people who did not engage in catharsis.<ref>Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F., & *Stack, A. D. (1999). Catharsis, aggression, and persuasive influence: Self-fulfilling or self-defeating prophecies? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 367-376.</ref>
*Photographic or [[eidetic memory]] refers to the ability to remember images with extremely high precision – so high as to mimic a camera. However, it is highly unlikely that photographic memory exists, as to date there is no hard scientific evidence that anyone has ever had it.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/photographic-memory/|title=Photographic Memory|publisher=indianapublicmedia.org}}</ref> Many people have claimed to have a photographic memory, but those people have been shown to have good memories as a result of [[mnemonic|mnemonic devices]] rather than a natural capacity for detailed memory encoding.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.slate.com/id/2140685/|title=Kaavya Syndrome The accused Harvard plagiarist doesn't have a photographic memory. No one does.|publisher=slate.com}}</ref>

==Sports==
[[File:Marcos black belt.jpg|thumb|right|250px|[[Marcos Torregrosa]] wearing a black belt with a red bar. In some martial arts, such as [[Brazillian Jiu Jitsu]] and [[Judo]], red belts indicate a higher rank than black. In some cases, a solid red belt is reserved for the founder of the art, and in others, higher degrees of black belts are shown by red stripes.]]
*[[Abner Doubleday]] did not invent [[baseball]].<ref>{{Cite news|last=Cole|first=Diane|url=http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060806/14ball.htm|title=Contrary to myth, baseball may have had no single inventor|publisher=US News and World Report|date=1990-10-04|accessdate=2009-08-06}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Fox|first=Butterfield|url=http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/04/nyregion/cooperstown-hoboken-try-new-york-city.html|title=Cooperstown? Hoboken? Try New York City|publisher=The New York Times|date=1990-10-04|accessdate=2009-04-03}}</ref> {{See|Origins of baseball#The Abner Doubleday myth}}
*The [[World Series]] is not named after the ''[[New York World]]'' newspaper.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/business/names/worldseries.asp|title=World Series|publisher=snopes.com|date=|accessdate=2010-06-23}}</ref>
*The [[black belt (martial arts)|black belt]] in [[martial arts]] does not necessarily indicate expert level or mastery. As introduced for [[judo]] in the 1880s, it indicates competency of all of the basic techniques of the sport. The first five [[Dan (rank)|ranks]] all have black belts; holders of the third rank can act as local instructors and may be addressed as ''[[sensei]]''. Holders of higher ranks in judo and other Asian martial arts are awarded belts with alternating red and white panels (6th to 8th ''dan''), and the very highest ranks with solid red belts (9th and 10th ''dan'').<ref>{{cite web|url=http://r25.jp/magazine/ranking_review/10002000/1112008051512.html|title=柔道帯の最高位は、何と紅!? “紅帯”所持者に投げられてきた!|language=Japanese|publisher=R25.jp|date=2008-05-15|accessdate=2008-11-11 |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20080519163156/http://r25.jp/magazine/ranking_review/10002000/1112008051512.html  |archivedate = 2008-05-19}}</ref>

==Religion==
===Book of Genesis===

*The [[forbidden fruit]] mentioned in the [[Book of Genesis]] is commonly assumed to be an apple,<ref>{{Cite book|title=Voices from the University: The Legacy of the Hebrew Bible|author=Szpek, Heidi|page=92|isbn=9780595256198}}</ref> and is widely depicted as such in Western art, although the Bible does not identify what type of fruit it is. The original Hebrew texts mention only ''tree''. Early Latin translations use the word ''mali'', which can be taken to mean both "evil" and "apple". German and French artists commonly depict the fruit as an apple from the 12th century onwards, and [[John Milton]]'s ''[[Areopagitica]]'' from 1644 explicitly mentions the fruit as an apple.<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Straight Dope: Was the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden an apple?|author=Cecil Adams|url=http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2682/was-the-forbidden-fruit-in-the-garden-of-eden-an-apple|accessdate=2010-01-15}}</ref> Jewish scholars suggested that the fruit could have been a grape, a fig, wheat, or [[etrog]].<ref>[[Babylonian Talmud]], [[Berakhot (Talmud)|Berakhot]], 40a</ref><ref>[[Genesis Rabba]] 15 7</ref><ref>[http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2682/was-the-forbidden-fruit-in-the-garden-of-eden-an-apple The Straight Dope: Was the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden an apple?]</ref> Likewise, the Quran speaks only of a forbidden "tree" and does not identify the fruit.
*Although common conception says that [[Noah]] was told in the [[Book of Genesis]] to bring two of each animal onto his ark,<ref name="ArkAnimals">{{cite web | url=http://listverse.com/2008/04/20/top-10-misconceptions-about-the-bible/ | title=Top 10 Misconceptions about the Bible | accessdate=2011-01-10 | date=2008-04-20 | publisher=Listverse.com}}</ref> the book actually contains differing passages about the number of animals he was told to bring; in {{Bibleverse||Genesis|6:19|NIV}}, he is told to bring "two of all living creatures", while in {{Bibleverse||Genesis|7:2|NIV}} he is told to bring "seven pairs of every kind of clean animal […] and one pair of every kind of unclean animal" - although in some translations (e.g. the New King James {{Bibleverse||Genesis||7:2|NKJV}}) this is rendered as seven animals, rather than seven pairs.

===Buddhism===
*The [[Gautama Buddha|historical Buddha]] was not obese. The "chubby Buddha" or "laughing Buddha" is a tenth century Chinese folk hero by the name of [[Budai]]. In Chinese Buddhist culture, Budai came to be revered as an [[incarnation]] of [[Maitreya]], the [[Bodhisattva]] who will become a Buddha to restore Buddhism after the teachings of the historical Buddha, Siddhārtha Gautama, have passed away.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://buddhism.about.com/od/buddha/a/laughingbuddha.htm|title=The Laughing Buddha|accessdate=January 6, 2011|source=about.com}}</ref>
*The Buddha is not a [[god]]. In early Buddhism, Siddhārtha Gautama possessed no salvific properties and strongly encouraged "self-reliance, self discipline and individual striving."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/snapshot01.htm|title=Buddhism - Major Differences |accessdate=January 6, 2011|source=Buddhanet.net}}</ref> However, in later developments of [[Mahayana|Mahāyāna Buddhism]], notably in the [[Pure Land Buddhism|Pure Land (Jìngtǔ)]] school of Chinese Buddhism, the [[Amitābha|Amitābha Buddha]] was thought to be a [[Salvation|savior]]. Through faith in the Amitābha Buddha, one could be reborn in the [[Pure Land|western Pure Land]]. Although in Pure Land Buddhism the Buddha is considered a savior, he is still not considered a god in the common understanding of the term.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/b3schchn.htm|title=The Chinese Buddhist Schools|accessdate=January 6, 2011|source=Buddhanet.net}}</ref>

===Christianity===
* Nowhere in the Bible is [[Satan]] described as ruling over or being in Hell. Throughout the Bible Satan is described as constantly on Earth, and the [[Book of Revelation]] says that after Judgment Satan will be cast into Hell.<ref>{{cite news |title=What Does the Bible Say About…Satan in Hell? |author=O'Hearn, Timothy James |url=http://www.minuteswithmessiah.com/question/sataninhell.html |newspaper=Minutes With Messiah |year=2005 |accessdate=January 16, 2011}}</ref>
*The [[Immaculate Conception]] is not synonymous with the [[virgin birth of Jesus]], nor is it a supposed belief in the virgin birth of [[Mary (mother of Jesus)|Mary]], his mother. Rather, the Immaculate Conception is the [[Roman Catholic]] belief that Mary was not subject to [[original sin]] from the first moment of her existence, when she was conceived.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Religion & Ethics - Beliefs: The Immaculate Conception|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/immaculateconception.shtml|year=2009|publisher=BBC.co.uk| accessdate=2011-01-05}}</ref> The concept of the virgin birth, on the other hand, is the belief that Mary miraculously conceived [[Jesus]] while remaining a virgin.<ref>''Erratum: The BBC article errs in its statement of the virgin birth it says "Mary gave birth to Jesus while remaining a virgin" which, as stated, is part of the doctrine of [[Perpetual virginity of Mary|Perpetual Virginity]]. The correct formulation is "that Mary miraculously conceived Jesus while remaining a virgin" as stated in [[virgin birth of Jesus|the Wikipedia article on the virgin birth of Jesus]]'' Retrieved 2011-01-05.</ref>
*Nowhere in the Bible does it say exactly three [[Biblical Magi|magi]] came to visit the baby Jesus, nor that they were kings, rode on camels, or that their names were Casper, Melchior and Balthazar. It has traditionally been assumed there were three magi because three gifts are described, and [[Nativity of Jesus in art|artistic depictions of the nativity]] after about the year 900 almost always depict three magi.<ref>{{Cite book|title=''Iconography of Christian Art, Vol. I'',1971 (English trans from German),|author=G. Schiller|isbn=0853312702|page=105}}</ref> Additionally, the wise men in the actual biblical narrative did not visit on the day Jesus was born, but they saw Jesus as a child, in a house as many as two years afterwards ({{bibleverse|Matthew||2:11}}).<ref>{{Cite web|last=Mikkelson|first=David and Barbara|title=Snopes.com - Three Wise Men|url=http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/3wisemen.asp|accessdate=2009-04-07 }}</ref><ref>[[Geza Vermes]], ''The Nativity: History and Legend'', London, Penguin, 2006, p22</ref>
*Contrary to popular belief, there is no evidence that Jesus was born on December 25.<ref name=autogenerated1>{{Cite web|title=Why Jesus Christ Wasn't Born on December 25|url=http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/HH/jcnotborndec25.asp|publisher=United Church of God|work=gnmagazine.org|accessdate=2011-01-13}}</ref> The Bible never claims a date of December 25, but may imply a date closer to September.<ref name=autogenerated1 /> The date may have initially been chosen to correspond with either the day exactly nine months after Christians believe [[Annunciation|Jesus to have been conceived]],<ref name="bib-arch.org">{{cite web|url=http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/christmas.asp |title=How December 25 Became Christmas|publisher=Biblical Archaeology Review|accessdate=2009-12-13}}</ref> the date of the [[Roman calendar|Roman]] [[winter solstice]],<ref name="Newton">Newton, Isaac, ''[http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16878/16878-h/16878-h.htm Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John]'' (1733). Ch. XI. "''A sun connection is possible because Christians consider Jesus to be the "sun of righteousness" prophesied in Malachi 4:2.''"</ref> or one of various ancient [[List of winter festivals|winter festivals]].<ref name="bib-arch.org"/><ref name="SolInvictus">"{{cite book|last=Roll|first=Susan K.| title=Toward the Origins of Christmas| publisher=Peeters | year=1995| page=130| url=http://books.google.com/books?id=6MXPEMbpjoAC&lpg=PP1&ots=beccd692iI&pg=PA130#v=onepage&q&f=false}} Tighe, William J. (December 2003), "[http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-10-012-v Calculating Christmas]". Touchstone Magazine. ([http://www.webcitation.org/5kwR1OTxS Archived 2009-10-31]).</ref>

===Islam===
*A [[fatwā]] is a non-binding legal opinion issued by an [[Ulema|Islamic scholar]] under [[Sharia|Islamic law]]. The popular misconception<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Isbister|first=William H. |title=A “good” fatwa|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124693/| journal=[[British Medical Journal]] |date=November 23, 2002|volume=325 |issue=7374 |page=1227 |pmcid=PMC1124693 |accessdate=2009-04-08 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Vultee |first=Fred|title=Fatwa on the Bunny|url=http://jci.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/4/319?ck=nck |journal=Journal of Communication Inquiry |date=October 2006 |volume=30|issue=4|pages= 319–336 |doi=10.1177/0196859906290919 |accessdate=2009-12-19 }}</ref> that the word means a death sentence probably stems from the fatwā issued by Ayatollah [[Ruhollah Khomeini]] of Iran in 1989 regarding the author [[Salman Rushdie]], who he stated had earned a death sentence for [[blasphemy]]. This event led to fatwās gaining widespread media attention in the West.<ref>{{Cite news|title=In Depth: Islam, Fatwa FAQ|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/islam/fatwa.html|publisher=CBC News Online | date=June 15, 2006|accessdate=2009-04-08 }}</ref>
*The word "[[jihad]]" does not always mean "[[Religious war|holy war]]"; literally, the word in Arabic means "struggle". While there is such a thing as "[[Jihad#Warfare_.28Jihad_bil_Saif.29|jihad bil saif]]", or jihad "by the sword",<ref>{{cite book|first=Majid |last=Khadduri |title=War and Peace in the Law of Islam |publisher=[[Johns Hopkins Press]] |year=1955 |pages=74–80 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=UHWd6gLZsFIC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q&f=false}}</ref> many modern Islamic scholars usually say that it implies an effort or struggle of a spiritual kind.<ref>{{cite book|first=Brandon |last=Toropov |first=Luke |last=Buckles|title=The Complete Idiot's Guide to World Religions, 3rd ed.|page=157 |publisher=Alpha|year=2004| isbn=978-1592572229| url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ZPokHByS3N0C&pg=PA157#v=onepage&q&f=false}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1719934&Language=en|title=Western definition of "jihad" must be corrected -- Italian expert |date=March 29, 2007|newspaper=[[Kuwait News Agency]] (KUNA)}}</ref> Scholar [[Louay Safi]] asserts that "misconceptions and misunderstandings regarding the nature of war and peace in Islam are widespread in both the Muslim societies and the West", as much following [[9/11]] as before.<ref>{{cite book| title=Peace and the Limits of War: Transcending the Classical Conception of Jihad |first=Louay M. |last=Safi |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=1_PFEicd5LkC&pg=PP9#v=onepage&q&f=false |publisher=[[International Institute of Islamic Thought]]| year=2003 |page=preface |isbn=1565644026}}</ref>

===Judaism===
*A person with a tattoo is not generally forbidden from being buried in a Jewish cemetery.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/fashion/17SKIN.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&ref=fashion |title=Skin Deep - Hey, Mom, the Rabbi Approved My Tattoo |publisher=NYTimes.com|date=July 17, 2008|accessdate=2011-01-13}}</ref> This common misconception was depicted in the television shows ''[[Curb Your Enthusiasm]]'' and ''[[The Nanny]]''. While private cemeteries have the right to forbid burial on any grounds, there is no Jewish law to bar tattooed applicants,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ou.org/index.php/jewish_action/print/69707/ |title=What's the Truth About a Jew with a Tattoo being buried in a Jewish Cemetery |publisher=OU.org|accessdate=2011-01-13}}</ref> and it is uncommon to do so.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/533444/jewish/Can-a-person-with-a-tattoo-be-buried-in-a-Jewish-cemetery.htm |title=Can a person with a tattoo be buried in a Jewish cemetery? |publisher=Chabad.org|accessdate=2011-01-13}}</ref>
* Orthodox Jews do not have sex through a hole in a sheet, as portrayed in various films and TV programs such as ''[[Curb Your Enthusiasm]]'' and ''[[A Price Above Rubies]]''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/religion/sheet.asp |title=Hole in Sheet Sex |publisher=Snopes.com|accessdate=January 6, 2011}}</ref> In fact, according to Rabbi [[Shmuley Boteach]], "Jewish law does not allow any articles of clothing to be worn during lovemaking", and using a sheet in this way could be considered a violation of that law.<ref name="orthodox_jews_sex">{{cite web|url=http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38069 |title=Holy Sex and Holy Walls |publisher=WND.com|accessdate=January 6, 2011}}</ref> This also includes wearing a condom.<ref name="orthodox_jews_sex"/>

==Technology==
===Inventions===
*[[George Washington Carver]] did not invent [[peanut butter]], though he reputedly discovered three hundred uses for peanuts and hundreds more for soybeans, pecans, and sweet potatoes.<ref>[http://peanut-butter.org/peanut-butter/History+of+Peanut+Butter History of Peanut Butter] Peanut-butter.org.</ref><ref>[http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/a-true-renaissance-man A True Renaissance Man]. [[American Scientist]].</ref>
*[[Thomas Crapper]] did not invent the [[flush toilet]];<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/business/names/crapper.asp|title=Thomas Crapper|work=[[Snopes]]|date=2007-02-22|accessdate=2008-12-13}}</ref> it was invented by [[John Harington (writer)|Sir John Harrington]] in 1596. Crapper, however, did much to increase its popularity and came up with some related inventions, such as the [[ballcock]] mechanism used to fill toilet tanks. He was noted for the quality of his products and received several [[Royal Warrant]]s. He was not the origin of the word ''[[feces|crap]]'', but his name may have helped popularize it.
*[[Thomas Edison]] did not invent the [[light bulb]].<ref>{{Cite book|last=Robert|first=Friedel|coauthors=Paul Israel|title=Edison's Electric Light: Biography of an Invention|location=[[New Brunswick, New Jersey]]|publisher=Rutgers University Press|pages=115–117|year=1987|isbn=0813511186}}</ref> He did, however, develop the first practical light bulb in 1880 (employing a carbonized bamboo filament), shortly prior to [[Joseph Swan]], who invented an even more efficient bulb in 1881 (which used a cellulose filament).
*[[Eli Whitney, Jr.|Eli Whitney]] did not invent the idea of [[interchangeable parts]]. He did help to popularize the idea.<ref name="Hounshell1984">{{Hounshell1984}}, pp. 15–47.</ref>
*[[Henry Ford]] did not invent either the [[automobile]] or the [[assembly line]]. He did help to develop the assembly line substantially, sometimes through his own engineering but more often through sponsoring the work of his employees.<ref name="Hounshell1984" />{{Page needed|date=September 2010}}<ref name="Sorensen1956">{{Citation | last = Sorensen | first = Charles E.; with Williamson, Samuel T. | authorlink = Charles E. Sorensen | year = 1956 | title = My Forty Years with Ford | publisher = Norton | location = New York | id = {{LCCN|56||010854}} |[http://books.google.com/books?id=fv9WPvAXpGMC&pg=PA128#v=onepage&f=false |page=128}}. Various republications, including ISBN 9780814332795.</ref>
*[[Guglielmo Marconi]] did not invent radio, but only modernized it for public broadcasting and communication.<ref>{{cite web|first=B. Eric |last=Rhoads |url=http://www.qsl.net/n7jy/radiohst.html |title=Just Who Invented Radio And Which Was The First Station? |publisher=QSL.net|accessdate=2011-01-13}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ccrane.com/library/who-invented-radio.aspx |title=Who Invented Radio?|publisher=CCrane.com |work=WorldRadio |date= May 2006 |accessdate=2011-01-13}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url=http://mobiledevdesign.com/standards_regulations/radio_invented_radio/ |title=Who invented radio?|date=February 1, 2002|first=Don |last=Bishop|publisher=Penton Media, Inc.|work=Mobile Dev & Design |accessdate=2011-01-13}}</ref> No single person was responsible for the [[invention of radio]].
*[[Robert Fulton]] did not invent the steamboat. [[John Fitch (inventor)|John Fitch]], [[James Rumsey]], [[William Symington]], and [[Samuel Morey]] each operated steamboats prior to Fulton.<ref>{{cite web|title= Samuel Morey - Inventor Extraordinary| work=Historical Fact Publications |year=1961 |first= Alice |last=Doan Hodgson|location=Orford, NH| url=http://kinnexions.com/smlsource/samuel.htm |publisher=Kinnexions.com |accessdate=2011-01-13}}</ref>
*[[Philo Farnsworth]] did not invent the television. The first television transmission was made in 1925 by Scottish inventor [[John Logie Baird]]<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v115/n2892/pdf/115504a0.pdf "Current Topics and Events"], ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'', vol. 115, April 4, 1925, p. 505–506, doi:10.1038/115504a0</ref> using an electromechanical system. Farnsworth did transmit the first live human images in 1928,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://db3-sql.staff.library.utah.edu/lucene/Manuscripts/null/Ms0648.xml/complete |title=The Philo T. and Elma G. Farnsworth Papers|publisher=Utah.edu|accessdate=2011-01-13}}</ref> and was pioneering in the development of all-electronic television.
* [[Al Gore]] never said that he "invented" the Internet; Gore actually said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp|title=Al Gore on the invention of the internet|publisher=Snopes|date=|accessdate=2009-08-29}}</ref><ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/0309/al-gore-joins-call-for-new-eco-internet-domain</ref> Gore was the original drafter of the [[High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991]], which provided significant funding for supercomputing centers, and this in turn led to upgrades of a major part of the already existing, early 1990s Internet backbone, the [[NSFNet]], and development of [[NCSA Mosaic]], the [[web browser|browser]] that popularized the [[World Wide Web]]; see [[Al Gore and information technology]].

===Transportation===
*The United States [[Interstate Highway System]] was not designed with airplane landings in mind. A common urban legend states that one out of every five (or ten) miles of highway must be straight and flat to allow emergency (or military) airplane landings, but this is not the case.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/airstrip.asp|title=Landing of Hope and Glory|publisher=snopes.com|accessdate=2007-12-30}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/00mayjun/onemileinfive.cfm|title=ONE MILE IN FIVE: Debunking the Myth|last=Weingroff|first=Richard F.|date=May/June 2000|work=Federal Highway Administration|accessdate=2006-06-29}}</ref> However, several parts of the German and later the Swiss [[Autobahn]] system were indeed designed to be auxiliary military air strips, both during [[World War II]] and the [[Cold War]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.lostplaces.de/cms/content/view/113/33/|title=Autobahn-Flugplätze (NLP-Str)|publisher=lostplaces.de|accessdate=2008-12-16}}</ref> Additionally, the [[Swedish Air Force]] built landing strips into their highway system starting in the 1950s with some expansion continuing into the 1990s.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.flygbas.se/bilder/973.pdf|title=Svenska militära flygbaser|publisher=Fortifikationsverket}}</ref> [[List of highway strips in Poland|Poland]] also contains highway strips for landing and takeoff, as do Finland, Singapore<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/393262/1/.html|title=Lim Chu Kang Road converted into alternate runway|publisher=Channel NewsAsia|accessdate=2011-01-09}}</ref> and Bulgaria.{{Citation needed|date=January 2011}} The [[Eyre Highway]], which crosses the [[Nullarbor Plain]] in Australia, has four allocated areas for [[Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia|Flying Doctor]] aircraft to land.
*Toilet waste is never intentionally dumped overboard from an aircraft. All waste is collected in tanks which are emptied on the ground by special toilet waste vehicles. A vacuum is used to allow the toilet to be flushed with less water and because plumbing cannot rely on gravity alone in an aircraft in motion.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.howstuffworks.com/question314.htm|title=How does the toilet in a commercial airliner work?|author=How Stuff works|accessdate=2008-06-27}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2008/11/19/on-world-toilet-day-let-us-praise-the-airline-lav/|last=Philips|first=Matt|title=On World Toilet Day, Let Us Praise the Airline Lav|work=The Middle Seat Terminal (Wall Street Journal)|accessdate=2009-04-02|date=2008-11-19}}</ref> The infamous [[blue ice (aircraft)|blue ice]] is caused by accidental leakages from the waste tank. Passenger trains, on the other hand, have historically [[Passenger train toilets|flushed onto the tracks]]; however, modern trains usually have retention tanks on board the train.

==See also==
{{col-begin}}
{{Col-2}}
*[[Common misunderstandings of genetics]]
*[[Conventional wisdom]]
*[[Counter-intuitive]]
*[[Drug urban legends]]
*[[Factoid]]
*[[Jan Harold Brunvand]]
*[[List of misquotations]]
*[[List of topics related to public relations and propaganda]]
{{Col-2}}
*[[Misnomer]]
*[[MythBusters]]
*[[Old wives' tale]]
*''[[Pseudodoxia Epidemica]]''
*[[Snopes.com]]
*[[The Straight Dope]]
*[[Tornado myths]]
*[[Urban legend]]
{{col-end}}

==Further reading==
*{{Cite book|last=Diefendorf|first=David|title=Amazing… But False!: Hundreds of "Facts" You Thought Were True, But Aren't|publisher=Sterling|year=2007|isbn=9781402737916}}
*{{Cite book|last=Green|first=Joey|title=Contrary to Popular Belief: More than 250 False Facts Revealed|publisher=Broadway|year=2005|isbn=978-0767919920}}
*{{Cite book|last=Johnsen|first=Ferris|title=The Encyclopedia of Popular Misconceptions: The Ultimate Debunker's Guide to Widely Accepted Fallacies|publisher=Carol Publishing Group|year=1994|isbn=9780806515564}}
*{{Cite book|last=Kruszelnicki|first=Karl|coauthors=Adam Yazxhi|title=Great Mythconceptions: The Science Behind the Myths|publisher=Andrews McMeel Publishing|year=2006|isbn=9780740753640}}
*{{Cite book|last=Lloyd|first=John|coauthors=John Mitchinson|title=The Book of General Ignorance|publisher=Harmony Books|year=2006|isbn=9780307394910}}
*{{Cite book|last=Lloyd|first=John|coauthors=John Mitchinson|title=The Second Book Of General Ignorance|publisher=Faber and Faber|year=2010|isbn=9780571268655}}
*{{Cite book|title=Origins of the Specious: Myths and Misconceptions of the English Language|last1=O'Conner|first1=Patricia T.|last2=Kellerman|first2=Stewart|year=2009|publisher=Random House|location=New York|isbn=9781400066605}}
*{{Cite book|last=Tuleja|first=Tad|title=Fabulous Fallacies: More Than 300 Popular Beliefs That Are Not True|publisher=Galahad Books|year=1999|isbn=978-1578660650}}
*{{Cite book|last=Varasdi|first=J. Allen|title=Myth Information: More Than 590 Popular Misconceptions, Fallacies, and Misbeliefs Explained!|publisher=Ballantine Books|year=1996|isbn=978-0345410498}}

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}



{{DEFAULTSORT:List Of Common Misconceptions}}
[[Category:Society-related lists|Misconceptions]]
[[Category:Science activism]]
[[Category:Error]]

[[ar:معتقد خطأ]]
[[da:Liste over almene fejlopfattelser]]
[[de:Verbreiteter Irrtum]]
[[es:Anexo:Conceptos erróneos a través de la historia]]
[[hi:प्रचलित गलत धारणाओं की सूची]]
[[it:Lista delle comuni miscredenze]]
[[he:תפיסה שגויה]]
[[pl:Lista powszechnych błędnych mniemań]]

2010–2011 Queensland floods

2011-01-15T02:14:11Z

Forteller: /* See also */ Added January 2011 Rio de Janeiro floods and mudslides

{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2011}}
{{current | date = January 2011}}
{{Infobox flood
| name = 2010–2011 Queensland floods
| image location = Trapped woman on a car roof during flash flooding in Toowoomba 2.jpg
| image name = A woman trapped on the roof of her car awaits rescue during the Toowoomba flash flood
| image alt text =
| duration = December 2010 – present
| total damages = [[Australian dollar|A$]]20 billion<ref name="Malikin2011-01-13" /> ''(estimated)''
| total damages (USD) =
| total fatalities = 30 confirmed dead, 40 more believed to be dead, 53 missing 
| areas affected = Much of central and southern [[Queensland]] including [[Brisbane]], [[Rockhampton, Queensland|Rockhampton]], [[Emerald, Queensland|Emerald]], [[Bundaberg]], [[Dalby, Queensland|Dalby]], [[Toowoomba]], and [[Ipswich, Queensland|Ipswich]]
}}

A series of [[flood]]s hit Australia, beginning in December 2010, primarily in the state of [[Queensland]] including its capital city, [[Brisbane]]. The floods have forced the evacuation of thousands of people from towns and cities.<ref name="BBC2010-12-31" /> At least 70 towns and over 200,000 people have been affected.<ref name="BBC2010-12-31" /> Damage initially was estimated at around [[Australian dollar|AU$]]1 billion ([[Pound sterling|£]]633 million).<ref name="BBC2010-12-29" /> The estimate of lost revenue from Australia's GDP is about A$13 billion. Queensland Treasurer [[Andrew Fraser (Queensland politician)|Andrew Fraser]] said it was not possible to put a figure on the damage; "other than to say the damage bill is going to start with a ''b'' and not an ''m''".<ref name="Rogow2011-01-11" /><ref name="Lee2011-01-12" />

Three-quarters of the state of Queensland has been declared a disaster zone.<ref name="Hurst2011-01-11" /> The 2010–2011 floods have killed at least 30 and the death toll is expected to rise. As of 14 January, an additional 40 are believed to have been killed in [[Grantham, Queensland|Grantham]].<ref name="QueenslandTimes2011-01-14" />

==Background==
The floods were a result of heavy precipitation caused by [[Tropical Cyclone Tasha (2010)|Tropical Cyclone Tasha]] that combined with a [[Trough (meteorology)|trough]] during the peak of a [[La Niña]] event. The 2010 La Niña weather pattern, which brings wetter conditions to eastern Australia, was the strongest since 1973.<ref>{{Cite news | url = http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/01/3104737.htm | title = La Nina to break down later this year | accessdate = 1 January 2011 | date = 1 January 2011 | work=[[ABC News (Australia)|ABC News Online]] | publisher=[[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]] }}</ref> Isolated flooding started across parts of the state in early December. On 24 December a [[Monsoon trough|monsoonal trough]] crossed the coast from the [[Coral Sea]], bringing torrential rain that fell in a broad swath from the [[Gulf of Carpentaria]] to the [[Gold Coast, Queensland|Gold Coast]]. The conditions also led to a large influx of snakes, as well as some crocodiles.<ref name="braced">{{Cite news | url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12124805 | title = Flood-hit Queensland braced for fresh storms |author=| accessdate = 6 January 2011 | date = 5 January 2011 |publisher=BBC News | publisher=BBC}}</ref>

By 30 December, vast areas of Southern and [[Central Queensland]], an area the size of Germany and France combined, were affected by the flood. About 300 roads were closed, including nine major highways.<ref name="hrc">{{Cite news | url = http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/hundreds-of-roads-closed-in-flooded-qld-20101228-198z7.html | title = Hundreds of roads closed in flooded Qld | accessdate = 30 December 2010 | date = 28 December 2010 |work=The Sydney Morning Herald | publisher=[[Fairfax Media]] }}</ref> Coal railway lines were closed and numerous mine sites flooded. The floods have boosted fruit and vegetable prices.<ref name="sqfv">{{Cite news | url = http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/some-queensland-flood-victims-facing-long-wait-to-return-to-their-flooded-homes/story-e6frg6nf-1225978512441 | title = Some Queensland flood victims facing long wait to return to their flooded homes | accessdate = 30 December 2010 | date = 30 December 2010 |work=The Australian | publisher=[[News Limited]] }}</ref>

==Extent==
[[File:Dec_2010 Queensland floods.jpg|thumb|right|NASA image showing swollen rivers and cloud cover]]
Flooding has been widespread across Queensland since mid December 2010 with several separate rain events causing rivers to rise over a three week period. Many places, including [[Condamine]] and [[Chinchilla, Queensland|Chinchilla]] have been inundated by flood waters on multiple occasions.

===Fitzroy River basin===
The flooding initially forced the evacuation of 1,000 people from [[Theodore, Queensland|Theodore]] and other towns, described as unprecedented by the acting chief officer of the Emergency Management Queensland.<ref name="fclw">{{Cite news | url = http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/weather/flooding-could-last-weeks-not-days-20101229-199iy.html | title = Flooding could last 'weeks, not days' |first=Marissa |last=Calligeros | accessdate =
0 December 2010 | date = 29 December 2010 | work=[[Brisbane Times]] | publisher=Fairfax Media }}</ref> The military transported residents by helicopter to an evacuation centre at [[Moura, Queensland|Moura]]. The total evacuation of a Queensland town was a first for the state.<ref name=>{{Cite news |url=http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201101/s3109577.htm |title=Flood destroys doctor's surgery in Theodore |accessdate=15 January 2011 |date=10 January 2011 |work=[[ABC Rural]] |publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation }}</ref>

[[Emerald, Queensland|Emerald]] was cut-off by road on 29 December as the [[Nogoa River]] rose.<ref name="fdtf" /> By the next day, the river surpassed the 2008 flood peak level of {{convert|15.36|m|ft}}.<ref name="qhfw">{{Cite news | url = http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/qlds-heartbreaking-floods-worst-ever-20101230-19adw.html | title = Qld's 'heartbreaking' floods worst ever | accessdate = 30 December 2010 | date = 30 December 2010 | work=Australian Associated Press |work=The Sydney Morning Herald }}</ref> At the peak of the flooding, 80% of the town was flooded, the worst the town ever experienced.<ref name="ftq">{{Cite news | url = http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/flooded-towns-in-queensland-declard-disaster-zones/story-e6frf7l6-1225979751206 | title = Flooded towns in Queensland declared disaster zones |first=Vikki |last=Campion | accessdate = 1 January 2011 | date = 1 January 2011 | newspaper=[[The Daily Telegraph (Australia)|The Daily Telegraph]] | publisher=News Limited }}</ref> 1,200 Emerald residents registered as evacuees.<ref name="rffe" />

[[File:Rockhampton in flood 4.jpg|thumb|Rockhampton seen from the air on 31 December. The Fitzroy River can be seen to have burst its banks.]]
[[Rockhampton, Queensland|Rockhampton]] had nearly a week to prepare for an expected flood peak from the [[Fitzroy River (Queensland)|Fitzroy River]], which courses through the centre of the city.<ref name="sesvt" /> The airport was closed on 1 January.<ref name="rasd">{{Cite news | url = http://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/story/2011/01/03/rockhampton-airport-shuts-down/ | title = Rockhampton Airport shuts down | accessdate = 3 January 2011 | date = 3 January 2011 | newspaper=The Morning Bulletin | publisher=APN News & Media }}</ref> A metal flood barrier was erected around the terminal to prevent flood-borne debris from causing damage to the structure. An evacuation centre was set up at the [[Central Queensland University]].<ref name="rffe">{{Cite news | url = http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/31/3104500.htm?section=justin | title = Rockhampton faces forced evacuations | accessdate = 3 January 2011 | date = 31 December 2010 | work=ABC News Online | publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation }}</ref> The Bruce Highway leading south out of Rockhampton was closed to traffic. The river peaked at {{convert|9.2|m|ft}} just short the of the predicted {{convert|9.4|m|ft}} maximum.<ref name="qfrfp">{{Cite news | url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12116919 | title = Queensland floods: Rockhampton floodwaters 'peak' | accessdate = 7 January 2011 | date = 5 January 2011 |publisher=BBC News | publisher=BBC }}</ref>

The [[Port of Gladstone]] reduced its export capacity because the coal stockpiles at the port were saturated and further coal deliveries could not be made by rail.<ref name="rhacm" /> The [[Goonyella railway line]] which services a number of coal mines in the [[Bowen Basin]] was closed for one week and shipments of grain were also delayed.<ref name="lad">{{Cite news | url = http://www.smh.com.au/business/losses-and-delays-in-flooded-state-20110103-19dst.html | title = Losses and delays in flooded state |first=Matt |last=O'Sullivan | accessdate = 4 January 2011 | date = 4 January 2011 | newspaper=The Sydney Morning Herald | publisher=Fairfax Media }}</ref>

===Burnett River basin===
[[File:Burnett River in flood2.jpg|thumb|The swollen [[Burnett River]] at [[Gayndah]], {{convert|350|km|mi}} north west of Brisbane.]]
The central Burnett towns of [[Gayndah]] and [[Mundubbera]] saw major flooding on 28–29 December. The [[Burnett River]] peaked at {{convert|18.25|m}} at Mundubbera—the highest river height since 1942—inundating more than 20 houses. Downstream at Gayndah, the river peaked at {{convert|16.1|m}} with floodwaters reaching two houses.<ref name="NineMSNGayndah">{{Cite news | title = Worst over for Gayndah, Mundubbera | url = http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8189868/worst-over-for-gayndah-mundubbera | accessdate = 4 January 2011 | work=[[NineMSN]] | date = 29 December 2010}}</ref> Both towns were isolated for several days and there was major disruption to the potable water supply and local agricultural production.<ref name=NineMSNGayndah /><ref name="BurnettTheAustralian">{{Cite news |last=Koch |first=Tony | title = Disease next threat as barely a drop to drink in flooded Queensland towns | url = http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/disease-next-threat-as-barely-a-drop-to-drink-in-flooded-queensland-towns/story-e6frg6nf-1225979003071 | accessdate = 4 January 2011 | newspaper=The Australia | publisher=News Limited | date = 31 December 2010}}</ref>

[[Bundaberg]] experienced severe flooding, the worst in 40 years,<ref name="sesvt">{{Cite news | url = http://www.gympietimes.com.au/story/2011/01/04/our-ses-volunteers-take-goodwill-gift/ | title = SES volunteers take goodwill gift |first=Arthur |last=Gorrie | accessdate = 4 January 2011 | date = 4 January 2011 | newspaper=[[The Gympie Times]] | publisher=APN News & Media }}</ref> after the [[Burnett River]] flooded the city. Floodwater forced 300 households to leave their homes.<ref name="sesvt" />

===Condamine/Balonne River basin===
[[File:Churchill Drive flooded in Warwick.jpg|thumb|Churchill Drive flooded in Warwick]]
[[Chinchilla, Queensland|Chinchilla]] and [[Jericho, Queensland|Jericho]] were also inundated.<ref name="fdtf">{{Cite news | url = http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/weather/from-drought-to-flooding-rains-queenslands-flood-crisis-continues-20101229-19a4p.html | title = From drought to flooding rains: Queensland's flood crisis continues |first=Marissa |last=Calligeros | accessdate = 30 December 2010 | date = 30 December 2010 | work=Brisbane Times | publisher=Fairfax Media }}</ref> At least 40 residents were evacuated from Chinchilla.<ref name="ddfh">{{Cite news | url = http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/disasters-declared-in-floodhit-qld-towns-20101228-198sn.html | title = Disasters declared in flood-hit Qld towns | accessdate = 4 January 2011 | date = 28 December 2010 | agency=Australian Associated Press | work=The Sydney Morning Herald }}</ref>

Flooding in [[Dalby, Queensland|Dalby]] was the worst since 1981.<ref name="hbfs">{{Cite news | url = http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/weather/heartbreak-beneath-the-flood-slick-20101229-19ad6.html | title = Heartbreak beneath the flood slick |first=Courtney |last=Trenwith | accessdate = 30 December 2010 | date = 30 December 2010 | work=Brisbane Times | publisher=Fairfax Media }}</ref> The town's [[water purification]] system was flooded, resulting in water restrictions that have hampered clean-up efforts. {{convert|112500|l|impgal u.s.gal}} of water were transported to the town of 14,000 residents.<ref name="dwt">{{Cite news | url = http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/drinking-water-trucked-into-flood-ravaged-dalby/story-e6frf7jx-1225978676970 | title = Drinking water trucked into flood-ravaged Dalby | accessdate = 1 January 2011 | date = 30 December 2010 | work=Australian Associated Press | publisher=[[Herald Sun]]}}</ref> [[Warwick, Queensland|Warwick]] was isolated when all roads into the town were cut-off.<ref>{{Cite news | url = http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/residents-evacuate-as-flooding-grips-much-of-queensland/story-e6frf7l6-1225977082293 | title = Residents evacuate as flooding grips much of Queensland |first=James |last=O'Loan | accessdate = 4 January 2011 | date = 28 December 2010 | newspaper=[[The Courier-Mail]] | publisher=News Limited }}</ref>

The [[Condamine River]] reached {{convert|14.25|m|ft}} on 30 December, its highest level ever recorded.<ref name="dfg">{{Cite news | url = http://www.news.com.au/national/disease-fears-grow-as-flooding-hits-towns-water-supplies-and-rivers-rise-in-rockhampton-bundaberg-and-emerald/story-e6frfkwr-1225978700048 | title = Disease fears grow as flooding hits towns' water supplies and rivers rise in Queensland | accessdate = 30 December 2010 | date = | newspaper=The Courier-Mail | publisher=News Limited }}</ref> [[Condamine, Queensland|Condamine]] was mandatorily evacuated on 30 December.<ref name="sqfv" />

Floodwaters are passing downstream along the Balonne River and threaten the towns of [[Surat, Queensland|Surat]] and [[St George, Queensland|St George]]. The river is expected to peak at {{convert|12.5|m|ft}} at Surat and {{convert|14|m|ft}} at St George.<ref name="StGeorge">{{Cite news|last=Farmer|first=John | title = St George prepares for inundation | url = http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2011/01/05/flood-crisis-st-george-inundation-residents-floods/ | accessdate = 5 January 2011 | newspaper=Toowoomba Chronicle | date = 5 January 2011}}</ref> The [[New South Wales]] towns of [[Angledool]], [[Goodooga]] and [[Weilmoringle]] are expected to be isolated when floodwaters from the Balonne reach the [[Culgoa River|Culgoa]] and [[Bokhara River]]s.<ref name="NSWFlood">{{Cite news | title = Floods heading south for NSW: SES | url = http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/floods-heading-south-for-nsw-ses-20110104-19efg.html | accessdate = 5 January 2011 | work=Australian Associated Press |work=The Sydney Morning Herald | date = 4 January 2011}}</ref>

A second rain event on 9–10 January saw floodwaters again threaten Chinchilla and Condamine with Chinchilla residents again asked to evacuate.<ref name=CM10Jan2011 />

The [[Macintyre River]], which forms part of the border between the Australian states of [[New South Wales]] and Queensland, began to threaten the town of [[Goondiwindi]] on 13 January. While the town is protected by a {{convert|11|m|ft}} levee, the local hospital and aged care home have been evacuated as an precaution and an evacuation centre established.<ref name="Gundy">{{Cite news | title = Goondiwindi community flees ahead of rising river | url = http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/weather/goondiwindi-community-flees-ahead-of-rising-river-20110113-19pvj.html | accessdate = 13 January 2011 | newspaper=Brisbane Times | date = 13 January 2011}}</ref>

===Mary River basin===
Heavy rain in the [[Mary River]] catchment on 8–9 January 2011 lead to flooding at [[Maryborough, Queensland|Maryborough]] and [[Gympie, Queensland|Gympie]]. The Mary River at Maryborough was expected to initially peak at {{convert|8.5|m|ft}} at midday 9 January with some houses and businesses inundated. A second peak is expected to arrive from rain falling upstream later that day.<ref name="maryborough">{{Cite news | title = Huge downpours in southeast are heading towards Maryborough and could leave 20 homes and businesses inundated | url = http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/huge-downpours-in-southeast-are-heading-towards-maryborough-and-could-leave-20-homes-and-businesses-inundated/story-e6freon6-1225984221465 | accessdate = 9 January 2011 | work=Australian Associated Press | publisher=Courier Mail | date = 9 January 2011}}</ref> At Gympie, the Mary River is expected to peak at {{convert|16|m}}, possibly increasing to {{convert|17|m}}—over the major flood level—if rain continues to fall.<ref name="GympieABC">{{Cite web | title = Flood-ravaged towns on alert as rain continues | url = http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/09/3109134.htm?section=justin | work=ABC News | publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation | accessdate = 9 January 2011}}</ref>

===Toowoomba and the Lockyer Valley {{anchor|Toowoomba flash flood}}===
[[File:Long and Mackenzie Streets in Toowoomba flooded.jpg|thumb|Long and Mackenzie Streets in Toowoomba flooded]]
The city of [[Toowoomba]], in the [[Darling Downs]], was hit by flash flooding after more than {{convert|160|mm|in}} of rain fell in 36 hours to 10 January 2011; this event caused four deaths in a matter of hours.<ref name="CM10Jan2011">{{Cite news | url = http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/torrential-rain-raises-alarm-for-maryborough-gympie-wide-bay-kingaroy-cooloola-and-brisbane/story-e6freon6-1225984664015 | title = Torrential rain raises alarm for Toowoomba, Maryborough, Gympie, Wide Bay, Kingaroy, Cooloola and Brisbane | accessdate = 10 January 2011 | newspaper=Courier Mail | date = 10 January 2011 | publisher=News Limited }}</ref><ref name="BT-four confirmed dead" /><ref name="Too">{{Cite news | title = Two dead as raging torrent swamps Toowoomba | url = http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/10/3109846.htm | accessdate = 10 January 2011 | publisher=ABC News | date = 10 January 2011}}</ref> Toowoomba sits on the watershed of the [[Great Dividing Range]], some {{convert|700|m|ft}} above sea level. A three week period where it had rained on all but three days had left the soil around Toowoomba saturated and when a line of storms hit the city on 10 January, the resulting torrential rain rapidly ran off down gullies and streets. The central business district of the city sits in a small valley where two small water courses—East Creek and West Creek—meet to form [[Gowrie Creek]]. Unable to cope with the volume of water heading toward them, the creeks burst their banks, pushing a devastating wall of water through the city centre.<ref name="TwbaFloodAust">{{Cite news|last=Fraserq|first=Andrew | title = A once-in-a-century storm and an already saturated and hilly landscape were the ingredients for the tragedy that engulfed Toowoomba. | url = http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/queensland-floods/toowoomba-copped-wrath-of-la-nina/story-fn7iwx3v-1225985875512 | accessdate = 12 January 2011 | newspaper=The Australian | date = 12 January 2011}}</ref>

Nearby [[Gatton]] saw voluntary evacuations as the [[Lockyer Creek]] rose to a record height of {{convert|18.92|m|ft}}, exceeding the previous record set in the [[1893 Queensland floods]].<ref name=CM10Jan2011 /> The surge passed through the [[Lockyer Valley]] town of [[Withcott]], where the force of the water pushed cars into shops and forcing the evacuation of hundreds of people. The scene was described by an onlooker as "like [[Cyclone Tracy]] has gone through it ... If you dropped an atom bomb on it, you couldn't tell the difference."<ref name="Withcott">{{Cite news|last=Johnson|first=Callum | title = Withcott evacuated | url = http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2011/01/11/withcott-flood-evacuation-toowoomba-rain/ | accessdate = 11 January 2011 | newspaper=Toowoomba Chronicle | date = 10 January 2011}}</ref> [[Grantham, Queensland|Grantham]] was also hit hard by the flooding rains. Houses were left crumpled by what Premier of Queensland [[Anna Bligh]] described as an "inland [[tsunami]]". According to local media, the flood waters had reached a height of {{convert|7|or|8|m|ft|abbr=on}} by the time it struck Grantham.<ref>{{Cite web | publisher=ABC News | date = 11 January 2011 | accessdate = 14 January 2011 | title = Grantham is a town left in tatters
| url = http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/01/11/3110349.htm}}</ref> Nine people were confirmed dead, and many more feared dead among 66 reported missing.<ref name="Grantham">{{Cite news | url = http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/flood-toll-rises-to-nine-66-missing/story-e6freon6-1225985766915 | title = Flood toll rises to 10, 78 missing | accessdate = 11 January 2011 | publisher=The Courier Mail | work=Australian Associated Press | date = 11 January 2011}}</ref> The body of one victim washed away at Grantham was recovered {{convert|80|km|mi}} downstream and [[Queensland Police]] Commissioner [[Bob Atkinson]] warned that some bodies may never be found.<ref name="80KM">{{Cite news | title = Queensland toll at 16 after body found | url = http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/queensland-toll-at-16-after-body-found/story-fn6bfm6w-1225987932899 | accessdate = 14 January 2011 | newspaper=Herald Sun | date = 14 January 2011}}</ref>

===Brisbane River catchment===
[[File:Wheel of brisbane during 2011 flooding.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Wheel of Brisbane]] during the floods]]
On 11 January 2011 at around 2:30 pm EST, the [[Brisbane River]] broke its banks leading to evacuations in the [[Brisbane CBD]] and the suburbs of [[Fortitude Valley]] and [[West End, Queensland|West End]].<ref name="ABCBrisbane11111">{{Cite news | title = Raging floods bear down on Brisbane | url = http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/11/3110450.htm | accessdate = 11 January 2011 | newspaper=Australian Broadcasting Corporation | date = 11 January 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url= http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10699091 | title = Workers flee Brisbane city centre|author=Hayden Donnell | date = 11 January 2011 | accessdate = 11 January 2011 | publisher=www.nzherald.co.nz}}</ref> An evacuation centre was established for flood-affected residents at the [[Brisbane Exhibition Ground|RNA Showgrounds]] in [[Bowen Hills, Queensland|Bowen Hills]].<ref>{{Cite news|author=Dibben, Kay | title = Evacuation centre set up at Bowen Hills | work=[[The Courier-Mail]] | publisher=News Limited | date = 11 January 20011 | url = http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/evacuation-centre-set-up-at-bowen-hills/story-fn6ck51p-1225985695299 | accessdate = 11 January 20011}}</ref> According to media, residents of 2100 [[Brisbane, Queensland|Brisbane]] streets had been recommended to evacuate prior to the arrival of floods, which struck the city on 12 January. Brisbane Mayor [[Campbell Newman]] stated than an estimated 20,000 homes would be affected when the river peaks on 14 January.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Long|first=Stephen | title = City braced for the worst: Brisbane Lord Mayor | url = http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3111503.htm | accessdate = 13 January 2011 | work=[[PM (ABC Radio)|PM]] | publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation | date = 12 January 2011}}</ref>

On 13 January the Brisbane River did not reach anticipated heights but still 20,000 houses in Brisbane were inundated. Some of the Brisbane neighbourhoods worst affected by the floods include [[St Lucia, Queensland|St Lucia]], [[West End, Queensland|West End]], [[Rocklea, Queensland|Rocklea]] and [[Graceville, Queensland|Graceville]].<ref name="ABCBris130111">{{Cite web | title = Police sent in as flood death toll rises | url = http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/13/3112246.htm?section=justin | work=ABC News | publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation | accessdate = 13 January 2011}}</ref> The floods have damaged some of Brisbane's icons. The Brisbane Riverwalk—a floating walkway over the Brisbane River linking the inner city neighbourhoods of Fortitude Valley and [[New Farm, Queensland|New Farm]]—broke up with a section forming a {{convert|300|m|ft}} "floating missile" that threatened the [[Sir Leo Hielscher Bridges]]. The largest part of the floating boardwalk was safely guided under the bridge by a [[tugboat]] and past other [[infrastructure]] before being safely secured.<ref name="Riverwalk">{{Cite news|last=Calligeros|first=Marissa | title = Riverwalk becomes 300m floating missile | url = http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/weather/riverwalk-becomes-300m-floating-missile-20110112-19nwp.html | accessdate = 14 January 2011 | newspaper=Brisbane Times | date = 14 January 2011|agency=Australian Associated Press}}</ref> Brisbane's major [[Association football]] and [[Rugby league]] venue, [[Lang Park]] filled with water up to {{convert|2|m|ft}} deep, reaching the third or fourth row of seats.<ref name="Cauldron">{{Cite news|last=McMahon|first=Bruce | title = Bubbling cauldron needs river to drop | url = http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/bubbling-cauldron-needs-river-to-drop/story-fn6ck45n-1225987400161 | accessdate = 14 January 2011 | newspaper=Courier Mail | date = 14 January 2011}}</ref>

With the flood peaking at 4.46 m in Brisbane, the floods were the sixth highest in the city's history.<ref name="hbf">{{Cite news |url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/infographics/qld-floods/peaks.htm |title=A History of Brisbane floods |accessdate=15 January 2011 |work=[[ABC News Online]] |publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation }}</ref> Parts of the western suburbs of Brisbane were cut off for three days. Resident of suburbs including [[Bellbowrie]], [[Moggill]] and [[Pullenvale]] were running low on food and other items when Moggill Road was cut until the Australian Army was able to reach the area on 15 January with much needed supplies.<ref name="Moggill">{{Cite news|last=Stolz|first=Greg|title=Help finally arrives in Brisbane's west |url=http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/help-finally-arrives-in-brisbanes-west/story-fn7knuy7-1225988016944|accessdate=15 January 2011|newspaper=Courier Mail|date=15 January 2011|author2=Chester, Darren}}</ref>

The [[Bremer River (Queensland)|Bremer River]] at [[Ipswich, Queensland|Ipswich]]—{{convert|30|km|mi}} west of Brisbane—reached a height of {{convert|19.4|m|ft}} on 12 January, inundating the central business district and at least 3,000 houses.<ref name="Ippy">{{Cite news | title = Brisbane, Ipswich treading water | url = http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/brisbane-ipswich-treading-water/story-e6frea8c-1225986072469 | accessdate = 12 January 2011 | newspaper=Adelaide Advertiser | date = 12 January 2011}}</ref> One third of the city was said to be underwater and over 1100 people had taken shelter at evacuation centres.<ref name="Ippy2">{{Cite news | title = Bremer River at Ipswich peaks at 19.5m, lower than 1974 flood level | url = http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/ipswich-residents-evacuate-ahead-of-bremer-river-peak/story-e6freoof-1225985598772 | accessdate = 12 January 2011 | newspaper=Courier Mail | date = 12 January 2011}}</ref> At nearby [[Marburg, Queensland|Marburg]], a 4 year old boy was swept away by floodwaters when he fell from a rescue boat.<ref name=Ippy2 /> A man in his 50s died when he accidentally drove into floodwaters in the Ipswich suburb of [[Wulkuraka, Queensland|Wulkuraka]].<ref name="TheAus">{{Cite news|last=Elks|first=Sarah | title = Ipswich body brings toll to 13 | url = http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/queensland-floods/ipswich-body-brings-toll-to-13/story-fn7iwx3v-1225986638717 | accessdate = 12 January 2011 | work=The Australian | publisher=News Limited | date = 12 January 2011}}</ref> The worst affected areas of Ipswich were the suburbs of [[Goodna, Queensland|Goodna]] and [[Gailes, Queensland|Gailes]].<ref name="Goodna&Gailes">{{Cite news | title = Queensland flood death toll rises to 12 | url = http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8195493/searchers-prepare-to-find-missing-in-qld | accessdate = 12 January 2011 | newspaper=NineMSN | date = 12 January 2011}}</ref>

===Elsewhere===
In [[South East Queensland]], the [[Wivenhoe Dam]] filled to a level equivalent to 191% of its supply capacity on 11 January 2011.<ref>{{Cite news | url = http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/floods/8195758/controlled-releases-at-wivenhoe-cut | title = Controlled releases at Wivenhoe cut | accessdate = 12 January 2011 | date = 12 January 2011 | work=Nine News | publisher=NineMSN }}</ref> Brisbane experienced its wettest December since 1859.<ref name="rhacm">{{Cite news | url = http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203513204576048852232192150.html | title = Rains Hit Australian Coal Mines |first1=David |last1=Fickling |first2=Ray |last2=Brindal | accessdate = 30 December 2010 | date = 30 December 2010 | newspaper=[[Wall Street Journal]] | publisher=[[Dow Jones & Company]] }}</ref> [[Wyaralong Dam]], near [[Beaudesert, Queensland|Beaudesert]], had recently been completed and is receiving praise<ref name="lwlotrilt">{{Cite news | url = http://logan-west-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/on-the-road-in-logan-today/ | title = On the road in Logan today | accessdate = 13 January 2011 | date = 11 January 2011 | newspaper=The Logan West Leader | publisher=News Limited |first1=Judith |last1=Maizey }}</ref> for mitigating flooding in downstream [[Logan City, Queensland|Logan]], having exceeded 80% of its capacity.<ref name="qtwdfro">{{Cite news | url = http://www.qt.com.au/story/2011/01/11/wivenhoe-dam-record-level-flood-rain-overflow/ | title = Wivenhoe Dam hits record high | accessdate = 13 January 2011 | date = 11 January 2011 | work=The Queensland Times | publisher=APN News & Media Ltd |first1=Zane |last1=Jackson }}</ref>

In [[North Queensland]], the town of [[Ingham, Queensland|Ingham]] became isolated as the [[Herbert River]] peaked. Homes at [[Babinda, Queensland|Babinda,]] and [[Gordonvale, Queensland|Gordonvale]] were flooded.<ref name="ttfa">{{Cite news | url = http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/half-the-state-waterlogged-and-more-rain-to-come-with-expected-1b-damage-bill/story-e6freon6-1225976473249 | title = Ten towns on flood alert as Queensland soaks up heavy rain | accessdate = 4 January 2011 | date = 28 December 2010 | work=Australian Associated Press | publisher=The Courier-Mail |first1=James |last1=O'Loan |first2=Josh |last2=Robertson |first3=Andrew |last3=MacDonald |first4=Peter |last4=Michael |first5=Kate |last5=Higggins }}</ref>

==Deaths==
As of 14 January 2011, 30 deaths have been attributed to the floods, 15 of which are from the Toowoomba and the Lockyer Valley area.<ref>{{Cite news | title = Brisbane floods claim first victim | url = http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/13/3112015.htm | accessdate = 14 January 2011 | work=ABC News | publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation | date = 13 January 2011}}</ref> Additionally, at least 70 people are listed as missing, with grave concerns for 12 people, after a catastrophic flash flood struck Toowoomba and the Lockyer Valley.<ref name="brisfloods">{{Cite news | title = Brisbane swamped as floodwaters rise | url = http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/12/3111075.htm | accessdate = 12 January 2011 | work=ABC News | publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation | date = 12 January 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news | title = Number of missing in floods revised down | url = http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/floods/8195697/number-of-missing-in-floods-revised-down | accessdate = 12 January 2011 | publisher=NineMSN | work=Australian Associated Press | date = 12 January 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news | title = Flood death toll rises to 12 as killer tide continues its march | url = http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/weather/flood-death-toll-rises-to-12-as-killer-tide-continues-its-march-20110112-19my3.html | accessdate = 13 January 2011 | work=Brisbane Times | publisher=Fairfax Media | date = 12 January 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news | title = Fears for two families missing in floods | url = http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/13/3111867.htm | accessdate = 13 January 2011 | work=ABC News | publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation | date = 13 January 2011}}</ref>

The first death was reported on 20 November 2010, when a woman drowned in her vehicle near [[Dysart, Queensland|Dysart]].<ref>{{Cite news | url=http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-national/flood-victims-body-may-have-been-found-20101201-18gbm.html | title=Flood victim's body may have been found | work=Australian Associated Press | publisher=Brisbane Times | publisher=Fairfax Media | date=1 December 2010 | accessdate=9 January 2011}}</ref> In the following weeks, five others died from the same circumstance.<ref>{{Cite news | url=http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/elderly-man-found-dead-in-flood-waters-20101205-18l08.html | title=Elderly man found dead in flood waters | work=Australian Associated Press | publisher=Brisbane Times | date=5 December 2010 | accessdate=9 January 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news | url=http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-national/body-found-in-car-swept-into-flood-waters-20101209-18qtk.html | title=Body found in car swept into flood waters | work=Australian Associated Press | publisher=Brisbane Times| date=9 December 2010 | accessdate=9 January 2011}}</ref><ref name="newsdeath8">{{Cite news | url=http://www.news.com.au/national/body-found-towns-prepare-for-more-flood-misery/story-e6frfkvr-1225980442362#ixzz1AW07yyPd | title=Body found, towns prepare for more flood misery | work=news.com.au | publisher=News Limited | date=2 January 2011 | accessdate=9 January 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news | url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/07/3108325.htm | title=Man charged over Queensland flood death | work=ABC News | publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation | date=7 January 2011 | accessdate=9 January 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news | url=http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/floods-death-count-climbs-to-11/story-fn6ck51p-1225984299784 | title=Floods death count climbs to 11 | last1=Passmore | first1=Daryl | last2=Hinde | first2=Suellen | work=The Sunday Mail (Qld) | publisher=News Limited | date=9 January 2011 | accessdate=9 January 2011}}</ref>

In addition, nine people drowned from being caught directly by the flowing waters.<ref name="BT-four confirmed dead">{{Cite news | url=http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/weather/four-confirmed-dead-in-toowoomba-flash-flooding-20110110-19kti.html | title=Four confirmed dead in Toowoomba flash flooding | first1=Cameron | last1=Atfield | first2=Daniel | last2=Hurst | work=[[Australian Associated Press]] | publisher=Brisbane Times | date=10 January 2011 | accessdate=10 January 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news | url=http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/body-of-drowned-teen-found-20101209-18r7i.html | title=Body of drowned teen found | last=Calligeros | first=Marissa | work=Brisbane Times | publisher=Fairfax Media | date=10 December 2010 | accessdate=9 January 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news | url=http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/body-found-in-brisbane-river-20101223-196ds.html | title=Body found in Brisbane River | work=Australian Associated Press | publisher=Brisbane Times| date=20 December 2010 | accessdate=9 January 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news | url=http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/man-found-dead-in-flooded-creek-20101230-19aga.html | title=Man found dead in flooded creek | last=Calligeros | first=Marissa | work=Brisbane Times | publisher=Fairfax Media | date=30 December 2010 | accessdate=9 January 2011}}</ref><ref name="SandraSteveMatthews">{{Cite web|author=Kieran Campbell | publisher=Sunshine Coast Daily | date = 12 January 2011 | accessdate = 12 January 2011 | title = Heartbreak over deaths in floods | url = http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2011/01/12/death-flood-family-children-water-rain-coast/}}</ref><ref name="SMH-2011-01-11-20-49" /> Another thirteen people died from other circumstances.<ref name="BT-four confirmed dead" /><ref name="TheAus" /><ref name="SMH-2011-01-11-20-49">{{Cite news | url=http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/qld-flood-death-toll-rises-to-10-20110111-19lc5.html |last1=Ferrier | first1=Tracey | last2=Agius | first2=Kym | last3=Gray | first3=Steve | last4= Ja | first4=Crystal | title=Qld flood death toll rises to 10 | work=Australian Associated Press |work=The Sydney Morning Herald | date=11 January 2011 | accessdate=11 January 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news | url=http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/teenager-drowned-in-arms-of-friends-20101213-18uby.html | title=Teenager drowned in arms of friends | last=Calligeros | first=Marissa | work=Brisbane Times | publisher=Fairfax Media | date=13 December 2010 | accessdate=9 January 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news | url=http://www.news.com.au/national/rockhampton-facing-catastrophe-as-more-cyclones-are-predicted/story-e6frfkvr-1225980725143#ixzz1AVyaYatS | title=Flood death as Rockhampton faces catastrophe with more cyclones predicted | work=Australian Associated Press | publisher=[[News Limited|news.com.au]] | date=3 January 2011 | accessdate=9 January 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Maynard|first=Neale | title = Horrific scenes at Grantham | url = http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/floodrelief/horrific-scenes-at-grantham/story-fn7ik2te-1225985360479 | accessdate = 12 January 2011 | publisher=news.com.au | work=The Courier Mail | date = 11 January 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web | url = http://www.sheppnews.com.au/members/login.aspx?noaccess=1&from=/article.aspx?id=1196546 | date = 11 January 2010 | accessdate = 11 January 2010 | title = Devastated Toowoomba resembles 'ghost town'}}</ref><ref name="news-2011-01-11-20-45">{{Cite news | url=http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/floodrelief/flood-info-centre-updates-reports-warnings-advice-and-how-you-can-help/story-fn7ik2te-1225985436806 |last=Colgan | first=Paul | title=24/7 Queensland floods info centre: updates, photos, advice and messages for loved ones | work=news.com.au | publisher=News Limited | date=11 January 2011 | accessdate=11 January 2011 }}</ref>

==Response==
===Reaction===
{{Quotebox
| quote = The impact on our friends in Queensland is something that New Zealanders feel very deeply, and we just want to make sure that we're in a position to offer them support across the range of services that we have here in New Zealand.
| source = New Zealand Prime Minister [[John Key]] on the floods.<ref name="TVNZ wire staff">{{Cite news |author=TVNZ wire staff | url = http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/key-economic-impact-floods-enormous-3997059 |date = 13 January 2011| title = Key: Economic impact of floods enormous | accessdate = 13 January 2011 | work=TVNZ | publisher=Television New Zealand}}</ref>
| width = 26em
| align = right
}}
Prime Minister of Australia [[Julia Gillard]] toured flood-affected areas on 31 December,<ref name="rffe" /> the day before the [[Monarchy of Australia|Queen of Australia]], [[Elizabeth II]], sent her expressions of concern and sympathy for the victims of the floods to her representative in Queensland, [[Governor of Queensland|Governor]] [[Penelope Wensley]].<ref>{{Cite news| title=Queen offers sympathies to flood-hit Qld | publisher=Australian News Channel Pty Ltd | work=Sky News| date=1 January 2011| url=http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=558917&vId=2063211| accessdate=3 January 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news| title=Message following the flooding in Queensland, Australia, 31 December 2010| work=The official website of The British Monarchy | publisher=[[The Royal Household]]| date=31 December 2010| url=http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2010/MessagefollowingthefloodinginQueenslandAustralia31.aspx| accessdate=4 January 2011}}</ref>

US Secretary of State [[Hillary Clinton]] stated, "On behalf of [[Barack Obama|President Obama]] and the people of the United States, I offer my condolences for the loss of life and damage in Queensland caused by the recent flooding."<ref name="USoffer">{{Cite web | url=http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/obama-ready-to-step-in-as-queensland-flood-crisis-deepens/story-e6freuy9-1225981995822 | title=Obama ready to step in as Queensland flood crisis deepens | accessdate=5 January 2011 | date=5 January 2011 | publisher=News Limited | work=The Daily Telegraph |first1=Samantha |last1=Townsend |first2=Alison |last2=Rehn |first3=Gemma |last3=Jones }}</ref> U.S. President Barack Obama said he was ready to help.<ref name="USoffer" />

[[John Key]], the [[Prime Minister of New Zealand]], held a telephone call with [[Julia Gillard]], the Prime Minister of Australia, where she thanked New Zealand for its help. [[Auckland]], a sister city of Brisbane offered its help, with Auckland Mayor [[Len Brown]] offering his support by sending Brisbane Lord Mayor [[Campbell Newman]] a message of support.<ref>{{Cite news |author=TVNZ wire staff | url = http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/auckland-offers-support-flood-ravaged-sister-city-3997019 |date = 12 January 2011| title = Auckland offers support to flood-ravaged sister city | accessdate = 13 January 2011 | work=TVNZ | publisher=Television New Zealand}}</ref>

===Recovery===
{{Quotebox
| quote = As we weep for what we have lost, and as we grieve for family and friends and we confront the challenge that is before us, I want us to remember who we are. We are Queenslanders. We're the people that they breed tough, north of the [New South Wales] border. We're the ones that they knock down, and we get up again. Together we can pull through this and that's what I'm determined to do, with your help, we can achieve it.''
| source = [[Premier of Queensland]] [[Anna Bligh]].<ref>{{Cite news |url = http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/brisbane-flood-alert-as-wivenhoe-threatens-to-spill-over/story-fn6t2xlc-1225985477271 |date = 13 January 2011| title = Flood death toll rises as major search gets under way for the missing | accessdate = 13 January 2011 | newspaper=Adelaide Advertiser | publisher=News Limited}}</ref>
| width = 26em
| align = right
}}
Major General [[Michael Slater (general)|Michael Slater]] was appointed head of a civilian recovery task force.<ref name="qfrfp" />

The [[Australian Defence Force]]'s contribution to flood relief efforts was designated [[Operation Queensland Flood Assist]]. The ADF established Joint Task Force 637, based at [[Enoggera Barracks]] in Brisbane, for operational command of on 1 January 2011.<ref name="adf">{{Cite web | url = http://www.defence.gov.au/opEx/global/opqldflood/index.htm | title = Operation QUEENSLAND FLOOD ASSIST | publisher=Department of Defence}}</ref>

Food supplies to northern Queensland have been disrupted requiring groceries to be transported to [[Townsville, Queensland|Townsville]] by ship.<ref>{{Cite news | url = http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/weather/hercules-to-the-rescue-20110104-19ewc.html | title = Hercules to the rescue |first=Courtney |last=Trenwith | accessdate = 4 January 2011 | date = 4 January 2011 | work=Brisbane Times | publisher=Fairfax Media }}</ref>

About 35 State Emergency Service personnel from New South Wales and 20 personnel from Victoria were deployed to provide relief to exhausted staff and volunteers.<ref name="ossa">{{Cite web | url = http://www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=73156 | title = Other states sending aid to Queensland |author=[[Anna Bligh|Bligh, Anna]] | date = 31 December 2010 | work=Ministerial Media Statement | publisher=[[Queensland Government]] | accessdate = 5 January 2011 }}</ref> A national appeal was established on 29 December, with the state and federal governments giving A$1 million each.<ref name="dfg" />

Small businesses and primary producers in 13 local government areas became eligible for grants of up to A$25,000 to pay for costs from damage incurred as a result of the floods.<ref name="qfa">{{Cite web | url = http://www.business.qld.gov.au/risk-management/flood-farm-financial.html | title = Financial assistance for primary producers | publisher=Queensland Government |accessdate = 7 January 2011 }}</ref> National Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements were made available to a total of 31 [[Local Government Areas of Queensland|local government areas across Queensland]].<ref name="drrae">{{Cite web | url = http://www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=73131 | title = Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements extended |author=[[Neil Roberts (politician)|Roberts, Neil]] | date = 27 December 2010 | work=Ministerial Media Statement | publisher=Queensland Government | accessdate = 5 January 2011 }}</ref>

[[New Zealand]], one of Australia's closest allies, announced that the country would be sending two fifteen member civil defence teams to assist in flood rescue efforts.<ref>{{Cite news |author=TVNZ wire staff | url = http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/more-nz-help-queensland-3997371 |date = 13 January 2011| title = Second NZ civil defence team headed to Qld | accessdate = 13 January 2011 | work=TVNZ | publisher=Television New Zealand}}</ref> In addition to this, New Zealand will send a number of [[New Zealand Defence Force]] soldiers, mainly engineers, as well as [[New Zealand Police]] and [[New Zealand Fire Service]] firefighters.<ref name="TVNZ wire staff"/> A New Zealand [[Red Cross]] team was also dispatched.<ref>{{Cite news |author=TVNZ wire staff | url = http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/nz-red-cross-team-named-head-australia-3996497 |date = 12 January 2011| title = NZ red cross team named for Oz | accessdate = 13 January 2011 | work=TVNZ | publisher=Television New Zealand}}</ref>

===Aid efforts===
On 9 January, the ''Flood Relief Appeal: Australia Unites'' [[telethon]] broadcast by the [[Nine Network]] from Brisbane's Suncorp Piazza raised more than A$10 million in pledged aid.<ref>{{Cite news | url = http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/09/3109226.htm |date = 10 January 2011| title = Almost $30m raised in Qld flood appeal | accessdate = 10 January 2011 | work=ABC News | publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation}}</ref>

At the [[English cricket team in Australia in 2010–11#1st T20I|first Twenty20]] cricket match between Australia and England in [[Adelaide]] on 12 January, both teams donated part of their match fees to help the victims and A$28,450 was collected from people in attendance.<ref name="Fees">{{Cite news | title = Match fees donation will help victims of Queensland floods | url = http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/match-fees-donation-will-help-victims-of-queensland-floods-2183014.html# |work=The Independent |location=London |first=Matt |last=Summerford | date = 13 January 2011 | accessdate = 13 January 2011 }}</ref>

==See also==
{{Portal box|Queensland|Natural disasters}}
* [[1893 Brisbane flood]]
* [[1974 Brisbane flood]]
* [[Floods in Australia]]
* [[List of disasters in Australia by death toll]]
* [[March 2010 Queensland floods]]
* [[January 2011 Rio de Janeiro floods and mudslides]]

{{clear}}

==References==
{{reflist
| colwidth = 30em
| refs =

<ref name="Malikin2011-01-13">
{{Cite news
| last = Malikin
| first = Bonnie
| title = Australian floods wreak havoc on Queensland economy
| date = 13 January 2011
| newspaper=[[The Daily Telegraph]]
| publisher=Telegraph Media Group Limited
| url = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/8256484/Australian-floods-wreak-havoc-on-Queensland-economy.html
| accessdate = 14 January 2011
}}
</ref>

<ref name="BBC2010-12-31">
{{Cite web
| title = Australia: Queensland floods spur more evacuations
| date = 31 December 2010
|publisher=BBC News
| publisher=[[British Broadcasting Corporation|BBC]]
| url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12097280
| accessdate = 14 January 2011
}}
</ref>

<ref name="BBC2010-12-29">
{{Cite web
| title = Floods force mass evacuations in Queensland, Australia
| date = 29 December 2010
|publisher=BBC News
| publisher=[[British Broadcasting Corporation|BBC]]
| url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12087870
| accessdate = 14 January 2011
}}
</ref>

<ref name="Rogow2011-01-11">
{{Cite news
| last = Rogow
| first = Geoffrey
| agency=Dow Jones Newswires
| title = Australian Dollar Down Late As Flood Impact Increases
| date = 11 January 2011
| work=The Wall Street Journal
| url = http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110111-700158.html
| accessdate = 41 January 2011
}}
</ref>

<ref name="Lee2011-01-12">
{{Cite news
| last = Lee
| first = Jane
| coauthors = AAP
| title = Queensland floods 'could wipe $13 billion off economic growth'
| date = 12 January 2011
| work=news.com.au
| publisher=News Limited
| url = http://www.news.com.au/business/queensland-floods-could-cut-gdp-by-1-per-cent/story-e6frfm1i-1225986231656l
| accessdate = 14 January 2011
}}
</ref>

<ref name="Hurst2011-01-11">
{{Cite web
| last = Hurst
| first = Daniel
| title = Three-quarters of Queensland a disaster zone
| date = 11 January 2011
| work=[[Brisbane Times]]
| publisher=[[Fairfax Media]]
| url = http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/weather/threequarters-of-queensland-a-disaster-zone-20110111-19mf8.html
| accessdate = 14 January 2011
}}
</ref>

<ref name="QueenslandTimes2011-01-14">
{{Cite news
| author=Staff Writer
| title = 40 feared dead in Grantham
| date = 14 January 2011
| newspaper=[[The Queensland Times]]
| publisher=APN News & Media Ltd
| url = http://www.qt.com.au/story/2011/01/14/ipswich-40-feared-dead-150-grantham/
| accessdate = 14 January 2011
}}
</ref>

}}

==External links==
{{Commons category}}
* [http://www.fba.org.au/opportunities/fitzroyflood2010.html Fitzroy Basin in flood – why and how?]
* [http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/event.php?id=48320 Flooding in Australia] at [[NASA Earth Observatory]]
* [http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/11/3110667.htm Flash flood death toll rises to 9]
* [http://elbflood-473794511.ap-southeast-1.elb.amazonaws.com/floodcop/ Brisbane City Council COP Situational Awareness Application], interactive map showing extent of flooding in Brisbane

{{DEFAULTSORT:2010–2011 Queensland Floods}}
[[Category:2010 in Australia|Queensland floods]]
[[Category:2011 in Australia|Queensland floods]]
[[Category:2010 floods|Queensland floods]]
[[Category:2011 floods|Queensland floods]]
[[Category:History of Queensland]]
[[Category:Weather events in Australia]]
[[Category:Brisbane River floods]]
[[Category:Queensland floods]]

[[ar:فيضانات كوينزلاند]]
[[ca:Inundacions d'Austràlia del 2010–2011]]
[[cs:Povodně v Queenslandu 2010-2011]]
[[de:Überschwemmungen in Australien 2010/2011]]
[[fr:Inondations au Queensland (décembre 2010)]]
[[ko:2010-2011 퀸즐랜드 홍수]]
[[id:Banjir Queensland 2010–2011]]
[[ms:Banjir Queensland 2010-2011]]
[[nl:Overstromingen in Queensland 2010-2011]]
[[no:Flommen i Australia desember 2010 og januar 2011]]
[[pl:Powodzie w Queensland (2010-2011)]]
[[pt:Enchentes na Austrália em 2010-2011]]
[[ru:Наводнения в Квинсленде (2010—2011)]]
[[fi:Queenslandin tulvat 2010–2011]]
[[sv:Översvämningarna i Australien 2010–2011]]
[[th:อุทกภัยในรัฐควีนส์แลนด์ พ.ศ. 2553-2554]]
[[vi:Lũ lụt Queensland 2010–2011]]
[[zh:2010–2011年昆士蘭洪水]]

Madagascar Fauna Group

2011-01-08T03:16:11Z

Forteller: fixed minor typo

[[File:MFG.jpg|thumb|Logo of MFG featuring the [[Aye-Aye]]]]
The '''Madagascar Fauna Group''' or '''MFG''' is an international consortium of zoos and other conservation agencies which pool together resources to help conserve [[Malagasy fauna|animal species in Madagascar]], through [[captive breeding]] programs, field research programs, training programs for rangers and wardens, and acquisition and protection of native habitat in [[Madagascar]]. It is a [[non-governmental organization]] working in conjunction with the
[[Ministry of Water, Forests, and the Environment (Madagascar)|Ministry of Water, Forests, and the Environment]], [[Government of Madagascar]]. It is the organization behind the [[Save the Lemur]] campaign and is headquartered at the [[Saint Louis Zoo]].

==Origins==

The organization was formed in response to a plea by the Government of Madagascar to the international zoo community in 1987 to help conserve species and habitat in Madagascar and provide training and knowhow for such activities. The plea was made at a meeting held at [[St. Catherines Island]], [[Georgia (USA)|Georgia]], [[USA]]. Convened by the [[Wildlife Conservation Society]] and the Conservation Breeding Specialist Group of the [[IUCN|International Union for Conservation of Nature]], it was attended by the [[Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust]] (then Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust) headed by [[Gerald Durrell]], [[Parc Zoologique et Botanique de Mulhouse]], the Strasborg consortium, the [[Duke Lemur Center]], and several US zoos. These institutions became the founding members of the group when it was formalized in 1988. The organization now has 39 member institutions [http://www.savethelemur.org/about-members.htm]. The two logos of the organization sport two of Madagascar's oft championed species for conservation - the [[Ruffed lemur]] and the [[Aye-aye]].

==Goals==
[[File:Savethelemur.jpg|thumb|Logo for the Save the Lemur campaign, featuring a [[Ruffed Lemur]]]]
The six major goals of the MFG, as outlined in their mission statement, are :

*Providing training and support at [[Parc Ivoloina]], Madagascar's premier zoological park and resort. Support includes outreach and educational programs, and veterinary support.
*Protection of National Parks and Wildlife Reserves, notably the [[Betampona Reserve]], where the MFG have started the re-introduction of captive-bred [[Ruffed Lemur]]s into the wild.
*Promoting and funding field work pertaining to Madagascar fauna, flora and habitat. Cases in point are the [[Side-necked turtle]], the [[Madagascar Pond-heron]] and a range of lemur species.
*Managing captive breeding programs for Madagascar species in and outside Madagascar, co-ordinating amongst the various member organizations.
*Planning conservation goals in conjunction with the [[Madagascar National Parks Association]]
*Educating zoo visitors worldwide about Madagascar's biological heritage

==References==
*[http://www.savethelemur.org/ MFG homepage]

[[Category:Environmental organizations]]
[[Category:Conservation in Madagascar]]

[[pt:Madagascar Fauna Group]]

Google

2010-08-07T10:19:34Z

Forteller: /* Privacy */ Added a paragraph about Eric Schmidt's thoughts on privacy at the Techonomy conference.

{{About|the corporation|the search engine|Google Search|the number 10100|Googol|other uses}}
{{pp-semi|small=yes}}

{{Infobox company
| company_name = Google Inc.
| company_logo = [[Image:Googlelogo.png|200px|alt=Google Logo]]
| company_type = [[public company|Public]] ({{nasdaq|GOOG}}, {{FWB|GGQ1}})
| foundation = [[Menlo Park, California]] {{nowrap|({{Start date|1998|09|04}})<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://investor.google.com/corporate/certificate-of-incorporation.html |title=Incorporation document |date=April 29, 2004 |accessdate=September 27, 2008}}</ref>}}
| founder = [[Sergey Brin|Sergey M. Brin]] [[Larry Page|Lawrence E. Page]]
| location_city = [[Googleplex|1600 Amphitheatre Parkway]], [[Mountain View, California|Mountain View]], [[California]]
| location_country = {{nowrap|[[United States]]}}
| area_served = Worldwide
| key_people = '''[[Eric E. Schmidt]]''' ([[Chairman]] & [[CEO]]) '''[[Sergey Brin|Sergey M. Brin]]''' (Technology President) '''[[Larry Page|Lawrence E. Page]]''' (Products President)
| industry = [[Internet]], [[Computer software]]
| products = See [[list of Google products]].
| revenue = {{profit}}[[United States dollar|US$]]23.651 billion (2009)<ref name="financialtables">{{cite web |url=http://investor.google.com/fin_data.html |title=Financial Tables |work=Google Investor Relations |published=Google, Inc. |accessdate=February 18, 2010 |accessdate=2010-07-05}}</ref><ref name="form 10-k">{{cite web |url=http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312510030774/d10k.htm#toc95279_8 |title=Form 10-K |author=U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission |authorlink=U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission |year=2009 |publisher=United States of America |location=Washington, D.C. |at=Part II, Item 6 |accessdate=February 18, 2010}}</ref>
| operating_income = {{profit}}US$8.312 billion (2009)<ref name="financialtables" /><ref name="form 10-k" />
| net_income = {{profit}}US$6.520 billion (2009)<ref name="financialtables" /><ref name="form 10-k" />
| assets = {{profit}}US$40.497 billion (2009)<ref name="financialtables" /><ref name="form 10-k" />
| equity = {{profit}}US$36.004 billion (2009)<ref name="form 10-k" />
| subsid = [[YouTube]], [[DoubleClick]], [[On2 Technologies]], [[GrandCentral]], [[Picnik]], [[Aardvark (search engine)|Aardvark]], [[AdMob]]
| num_employees = 21,805 (2010)<ref name=Google Investor note>{{cite news| url=http://investor.google.com/earnings/2010/Q2_google_earnings.html#g-doc | work=Google Investor Relations | title=Google Announces Second Quater 2010 Financial Results | date=July 15, 2010 | accessdate=July 16, 2010}}</ref>
| company_slogan = [[Don't be evil]]
| homepage = [http://www.google.com/ Google.com]
| intl = yes
}}

'''Google Inc.''' ({{nasdaq|GOOG}}, {{FWB|GGQ1}}) is a [[multinational corporation|multinational]] [[Public company|public]] [[cloud computing]], [[Internet search]], and [[advertising]] technologies [[corporation]]. Google hosts and develops a number of [[Internet]]-based services and products,<ref>See: [[List of Google products]].</ref> and generates profit primarily from [[advertising]] through its [[AdWords]] program.<ref name="financialtables">{{cite web |url=http://investor.google.com/fin_data.html |title=Financial Tables |publisher=Google Investor Relations |accessdate=January 31, 2008 |accessdate=2010-07-05}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Online Ads Give Google Huge Gain in Profit |author=David A. Vise |url=David A. Vise |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=October 21, 2005 |accessdate=February 14, 2010}}</ref> The company was founded by [[Larry Page]] and [[Sergey Brin]], often dubbed the "Google Guys",<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1158956,00.html|title=Meet the Google Guys|last=Ignatius|first=Adi|date=February 12, 2006|work=Time Magazine|publisher=Time Inc.|accessdate=27 March 2010|location=San Francisco, CA}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4835250n&tag=mncol;lst;1|title=The Google Guys|date=March 12, 2009|newspaper=CBS News.com|publisher=CBS Interactive|accessdate=27 March 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://gizmodo.com/5464532/google-wants-to-add-store-interiors-to-maps|title=Google Wants to Add Store Interiors to Maps|last=Barrett|first=Brian|date=February 4, 2010|publisher=Gizmodo|accessdate=27 March 2010}}</ref> while the two were attending [[Stanford University]] as Ph.D. candidates. It was first incorporated as a [[privately held company]] on September 4, 1998, with its [[initial public offering]] to follow on August 19, 2004. The company's [[mission statement|stated mission]] from the outset was "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful",<ref name="corporate">{{cite web |url=http://www.google.com/corporate/ |title=Google Corporate Information |publisher=Google, Inc. |accessdate=February 14, 2010}}</ref> and the company's unofficial slogan{{ndash}} coined by Google engineer [[Paul Buchheit]]{{ndash}} is ''[[Don't be evil]]''.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://investor.google.com/conduct.html |title=Google Code of Conduct |date=April 8, 2009 |publisher=Google, Inc. |accessdate=February 14, 2010 |accessdate=2010-07-05}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-07-16-n55.html 16, 2007-n55.html |title=Paul Buchheit on Gmail, AdSense and More |first=Philip|last=Lenssen |date=July 16, 2007 |publisher=Google Blogscoped |accessdate=February 14, 2010}}</ref> In 2006, the company moved to their current [[Googleplex|headquarters]] in [[Mountain View, California|Mountain View]], [[California]].

Google runs over one million servers in [[data centers]] around the world,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pandia.com/sew/481-gartner.html |title=Pandia Search Engine News — Google: one million servers and counting |date=July 2, 2007 |publisher=Pandia Search Engine News |accessdate=February 14, 2010}}</ref> and processes over one billion search requests<ref>{{cite news |url=http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/18/google-unveils-top-political-searches-of-2009/ |title=CNN Politics — Political Ticker... Google unveils top political searches of 2009 |first=Eric |last=Kuhn |date=December 18, 2009 |publisher=CNN |accessdate=February 14, 2010}}</ref> and twenty [[petabyte]]s of user-generated data every day.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/sorting-1pb-with-mapreduce.html|title=Sorting 1PB with MapReduce|last=Czajkowski|first=Grzegorz|date=November 21, 2008|work=Official Google Blog|publisher=Google, Inc.|accessdate=February 16, 2010|accessdate=2010-07-05}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.niallkennedy.com/blog/2008/01/google-mapreduce-stats.html|title=Google processes over 20 petabytes of data per day|last=Kennedy|first=Niall|date=January 8, 2008|work=Niall Kennedy's Weblog|publisher=Niall Kennedy|accessdate=February 16, 2010|accessdate=2010-07-05}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://techcrunch.com/2008/01/09/google-processing-20000-terabytes-a-day-and-growing/|title=Google Processing 20,000 Terabytes A Day, And Growing|last=Schonfeld|first=Erick|date=January 9, 2008|work=TechCrunch|publisher=TechCrunch|accessdate=February 16, 2010}}</ref> Google's rapid growth since its incorporation has triggered a chain of products, [[List of Google acquisitions|acquisitions]] and [[Google#Acquisitions and partnerships|partnerships]] beyond the company's core [[search engine]]. The company offers online [[productivity]] [[software]], such as its [[Gmail]] [[e-mail]] software, and [[social networking]] tools, including [[Orkut]] and, more recently, [[Google Buzz]]. Google's products extend to the [[Desktop environment|desktop]] as well, with applications such as the web browser [[Google Chrome]], the [[Picasa]] photo organization and editing software, and the [[Google Talk]] [[instant messaging]] application. More notably, Google leads the development of the [[Android (operating system)|Android]] [[mobile phone]] [[operating system]], used on a number of phones such as the [[Nexus One]] and [[Motorola Droid]]. Because of its popularity and numerous products, [[Alexa Internet|Alexa]] lists Google as the Internet's most visited website.<ref>{{cite web |title=Alexa Traffic Rank for Google (three month average) |publisher=[[Alexa Internet]] |url=http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/google.com |accessdate=September 6, 2009}}</ref> Google is also [[Fortune Magazine]]'s fourth best place to work,<ref name="best_company">{{cite news |url=http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2010/full_list/ |title=100 Best Companies to Work For 2010 |work=Fortune Maganize |date=February 8, 2010 |publisher=CNN |accessdate=February 14, 2010}}</ref> and [[BrandZ]]'s most powerful brand in the world.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://c1547732.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/BrandZ_Top100_2010.pdf |title=Top 100 Most Powerful Brands of 2009 |year=2008 |publisher=BrandZ |page=9 |format=PDF |accessdate=February 14, 2010}}</ref> The dominant market position of Google's services has led to [[Criticism of Google|criticism of the company]] over issues including [[privacy]], [[copyright]], and [[censorship by Google|censorship]].<ref>{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6740075.stm | work=BBC News | title=Google ranked 'worst' on privacy | date=June 11, 2007 | accessdate=April 30, 2010}}</ref><ref name=gatekeepers>{{cite news |first= Jeffrey|last= Rosen|authorlink= |coauthors= |title=Google’s Gatekeepers |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/magazine/30google-t.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all |quote= |work=[[New York Times]] |year=2008 |accessdate=December 1, 2008 | date=November 30, 2008 | accessdate=2010-07-05}}</ref>

==History==
{{Main|History of Google}}
[[Image:Google1998.png|thumb|left|Google's original homepage had a simple design since its founders were not experienced in [[HTML]], the language for designing web pages.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://alan.blog-city.com/an_evening_with_googles_marissa_mayer.htm |title=An evening with Google's Marissa Mayer |last=Williamson |first=Alan |publisher=Alan Williamson |date=January 12, 2005 |accessdate=July 5, 2010}}</ref>|alt=Google's homepage in 1998]]
Google began in January 1996 as a research project by [[Larry Page]] and [[Sergey Brin]] when they were both [[PhD]] students at [[Stanford University]] in [[California]].<ref name="milestones">{{cite web |url=http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/history.html |title=Google Milestones |work=Corporate Information |publisher=Google, Inc. |accessdate=February 14, 2010}}</ref> While conventional [[search engine]]s ranked results by counting how many times the search terms appeared on the page, the two theorized about a better system that analyzed the relationships between websites.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/ |title=The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web |last1=Page |first1=Lawrence |last2=Brin |first2=Sergey |last3=Motwani |first3=Rajeev |last4=Winograd |first4=Terry |date=November 11, 1999 |publisher=Stanford University |accessdate=February 15, 2010}}</ref> They called this new technology [[PageRank]], where a website's relevance was determined by the number of pages, and the importance of those pages, that linked back to the original site.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.google.com/corporate/tech.html|title=Technology Overview|work=Corporate Information|publisher=Google, Inc.|accessdate=February 15, 2010}}</ref> A small search engine called Rankdex was already exploring a similar strategy.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Li |first=Yanhong |date=August 6, 2002 |title=Toward a qualitative search engine |journal=Internet Computing, IEEE |volume=2 |issue=4 |page= |pages=24–29 |publisher=IEEE Computer Society |issn=1089-7801 |doi=10.1109/4236.707687 |url=http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/freesrchabstract.jsp?tp=&arnumber=707687 |accessdate=February 14, 2010}}</ref> Page and Brin originally nicknamed their new search engine "BackRub", because the system checked [[backlinks]] to estimate the importance of a site.<ref>{{cite news |title=The Birth of Google |first=John |last=Battelle |newspaper=Wired Magazine |date=2005-08 |url=http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/battelle.html?tw=wn_tophead_4 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://blogs.static.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/22707.html |title=9 People, Places & Things That Changed Their Names |publisher=Mental Floss |accessdate=December 20, 2009 }}</ref> Eventually, they changed the name to Google, originating from a misspelling of the word "[[googol]]",<ref>{{cite web|url=http://graphics.stanford.edu/~dk/google_name_origin.html|title=Origin of the name "Google"|last=Koller|first=David|date=January 2004|publisher=Stanford University|accessdate=February 15, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.stanforddaily.com/2003/02/12/from-googol-to-google/|title=From Googol to Google|last=Hanley|first=Rachael|date=February 12, 2003|newspaper=The Stanford Daily|publisher=Stanford University|accessdate=February 15, 2010}}</ref> the number one followed by one hundred zeros, which was meant to signify the amount of information the search engine was to handle. Originally, Google ran under the [[Stanford University]] website, with the domain ''google.stanford.edu''. The domain ''google.com'' was registered on September 15, 1997,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://whois.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=google.com |title=WHOIS — google.com |accessdate=August 18, 2008 |accessdate=2010-07-05}}</ref> and the company was incorporated on September 4, 1998, at a friend's garage in [[Menlo Park, California|Menlo Park]], [[California]].

===Financing and initial public offering===

[[File:Google’s First Production Server.jpg|thumb|The first iteration of Google production servers was built with inexpensive hardware.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/accession/102662167 |title=Google Server Assembly |publisher=Computer History Museum |accessdate=July 4, 2010}}</ref>|alt=Google's first servers, showing lots of exposed wiring and circuit boards]]

The first funding for Google was an August 1998 contribution of {{US$|100,000}} from [[Andy Bechtolsheim]], co-founder of [[Sun Microsystems]], given before Google was even incorporated.<ref name="Bechtolsheim">{{cite news|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/04/29/MNGLD6CFND34.DTL|title=For early Googlers, key word is $$$|last=Kopytoff|first=Verne|date=April 29, 2004|newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle|publisher=Hearst Communications|accessdate=February 19, 2010|location=San Francisco}}</ref> Early in 1999, while still graduate students, [[Sergey Brin|Brin]] and [[Larry Page|Page]] decided that the search engine they had developed was taking up too much of their time from academic pursuits. They went to [[Excite]] CEO George Bell and offered to sell it to him for $1 million. He rejected the offer, and later threw [[Vinod Khosla]], one of Excite's venture capitalists, out of his office after he had negotiated Brin and Page down to $750,000. On June 7, 1999, a $25 million round of funding was announced,<ref>{{cite press release|url=http://google.com/pressrel/pressrelease1.html|archiveurl=http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/pressrelease1.html |archivedate=March 9, 2000 |title=Google Receives $25 Million in Equity Funding |date=June 7, 1999 |location=Palo Alto, Calif. |publisher=Google |accessdate=February 16, 2009}}</ref> with major investors including the [[venture capital]] firms [[Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers]] and [[Sequoia Capital]].<ref name="Bechtolsheim"/>

Google's [[initial public offering]] (IPO) took place five years later on August 19, 2004. The company offered 19,605,052 shares at a price of $85 per share.<ref name="IPO">{{cite news|url=http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2004/tc20040819_6843_tc120.htm|title=Google: Whiz Kids or Naughty Boys?|last=Elgin|first=Ben|date=August 19, 2004|newspaper=BusinessWeek|publisher=Bloomberg, L.P.|accessdate=February 19, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://investor.google.com/pdf/2004_AnnualReport.pdf|title=2004 Annual Report|year=2004|publisher=Google, Inc.|page=29|accessdate=February 19, 2010|location=Mountain View, California}}</ref> Shares were sold in a unique online auction format using a system built by [[Morgan Stanley]] and [[Credit Suisse]], underwriters for the deal.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/29/technology/google/|title=Google sets $2.7 billion IPO |last=La Monica|first=Paul R.|date=April 30, 2004|work=CNN Money|publisher=CNN|accessdate=February 19, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.zdnet.com/news/want-in-on-googles-ipo/135799|title=Want In on Google's IPO?|last=Kawamoto|first=Dawn|date=April 29, 2004|work=ZDNet|publisher=CBS Interactive|accessdate=February 19, 2010}}</ref> The sale of $1.67 billion gave Google a [[market capitalization]] of more than $23 billion.<ref name="washpost">{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14939-2004Aug19.html|title=Google's IPO: Grate Expectations|last=Webb|first=Cynthia L.|newspaper=Washington Post|publisher=The Washington Post Company|accessdate=February 19, 2010|location=Washington, D.C. | date=August 19, 2004}}</ref> The vast majority of the 271 million shares remained under the control of Google, and many Google employees became instant [[paper millionaires]]. [[Yahoo!]], a competitor of Google, also benefited because it owned 8.4 million shares of Google before the IPO took place.<ref name="yahooshares">{{cite news|url=http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3392781|title=Yahoo and Google Settle|last=Kuchinskas|first=Susan|date=August 9, 2004|work=internet.com|publisher=QuinStreet, Inc.|accessdate=February 19, 2010}}</ref>

Some people speculated that Google's [[initial public offering|IPO]] would inevitably lead to changes in company culture. Reasons ranged from shareholder pressure for employee benefit reductions to the fact that many company executives would become instant paper millionaires.<ref>[[Associated Press]]. "[http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2004/04/63241 Quirky Google Culture Endangered?]" ''[[Wired Magazine]].'' April 28, 2004.</ref> As a reply to this concern, co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page promised in a report to potential investors that the IPO would not change the company's culture.<ref>Baertlein, Lisa. "[http://news.cnet.com/2100-1024-5201978.html Google IPO at $2.7 billion]." ''CIOL IT Unlimited.'' April 30, 2004.</ref> In 2005, however, articles in ''[[The New York Times]]'' and other sources began suggesting that Google had lost its anti-corporate, no evil philosophy.<ref>Rivlin, Gary. "[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/technology/24valley.html Relax, Bill Gates; It's Google's Turn as the Villain]." ''[[New York Times]].'' August 24, 2005.</ref><ref>Gibson, Owen; Wray, Richard. "[http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/search-giant-may-outgrow-its-fans/2005/08/25/1124562975596.html3001.asp Search giant may outgrow its fans]." ''[[The Sydney Morning Herald]].'' August 25, 2005.</ref><ref>Ranka, Mohit. "[http://www.osnews.com/story/17928/Google--Dont-Be-Evil Google - Don't Be Evil]."''[[OSNews]].'' May 17, 2007.</ref> In an effort to maintain the company's unique culture, Google designated a Chief Culture Officer, who also serves as the Director of Human Resources. The purpose of the Chief Culture Officer is to develop and maintain the culture and work on ways to keep true to the core values that the company was founded on: a flat organization with a collaborative environment.<ref name="CCO">Mills, Elinor. "[http://www.zdnet.com.au/meet-google-s-culture-czar-339275147.htm Google's culture czar]." ''[[ZDNet]].'' April 30, 2007. Retrieved on April 30, 2007.</ref> Google has also faced allegations of [[sexism]] and [[ageism]] from former employees.<ref>Kawamoto, Dawn. "[http://news.cnet.com/Google-hit-with-job-discrimination-lawsuit/2100-1030_3-5807158.html?tag=nl Google hit with job discrimination lawsuit]."''[http://news.cnet.com/ c|net news.com].'' July 27, 2005.</ref><ref>Staff Writer. "[http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071006/google_old_071006/20071006 Google accused of ageism in reinstated lawsuit]." ''[[CTV Television Network|CTV]].'' October 6, 2007. Retrieved on April 5, 2008.</ref>

The stock's performance after the IPO went well, with shares hitting $700 for the first time on October 31, 2007,<ref>[[Daily Telegraph]] Issue 47,409 Business Section Page B5 date, November 7, 2007</ref> primarily because of strong sales and earnings in the online advertising market.<ref name="bowlingforgoogle">La Monica, Paul R. "[http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/25/technology/techinvestor/lamonica/index.htm Bowling for Google]." ''[[CNN]].'' May 25, 2005. Retrieved on February 28, 2007.</ref> The surge in stock price was fueled mainly by individual investors, as opposed to large institutional investors and [[mutual fund]]s.<ref name="bowlingforgoogle" /> The company is now listed on the [[NASDAQ]] stock exchange under the [[ticker symbol]] GOOG and under the [[Frankfurt Stock Exchange]] under the ticker symbol GGQ1.

===Growth===
In March 1999, the company moved its offices to [[Palo Alto, California]], home to several other noted [[Silicon Valley]] technology startups.<ref name="165univave">{{cite news|url=http://news.cnet.com/2100-1040-960790.html|title=A building blessed with tech success|last=Fried|first=Ian|date=October 4, 2002|newspaper=CNET News|publisher=CNET|accessdate=February 15, 2010}}</ref> The next year, against Page and Brin's initial opposition toward an advertising-funded search engine,<ref>{{cite book|last=Stross|first=Randall|title=Planet Google: One Company's Audacious Plan to Organize Everything We Know|publisher=Free Press|location=New York|date=September 2008|pages=3–4|chapter=Introduction|isbn=978-1-4165-4691-7|url=http://books.google.com/?id=xOk3EIUW9VgC&printsec=frontcover|accessdate=February 14, 2010|chapterurl=http://books.google.com/books?id=xOk3EIUW9VgC&printsec=frontcover}}</ref> Google began selling [[advertising|advertisements]] associated with search [[keyword (Internet search)|keywords]].<ref name="milestones" /> In order to maintain an uncluttered page design and increase speed, advertisements were solely text-based. Keywords were sold based on a combination of price bids and clickthroughs, with bidding starting at five cents per click.<ref name="milestones" /> This model of selling keyword advertising was first pioneered by Goto.com, an [[Idealab]] spin off created by [[Bill Gross]].<ref name="goto strong">{{cite news|url=http://searchenginewatch.com/2166331|title=GoTo Going Strong|last=Sullivan|first=Danny|date=July 1, 1998|newspaper=SearchEngineWatch.com|publisher=Incisive Interactive Marketing|accessdate=February 18, 2010}}</ref><ref name="cnet p4p">{{cite news|url=http://news.cnet.com/Pay-for-placement-gets-another-shot/2100-1023_3-208309.html|title=Pay-for-placement gets another shot|last=Pelline|first=Jeff|date=February 19, 1998|newspaper=CNET News|publisher=CNET|accessdate=February 18, 2010}}</ref> When the company changed names to [[Overture Services]], it sued Google over alleged infringements of the company's pay-per-click and bidding patents. Overture Services would later be bought by [[Yahoo!]] and renamed [[Yahoo! Search Marketing]]. The case was then settled out of court, with Google agreeing to issue shares of common stock to Yahoo! in exchange for a perpetual license.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.cnet.com/Google,-Yahoo-bury-the-legal-hatchet/2100-1024_3-5302421.html|title=Google, Yahoo bury the legal hatchet|last=Olsen|first=Stephanie|date=August 9, 2004|newspaper=CNET News|publisher=CNET|accessdate=February 18, 2010}}</ref>

During this time, Google was granted a patent describing their PageRank mechanism.<ref name="patent">{{Ref patent |country=US |number=6285999 |status=patent |title=Method for node ranking in a linked database |gdate=September 4, 2001 |fdate=January 9, 1998 |invent1=Page, Lawrence |assign1=The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University |class=G06F17/30}}</ref> The patent was officially assigned to Stanford University and lists Lawrence Page as the inventor. In 2003, after outgrowing two other locations, the company leased their current office complex from [[Silicon Graphics]] at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway in [[Mountain View, California]].<ref name="sgibldg">{{cite news|url=http://news.cnet.com/Googles-movin-on-up/2110-1032_3-1025111.html|title=Google's movin' on up|last=Olsen|first=Stephanie|date=July 11, 2003|newspaper=CNET News|publisher=CNET|accessdate=February 15, 2010}}</ref> The complex has since come to be known as the [[Googleplex]], a play on the word [[googolplex]], the number one followed by a googol zeroes. Three years later, Google would buy the property from SGI for $319 million.<ref name="googleplexpurchase">{{cite news|url=http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2006/06/19/newscolumn3.html|title=Google to buy headquarters building from Silicon Graphics|date=June 16, 2006|newspaper=Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal|publisher=American City Business Journals|accessdate=February 15, 2010|location=San Jose}}</ref> By that time, the name "Google" had found its way into everyday language, causing the verb "[[google (verb)|google]]" to be added to the [[Merriam-Webster|Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary]] and the [[Oxford English Dictionary]], denoted as "to use the Google search engine to obtain information on the Internet."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/do-you-google.html|title=Do You "Google"?|last=Krantz|first=Michael|date=October 25, 2006|work=Google Blog|publisher=Google, Inc.|accessdate=February 17, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13720643/|title=To Google or Not to Google|last=Bylund|first=Anders|date=July 5, 2006|publisher=MSNBC|accessdate=February 17, 2010|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20060707062623/http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13720643/|archivedate=July 7, 2006}}</ref>

===Acquisitions and partnerships===
{{See also|List of acquisitions by Google}}
Since 2001, Google has acquired many companies, mainly focusing on small [[venture capital]] companies. In 2004, Google acquired [[Keyhole, Inc.]].<ref>"[http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/keyhole.html Google press announcement: Google acquires Keyhole, Inc.]</ref> The start-up company developed a product called Earth Viewer that gave a [[3D computer graphics|3-D]] view of the Earth. Google renamed the service to [[Google Earth]] in 2005. Two years later, Google bought the online video site [[YouTube]] for $1.65 billion in stock.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/09/technology/googleyoutube_deal/index.htm?cnn=yes|title=Google to buy YouTube for $1.65 billion|last=La Monica|first=Paul R.|date=October 9, 2006|work=CNN Money|publisher=CNN|accessdate=February 26, 2010}}</ref> On April 13, 2007, Google reached an agreement to acquire [[DoubleClick]] for $3.1 billion, giving Google valuable relationships that DoubleClick had with Web publishers and advertising agencies.<ref name="DoubleClicknyt">{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/14/technology/14DoubleClick.html?_r=1&ref=technology|title=Google Buys DoubleClick for $3.1 Billion|last=Story|first=Louise|last2=Helft|first2=Miguel|date=April 17, 2007|newspaper=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Company|accessdate=February 26, 2010|location=New York}}</ref> Later that same year, Google purchased [[GrandCentral]] for $50 million.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/all-aboard.html|title=All aboard|last=Chan|first=Wesley|date=July 2, 2007|work=Official Google Blog|publisher=Google, Inc.|accessdate=February 26, 2010}}</ref> The site would later be changed over to [[Google Voice]]. On August 5, 2009, Google bought out its first public company, purchasing video software maker On2 Technologies for $106.5 million.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/pressrel/ir_20090805.html|title=Google to Acquire On2 Technologies|work=Google Press release|date=August 5, 2009|accessdate=August 5, 2009|accessdate=2010-07-05}}</ref> Google also acquired [[Aardvark (search engine)|Aardvark]], a social network search engine, for $50 million. Google commented in their internal blog, "we're looking forward to collaborating to see where we can take it".<ref>{{cite web|accessdate=February 12, 2010 |url=http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/google-acquires-aardvark.html |title=Google Acquires Aardvark |work=Official Google Blog |publisher=google.com |quote=we're excited to announce that we've acquired Aardvark, a unique technology company.}}</ref> And, in April 2010, Google announced it had acquired a hardware startup, Agnilux.<ref>Dan Primack, peHUB. "[http://www.pehub.com/69556/google-buys-stealth-hardware-startup-agnilux/ Google Buys Stealth Hardware Startup Agnilux]" April 21, 2010.</ref>

In addition to the numerous companies Google has purchased, the company has partnered with other organizations for everything from research to advertising. In 2005, Google partnered with [[NASA Ames Research Center]] to build {{convert|1000000|sqft|m2|-3}} of offices.<ref name="nasaames">{{cite web|url=http://news.cnet.com/Can-Google-beat-the-new-office-curse/2100-1030_3-5884957.html|title=Can Google beat the new-office curse?|last=Mills|first=Elinor|date=September 29, 2005|work=CNET News|publisher=CBS Interactive|accessdate=February 26, 2010}}</ref> The offices would be used for research projects involving large-scale data management, [[nanotechnology]], [[distributed computing]], and the entrepreneurial space industry. Later that year, Google entered into a partnership with [[Sun Microsystems]] in October 2005 to help share and distribute each other's technologies.<ref name="googlesun">{{cite news|url=http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-10-03-google-sun-team_x.htm 3, 2005-google-sun-team_x.htm|title=Google, Sun make 'big deal' together|last=Kessler|first=Michelle|last2=Acohido|first2=Byron|date=October 3, 2005|newspaper=USA Today|publisher=Gannett Co. Inc.|accessdate=February 26, 2010}}</ref> The company also partnered with [[AOL]] of [[Time Warner]],<ref name="googleaol">{{cite web|url=http://news.cnet.com/What-the-Google-AOL-deal-means-for-users/2100-1024_3-6010327.html|title=What the Google-AOL deal means for users|last=Mills|first=Elinor|date=December 28, 2005|work=CNET News|publisher=CBS Interactive|accessdate=February 26, 2010}}</ref> to enhance each other's video search services. Google's 2005 partnerships also included financing the new [[.mobi]] [[top-level domain]] for mobile devices, along with other companies including [[Microsoft]], [[Nokia]], and [[Ericsson]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://finance.yahoo.com/news/DotMobi-Sells-Mobi-DomainName-paidcontent-2969792871.html?x=0&.v=1|title=DotMobi Sells .Mobi Domain-Name Operator|last=Lunden|first=Ingrid|date=February 12, 2010|work=Yahoo! Finance|publisher=Yahoo!|accessdate=February 26, 2010}}</ref> Google would later launch "Adsense for Mobile", taking advantage of the emerging mobile advertising market.<ref name="adsense_mobile">{{cite web|url=http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/annc/20070917_mobileads.html|title=Google AdSense for Mobile unlocks the potential of the mobile advertising market|date=September 17, 2007|publisher=Google, Inc.|accessdate=February 26, 2010}}</ref> Increasing their advertising reach even further, Google and Fox Interactive Media of [[News Corporation|News Corp.]] entered into a $900 million agreement to provide search and advertising on popular social networking site [[MySpace]].<ref name="googlemyspace">{{cite web|url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_August_7/ai_n16610613/|title=Fox Interactive Media Enters into Landmark Agreement with Google Inc.; Multi-Year Pact Calls for Google to Provide Search and Advertising across Fox Interactive Media's Growing Online Network Including the MySpace Community|date=August 7, 2006|work=B Net|publisher=CBS Interactive|accessdate=February 26, 2010}}</ref>

In October 2006, Google announced that it had acquired the video-sharing site [[YouTube]] for US$1.65 billion in Google [[stock]], and the deal was finalized on November 13, 2006.<ref>{{cite web | title = Google closes $A2b YouTube deal|author=[[Reuters]]| publisher = [[The Age]]| url = http://www.theage.com.au/news/Busness/Google-closes-A2b-YouTube-deal/2006/11/14/1163266548827.html|accessdate= November 29, 2008|accessdate= 2010-07-05}}</ref> Google does not provide detailed figures for YouTube's running costs, and YouTube's revenues in 2007 were noted as "[[materiality (auditing)|not material]]" in a regulatory filing.<ref name=Moneyclip>{{cite news|first=Yi-Wyn|last=Yen|date=March 25, 2008|url=http://techland.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/03/25/youtube-looks-for-the-money-clip|title=YouTube Looks For the Money Clip|accessdate=March 26, 2008|accessdate=2010-07-05}}</ref> In June 2008, a [[Forbes]] magazine article projected the 2008 YouTube revenue at US$200 million, noting progress in advertising sales.<ref name="Forbes08">{{cite news|first=Quentin|last=Hardy|coauthors=Evan Hessel|url=http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0616/050.html|title=GooTube|publisher=Forbes.com|date=May 22, 2008|work=[[Forbes Magazine]]|accessdate=August 3, 2009|accessdate=2010-07-05}}</ref> In 2007, Google began sponsoring [[NORAD Tracks Santa]], a service that pretends to follow Santa Claus' progress on Christmas Eve,<ref name="Tracking Santa: NORAD & Google Team Up For Christmas, Dec 1, 2007, Danny Sullivan">{{cite web |url=http://searchengineland.com/tracking-santa-norad-google-team-up-for-christmas-12817 |title=Tracking Santa: NORAD & Google Team Up For Christmas, Dec 1, 2007, Danny Sullivan |accessdate=December 31, 2009 |publisher=Search Engine Land |language=en |accessdate=2010-07-05}}</ref> using [[Google Earth]] to "track Santa" in 3-D for the first time,<ref name="Behind the scenes: NORAD's Santa tracker for Thur, Dec 21, 2009 By Daniel Terdiman, CNET">{{cite web |url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-10418101-52.html |title=Behind the scenes: NORAD's Santa tracker for Thur, Dec 21, 2009 By Daniel Terdiman, CNET |accessdate=December 31, 2009 |publisher=CNET |language=en}}</ref> and displacing former sponsor [[AOL]]. Google-owned YouTube gave NORAD Tracks Santa its own channel.<ref name="Instructions On Tracking Santa With NORAD & Google: The 2007 Edition, Dec 24, 2007, Danny Sullivan">{{cite web |url=http://searchengineland.com/instructions-on-tracking-santa-with-norad-google-the-2007-edition-13001 |title=Instructions On Tracking Santa With NORAD & Google: The 2007 Edition, Dec 24, 2007, Danny Sullivan |accessdate=December 31, 2009 |publisher=Search Engine Land |language=en |accessdate=2010-07-05}}</ref>

In 2008, Google developed a partnership with [[GeoEye]] to launch a satellite providing Google with high-resolution (0.41 m monochrome, 1.65 m color) imagery for [[Google Earth]]. The satellite was launched from [[Vandenberg Air Force Base]] on September 6, 2008.<ref>{{cite news|url=GeoEye launches high-resolution satellite|title=GeoEye launches high-resolution satellite|last=Shalal-Esa|first=Andrea|date=September 6, 2008|publisher=Reuters|accessdate=February 26, 2010|location=Washington}}</ref> Google also announced in 2008 that it was hosting an archive of [[Life Magazine]]'s photographs as part of its latest partnership. Some of the images in the archive were never published in the magazine.<ref>{{cite news |title=Google gives online life to Life mag's photos |url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27802744/ |quote=Google Inc. has opened an online photo gallery that will include millions of images from Life magazine's archives that have never been seen by the public before. |agency=Associated Press |date=November 20, 2008 |accessdate=February 25, 2010 |location=Mountain View, California}}</ref> The photos were [[watermark]]ed and originally had copyright notices posted on all photos, regardless of [[public domain]] status.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://searchengineland.com/google-to-host-10-million-time-life-unpublished-images-15513 |title=Google Hosting Time-Life Photo Archive, 10 Million Unpublished Images Now Live |publisher=[[Search Engine Land]] |author=Greg Stirling |date=November 18, 2008 |accessdate=December 20, 2009 |accessdate=2010-07-05 }}</ref>

In 2010, [[Google Energy]] made its first investment in a renewable-energy project, putting up $38.8 million into two wind farms in North Dakota. The company announced the two locations will generate 169.5 megawatts of power, or enough to supply 55,000 homes. The farms, which were developed by NextEra Energy Resources, will reduce fossil fuel use in the region and return profits. NextEra Energy Resources sold Google a twenty percent stake in the project in order to get funding for project development.<ref>{{cite news |title=Google Invests in Two Wind Farms |first1=Scott |last1=Morrison |first2=Cassandra |last2=Sweet |newspaper=Wall Street Journal |date=May 4, 2010 |url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342604575222420304732394.html}}</ref> Also in 2010, Google purchased Global IP Solutions, a Norway based company that provides web-based teleconferencing and other related services. This acquisition will enable Google to add telephone-style services to its list of products.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Gomes |first1=Lee |date=May 18, 2010 |title=Google's Latest Telephony Play |work=Forbes.com |publisher=Forbes, Inc. |url=http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/18/google-microsoft-videoconferencing-technology-telephony.html}}</ref> On May 27, 2010, Google announced it had also closed the acquisition of the mobile ad network, AdMob. This purchase occurred days after the [[Federal Trade Commission]] closed its investigation into the purchase.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.appscout.com/2010/05/google_closes_acquisition_of_a.php |title=Google Closes Acquisition of AdMob |last1=Albanesius |first1=Chloe |date=May 27, 2010 |work=AppScout |publisher=Ziff Davis Publishing Holdings Inc. |accessdate=June 16, 2010}}</ref> Google acquired the company for an undisclosed amount.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2355609,00.asp |title=Google Acquires Mobile Display Ad Firm AdMob |last1=Albanesius |first1=Chloe |date=November 9, 2010 |work=PC Magazine |publisher=Ziff Davis Publishing Holdings Inc. |accessdate=June 16, 2010}}</ref>

==Products and services==
{{See also|List of Google products}}

===Advertising===
Ninety-nine percent of Google's revenue is derived from its advertising programs.<ref>Google Annual Report, Feb. 15, 2008</ref> For the 2006 fiscal year, the company reported $10.492 billion in total advertising revenues and only $112 million in licensing and other revenues.<ref name="10-K">{{cite web|url=http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312507044494/d10k.htm|title=Form 10-K — Annual Report|accessdate=July 14, 2007|publisher=SEC|work=EDGAR|accessdate=2010-07-05}}</ref> Google has implemented various innovations in the online advertising market that helped propel them to one of the biggest advertisers in the market. Using technology from the company [[DoubleClick]], Google can determine user interests and target advertisements appropriately so they are relevant to the context they are in and the user that is viewing them.<ref>{{cite news|author=Nakashima, Ellen|title=Some Web Firms Say They Track Behavior Without Explicit Consent|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102270_pf.html|date=August 12, 2008|publisher=The Washington Post Company|work=The Washington Post|accessdate=September 1, 2008|accessdate=2010-07-05}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|author=Helft, Miguel|title=Google to Offer Ads Based on Interests |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/technology/internet/11google.html|publisher=The New York Times|date=March 11, 2009|accessdate=March 10, 2009|accessdate=2010-07-05}}</ref> [[Google Analytics]] allows website owners to track where and how people use their website, allowing for in-depth research into getting users to go where you want them to go.<ref>{{cite news|author=Bright, Peter|title=Surfing on the sly with IE8's new "InPrivate" Internet|url=http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2008/08/surfing-on-the-sly-ie8s-inprivate-internet.ars|date=August 27, 2008|publisher=Ars Technica|accessdate=September 1, 2008}}</ref> Google advertisements can be placed on third-party websites in a two-part program. Google's [[AdWords]] allows advertisers to display their advertisements in the Google content network, through either a cost-per-click or cost-per-view scheme. The sister service, Google [[AdSense]], allows website owners to display these advertisements on their website, and earn money every time ads are clicked.<ref name="AdSense">{{cite web|url=https://www.google.com/adsense/login/en_US/?sourceid=aso&subid=uk-en-ha&utm_medium=ha&utm_term=adsense&gsessionid=O---pJlnnf2wFZF8qu81Lg|title=AdSense|accessdate=October 11, 2009}}</ref>

One of the disadvantages and criticisms of this program is Google's inability to combat [[click fraud]], when a person or automated script "clicks" on advertisements without being interested in the product, just to earn money for the website owner. Industry reports in 2006 claim that approximately 14 to 20 percent of clicks were in fact fraudulent or invalid.<ref>Mills, Elinor. "[http://news.cnet.com/Google-to-offer-advertisers-click-fraud-stats/2100-1024_3-6098469.html Google to offer advertisers click fraud stats]." ''[http://www.cnet.com/ c net].'' July 25, 2006. Retrieved on July 29, 2006.</ref> Furthermore, there has been controversy over Google's "search within a search", where a secondary search box enables the user to find what they are looking for within a particular website. It was soon reported that when performing a search within a search for a specific company, advertisements from competing and rival companies often showed up along with those results, drawing users away from the site they were originally searching.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.searchengineoptimizationjournal.com/2008/03/24/why-companies-are-upset-about-googles-search-within-search/|title="Why Companies Are Upset With Google's Search-Within-Search"|author=Stamoulis, Nick|publisher=Search Engine Optimization Journal|date=2008-03-24}}</ref> Another complaint against Google's advertising is their censorship of advertisers, though many cases of are because of compliance with the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]]. For example, in February 2003, Google stopped showing the advertisements of [[Oceana (non-profit group)|Oceana]], a non-profit organization protesting a major cruise ship operation's sewage treatment practices. Google cited its editorial policy at the time, stating "Google does not accept advertising if the ad or site advocates against other individuals, groups, or organizations."<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2004/05/17/google-somewhat-lifts-oceana-ad-ban|title= Google Somewhat Lifts Oceana Ad Ban|date= |publisher= [http://www.webpronews.com/ webpronews.com]}}</ref> The policy was later changed.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.google.com/adsense/static/en_US/Terms.html|title= Google AdSenseTM Online Standard Terms and Conditions|accessdate= |publisher= Google AdSense}}</ref> In June 2008, Google reached an advertising agreement with [[Yahoo!]], which would have allowed Yahoo! to feature Google advertisements on their web pages. The alliance between the two companies was never completely realized due to [[antitrust]] concerns by the [[U.S. Department of Justice]]. As a result, Google pulled out of the deal in November 2008.<ref>[http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/10/31/yahoo-and-google-may-dump-their-deal/print/ ''Bloggingstocks'' "Yahoo and Google may dump their deal." Mclntyre, Douglas. Oct. 31, 2008.]</ref><ref>[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/ending-our-agreement-with-yahoo.html ''The Official Google Blog.'' "Ending our agreement with Yahoo!" Drummond, David. Nov. 5, 2008.]</ref>

===Search engine===
[[Image:Google web search.png|thumb|left|In 2010, Google updated its homepage with a new shadow-less logo.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/google-design-turned-up-notch.html |title=The Google Design, turned up a notch |last=Wiley |first=Jon |work=Official Google Blog |date=May 6, 2010 |accessdate=July 5, 2010 |publisher=Google, Inc.}}</ref>|alt=Google's homepage in 2010]]
The [[Google search|Google web search engine]] is the company's most popular service. According to [[market research]] published by [[comScore]] in November 2009, Google is the dominant search engine in the [[United States]] market, with a [[market share]] of 65.6%.<ref name="comscore">{{cite news|date=December 16, 2006| title=comScore Releases November 2009 U.S. Search Engine Rankings|publisher=|url=http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2009/12/comScore_Releases_November_2009_U.S._Search_Engine_Rankings|accessdate=2010-07-05}}</ref> Google indexes trillions of [[web page]]s, so that users can search for the information they desire, through the use of [[keyword (Internet search)|keywords]] and [[operators]]. In 2003, ''[[The New York Times]]'' complained about Google's indexing, claiming that Google's [[caching]] of content on their site infringed on their copyright for the content.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-1024234.html |title=Google cache raises copyright concerns |last1=Olsen |first1=Stefanie |date=July 9, 2003 |work=CNET News |publisher=CBS Interactive |accessdate=June 13, 2010}}</ref> In this case, the United States District Court of Nevada ruled in favor of Google in ''[[Field v. Google]]'' and ''Parker v. Google''.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Field v. Google |opinion=CV-S-04-0413-RCJ-LRL |court=[[United States District Court|Nevada District Court]] |date=January 19, 2006 |url=http://www.eff.org/IP/blake_v_google/google_nevada_order.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite court |litigants=Parker v. Google |opinion=04-CV-3918 |court=[[United States District Court|Eastern Pennsylvania District Court]] |date=March 10, 2006 |url=http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/06D0306P.pdf |quote=}}</ref> Google Watch has also criticized Google's [[PageRank]] algorithms, saying that they discriminate against new websites and favor established sites,<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.alternet.org/rights/14001/ |title=Conspiracy Researcher Says Google's No Good |author=Farhad Manjoo |date=August 30, 2002 |publisher=AlterNet |accessdate=December 12, 2009}}</ref> and has made allegations about connections between Google and the [[National Security Agency|NSA]] and the [[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA]].<ref name=sptimes>{{cite news|url=http://www.sptimes.com/2003/04/14/Technology/Despite_popularly__Go.shtml|title=Despite popularly, Google under fire for privacy issues|newspaper=[[St. Petersburg Times]]|author=Dave Gussow|date=April 14, 2003|accessdate=October 11, 2008}}</ref> Despite criticism, the basic search engine has spread to specific services as well, including an image search engine, the [[Google News]] search site, [[Google Maps]], and more. In early 2006, the company launched [[Google Video]], which allowed users to upload, search, and watch videos from the Internet.<ref name="video2006">Tyler, Nathan. "[http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/video_marketplace.html Google to Launch Video Marketplace]." ''Google.'' January 6, 2006. Retrieved on February 23, 2007.</ref> In 2009, however, uploads to Google Video were discontinued so that Google could focus more on the search aspect of the service.<ref>{{cite web|last=Cohen |first=Michael |url=http://googlevideo.blogspot.com/2009/01/turning-down-uploads-at-google-video.html |title=Official Google Video Blog: Turning Down Uploads at Google Video |publisher=Googlevideo.blogspot.com |date=January 14, 2009 |accessdate=January 2, 2010}}</ref> The company even developed [[Google Desktop]], a desktop search application used to search for files local to one's computer.

One of the more controversial search services Google hosts is [[Google Books]]. The company began scanning books and uploading limited previews, and full books where allowed, into their new book search engine. The [[Authors Guild]], a group that represents 8,000 U.S. authors, filed a class action suit in a [[New York City|Manhattan]] federal court against Google in 2005 over this new service. Google replied that it is in compliance with all existing and historical applications of copyright laws regarding books.<ref>{{cite web |first=China |last=Martin |url=http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/google-hit-second-lawsuit-over-library-project-722 |title=Google hit with second lawsuit over Library project |publisher=[[InfoWorld]] |date=November 26, 2007}}</ref> Google eventually reached a revised settlement in 2009 to limit its scans to books from the U.S., the U.K., Australia and Canada.<ref>{{cite news|author=Pettersson, Edvard|title=Google Wins Preliminary Approval of Online Books Settlement|url=http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ahUxORgasDFs|publisher=Bloomberg|date=November 20, 2009|accessdate=December 18, 2009}}</ref> Furthermore, the Paris Civil Court ruled against Google in late 2009, asking them to remove the works of La Martinière ([[Éditions du Seuil]]) from their database.<ref name=Smith>{{cite news|author=Smith, Heather|title=Google’s French Book Scanning Project Halted by Court |url=http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=apZ3UG9CPLo8|publisher=Bloomberg|date=December 18, 2009|accessdate=December 18, 2009}}</ref> In competition with [[Amazon.com]], Google plans to sell digital versions of new books.<ref>{{cite news |author=Rich, Motoko| title=Preparing to Sell E-Books, Google Takes on Amazon |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/technology/internet/01google.html|date=May 31, 2009|publisher=The New York Times |accessdate=December 18, 2009 }}</ref> Similarly, in response to newcomer [[Bing (search engine)|Bing]], on July 21, 2010, Google updated their image search to display a streaming sequence of [[thumbnails]] that enlarge when pointed at. Though web searches still appear in a batch per page format, on July 23, 2010, dictionary definitions for certain [[English language|English]] words began appearing above the linked results for web searches.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/this-week-in-search-72510.html |title=This Week in Search 7/25/10 |last1=Mayer |first1=Marissa |work=Official Google Blog |publisher=Google, Inc. |date=July 25, 2010 |accessdate=July 28, 2010}}</ref>

===Productivity tools===
In addition to its standard web search services, Google has released over the years a number of online productivity tools. Gmail, a free webmail service provided by Google, was launched as an invitation-only [[Beta phase|beta program]] on April 1, 2004,<ref name="GmailCashmore" /> and became available to the general public on February 7, 2007.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2007/02/anyone-can-signup-for-gmail-account.html |title=More People Can Sign up for a Gmail Account |last=Chitu |first=Ionut Alex. |date=February 7, 2007 |work=Google Operating System |publisher=Google Operating System Blog |accessdate=April 3, 2010}}</ref> The service was upgraded from beta status on July 7, 2009,<ref name="appsoutofbeta">{{cite web |url=http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/google-apps-is-out-of-beta-yes-really.html |title=Google Apps is out of beta (yes, really) |first=Matthew |last=Glotzbach |date=July 7, 2009 |work=Official Google Blog |publisher=Google, Inc. |accessdate=April 2, 2010}}</ref> at which time it had 146 million users monthly.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.geek.com/articles/news/facebook-strikes-back-at-google-integrates-its-chat-with-aol-instant-messenger-20100211/ |title=Facebook strikes back at Google, integrates its chat with AOL Instant Messenger |first=Christian |last=Zibreg |date=February 11, 2010 |work=Geek.com |publisher=Geek.com, LLC |at=para. 5 |accessdate=April 2, 2010 |quote=While Gmail’s 146 million monthly users are no match for Facebook’s 400+ million-strong user base, not all of them use built-in chat.}}</ref> The service would be the first online email service with one [[gigabyte]] of storage, and the first to keep emails from the same conversation together in one thread, similar to an Internet forum.<ref name="GmailCashmore">{{cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/01/cashmore.gmail/ |title=Six ways Gmail revolutionized e-mail |first=Pete |last=Cashmore |date=April 1, 2010 |work=CNN News |publisher=Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. |location=London, England |accessdate=April 2, 2010}}</ref> The service currently offers over 7400 MB of free storage with additional storage ranging from 20 GB to 16 TB available for {{US$|0.25}} per 1 GB per year.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/twice-storage-for-quarter-of-price.html |title=Twice the storage for a quarter of the price |last=Lee |first=Elvin |date=November 10, 2009 |work=Official Google Blog |publisher=Google, Inc. |accessdate=April 3, 2010}}</ref> Furthermore, software developers know Gmail for its pioneering use of [[AJAX]], a programming technique that allows web pages to be interactive without refreshing the browser.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/happy-sixth-birthday-google-mail--680998 |title=Happy sixth birthday, Google Mail! |first=Gary |last=Marshall |date=April 1, 2010 |work=TechRadar |publisher=Future Publishing Ltd. |accessdate=April 3, 2010}}</ref> One criticism of Gmail has been the potential for data disclosure, a risk associated with many online web applications. [[Steve Ballmer]] (Microsoft's CEO),<ref>[http://www.crn.com/software/202300583 Microsoft's Ballmer: Google Reads Your Mail] ChannelWeb, October 2007</ref> [[Liz Figueroa]],<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3621169.stm Google's Gmail could be blocked] BBC News, April 2004</ref> Mark Rasch,<ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/15/gmail_spook_heaven/ The Register - Google Gmail: Spook Heaven]</ref> and the editors of Google Watch<ref>[http://www.google-watch.org/gmail.html Gmail is too creepy] Google-Watch</ref> believe the processing of email message content goes beyond proper use, but Google claims that mail sent to or from Gmail is never read by a human being beyond the account holder, and is only used to improve relevance of advertisements.<ref>[http://www.google.com/privacypolicy.html Google Privacy Center - Privacy Policy]</ref>

[[Google Docs]], another part of Google's productivity suite, allows users to create, edit, and collaborate on documents in an online environment, not dissimilar to [[Microsoft Word]]. The service was originally called Writely, but was obtained by Google on March 9, 2006, where it was released as an invitation-only preview.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/writely-so.html |title=Writely so |last=Mazzon |first=Jen |date=March 9, 2006 |work=Official Google Blog |publisher=Google, Inc. |accessdate=April 3, 2010}}</ref> On June 6 after the acquisition, Google created an experimental spreadsheet editing program,<ref>{{cite press release |title=Google Announces limited test on Google Labs: Google Spreadsheets |publisher=Google, Inc. |date=June 6, 2006 |url=http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/annc/spreadsheets.html |accessdate=April 4, 2010}}</ref> which would be combined with Google Docs on October 10.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://techcrunch.com/2006/10/10/google-docs-spreadsheets-launches/ |title=Google "Docs & Spreadsheets" Launches |last=Arrington |first=Michael |date=October 10, 2006 |publisher=TechCrunch |accessdate=April 4, 2010}}</ref> A program to edit presentations would complete the set on September 17, 2007,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-13515_3-9780287-26.html |title=Google Presentations gets the green light |last=Hoffman |first=Harrison |date=September 17, 2007 |work=CNET News |publisher=CBS Interactive, Inc. |accessdate=April 4, 2010}}</ref> before all three services were taken out of beta along with Gmail on July 7, 2009.<ref name="appsoutofbeta" /> [[Google Calendar]], a calendar program closely integrated with Gmail,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://techcrunch.com/2006/04/12/google-calendar-is-live/ |title=Google Calendar is Live |last=Arrington |first=Michael |date=April 12, 2006 |publisher=TechCrunch |accessdate=April 4, 2010}}</ref> was also taken out of beta that day after its beta release on April 12, 2006.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.cnet.com/2100-1032_3-6060741.html |title=Google unveils Web-based Calendar app |last=Mills |first=Elinor |date=April 12, 2006 |work=CNET News |publisher=CBS Interactive, Inc. |accessdate=April 5, 2010}}</ref>

===Enterprise products===

[[Image:Google Appliance.jpg|thumb|upright|Google's search appliance at the 2008 [[RSA Conference]]|alt=Google's search appliance]]
Google entered the enterprise market in February 2002 with the launch of its [[Google Search Appliance]], targeted toward providing search technology for larger organizations.<ref name="milestones"/> Google launched the [[Google Mini|Mini]] three years later, which was targeted at smaller organizations. Late in 2006, Google began to sell Custom Search Business Edition, providing customers with an advertising-free window into [[Google Search|Google.com]]'s index. The service was renamed Google Site Search in 2008.<ref name="csbe2gss">{{cite web |url=http://searchengineland.com/google-rebrands-custom-search-business-edition-as-google-site-search-14123 |title=Google Rebrands Custom Search “Business Edition” As “Google Site Search” |last1=Sterling |first1=Greg |date=June 3, 2008 |work=Search Engine Land |publisher=Third Door Media |accessdate=June 16, 2010}}</ref>

Another one of Google's enterprise products is [[Google Apps|Google Apps Premier Edition]]. The service, and its accompanying Google Apps Education Edition and Standard Edition, allow companies, schools, and other organizations to bring Google's online applications, such as Gmail and Google Documents, into their own domain. The Premier Edition specifically includes extras over the Standard Edition such as more disk space, API access, and premium support, and it costs $50 per user per year. A large implementation of Google Apps with 38,000 users is at [[Lakehead University]] in [[Thunder Bay]], Ontario, Canada. In the same year Google Apps was launched, Google acquired [[Postini]]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/weve-officially-acquired-postini.html |title=We've Officially Acquired Postini |last1=Girouard |first1=Dave |date=September 13, 2007 |work=The Official Google Blog |publisher=Google, Inc. |accessdate=June 16, 2010}}</ref> and proceeded to integrate the company's security technologies into Google Apps<ref>{{cite press release |title=Google Adds Postini's Security and Compliance Capabilities to Google Apps |publisher=Google, Inc. |date=October 3, 2007 |url=http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/pressrel/apps_postini_20071003.html |accessdate=June 15, 2010}}</ref> under the name Google Postini Services.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.google.com/a/help/intl/en/security/index.html |title=Postini |publisher=Google, Inc. |accessdate=June 16, 2010}}</ref>

===Other products===
[[Google Translate]] is a server-side [[machine translation]] service, which can translate between 35 different languages. Browser extensions allow for easy access to Google Translate from the browser. The software uses [[corpus linguistics]] techniques, where the program "learns" from professionally translated documents, specifically [[United Nations]] and [[European Parliament]] proceedings.<ref>{{cite news |title=Google’s Computing Power Refines Translation Tool |first=Miguel |last=Helft |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/technology/09translate.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=March 8, 2010 |at=para. 15 |accessdate=May 2, 2010}}</ref> Furthermore, a "suggest a better translation" feature accompanies the translated text, allowing users to indicate where the current translation is incorrect or otherwise inferior to another translation.

Google launched its [[Google News]] service in 2002. The site proclaimed that the company had created a "highly unusual" site that "offers a news service compiled solely by computer algorithms without human intervention. Google employs no editors, managing editors, or executive editors."<ref>{{cite news |first=Joshua |last=Macht |title=Automatic for the People |url=http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,356152,00.html |work=Time Magazine |publisher=AOL Time Warner | date=2002}}</ref> The site hosted less licensed news content than Yahoo! News, and instead presented topically selected links to news and opinion pieces along with reproductions of their headlines, story leads, and photographs.<ref>{{cite news |first=Hannibal |last=Travis |title=Opting Out of the Internet in the United States and the European Union: Copyright, Safe Harbors, and International Law|url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1221642 |work=Notre Dame Law Review, vol. 55, p. 391 |publisher=President and Trustees of Notre Dame University in South Bend, IN | date=2008 |accessdate=June 4, 2010}}</ref> The photographs are typically reduced to thumbnail size and placed next to headlines from other news sources on the same topic in order to minimize copyright infringement claims. Nevertheless, Agence France Presse sued Google for copyright infringement in federal court in the District of Columbia, a case which Google settled for an undisclosed amount in a pact that included a license of the full text of AFP articles for use on Google News.<ref>{{cite news |first=Hannibal |last=Travis |title=Opting Out of the Internet in the United States and the European Union: Copyright, Safe Harbors, and International Law |url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1221642 |work=Notre Dame Law Review, vol. 55, pp. 391-92 |publisher=President and Trustees of Notre Dame University in South Bend, IN | date=2008 |accessdate=June 4, 2010}}</ref>

In 2006, Google made a bid to offer free wireless broadband access throughout the city of [[San Francisco]] in conjunction with [[Internet service provider]] [[Earthlink]]. Large telecommunications companies such as [[Comcast]] and [[Verizon]] opposed such efforts, claiming it was "unfair competition" and that cities would be violating their commitments to offer local monopolies to these companies. In his testimony before Congress on [[Net Neutrality]] in 2006, Google's Chief Internet Evangelist [[Vint Cerf]] blamed such tactics on the fact that nearly half of all consumers lack meaningful choice in broadband providers.<ref>{{cite news |first=Hannibal |last=Travis |title=Wi-Fi Everywhere: Universal Broadband Access as Antitrust and Telecommunications Policy |url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=903425 |work=American University Law Review, vol. 55, p. 1701 |publisher=President and Trustees of American University in Washington, DC | date=2006 |accessdate=June 4, 2010}}</ref> Google currently offers free wi-fi access in its hometown of [[Mountain View, California|Mountain View]], [[California]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://wifi.google.com/ |title=Google WiFi for Mountain View |publisher=Google, Inc. |accessdate=June 16, 2010}}</ref>

One year later, reports surfaced that Google was planning the release of its own mobile phone, possibly a competitor to [[Apple Inc.|Apple]]'s [[iPhone]].<ref name="smith">{{cite web |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/dec/17/news.mobilephones |title=The future for Orange could soon be Google in your pocket |last1=Smith |first1=David |date=December 17, 2006 |work=The Guardian |publisher=Guardian News and Media Ltd. |accessdate=June 16, 2010}}</ref><ref name="orlowski">{{cite web |url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/16/google_phone_confirmed/ |title=Google Phone - it's for real |last1=Orlowski |first1=Andrew |date=March 16, 2007 |work=The Register |publisher=The Register |accessdate=June 16, 2010}}</ref><ref name="ricker">{{cite web |url=http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/18/the-google-switch-an-iphone-killer/ |title=The Google Switch: an iPhone killer |last1=Ricker |first1=Thomas |date=January 18, 2007 |work=Engadget |publisher=Weblogs, Inc. |accessdate=June 16, 2010}}</ref> The project, called [[Android (mobile phone platform)|Android]], turned out not to be a phone but an [[operating system]] for mobile devices, which Google acquired and then released as an [[open-source]] project under the [[Apache License|Apache 2.0 license]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html |title=Licenses |work=Android Open Source Project |publisher=Google, Inc. |accessdate=April 4, 2010}}</ref> Google provides a [[SDK|software development kit]] for developers so applications can be created to be run on Android-based phone. In September 2008, [[T-Mobile]] released the [[T-Mobile G1|G1]], the first Android-based phone.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.cnet.com/t-mobile-g1-details-price-and-launch-date-revealed/ |title=T-Mobile G1 details, price, and launch date revealed |last=Lee |first=Nicole |date=September 23, 2008 |work=CNET News |publisher=CBS Interactive, Inc. |accessdate=April 4, 2010}}</ref> More than a year later on January 5, 2010, Google released an Android phone under its own company name called the [[Nexus One]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/05/nexus-one-event/ |title=The Droid You're Looking For: Live from the Nexus One Event |last=Siegler |first=MG |date=January 5, 2010 |publisher=TechCrunch |accessdate=April 4, 2010}}</ref>

Other projects Google has worked on include a new collaborative communication service, a web browser, and even a mobile operating system. The first of these was first announced on May 27, 2009. [[Google Wave]] was described as a product that helps users communicate and collaborate on the web. The service is Google's "email redesigned", with realtime editing, the ability to embed audio, video, and other media, and extensions that further enhance the communication experience. [[Google Wave]] was previously in a developer's preview, where interested users had to be invited to test the service, but was released to the general public on May 19, 2010, at Google's I/O keynote. On September 1, 2008, Google pre-announced the upcoming availability of [[Google Chrome]], an [[open source software|open-source]] [[web browser]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/fresh-take-on-browser.html |title=A fresh take on the browser |last1=Pichai |first1=Sundar |date=September 1, 2008 |work=Official Google Blog |publisher=Google, Inc. |accessdate=June 16, 2010}}</ref> which was then released on September 2, 2008. The next year, on 7 July 2009, Google announced [[Google Chrome OS]], an [[open source software|open-source]] [[Linux|Linux-based]] [[Operating System|operating system]] that includes only a web browser and is designed to log users into their Google account.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html |title=Introducing the Google Chrome OS |last1=Pichai |first1=Sundar |date=July 7, 2009 |work=Official Google Blog |publisher=Google, Inc. |accessdate=June 16, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Google sees window of opportunity to launch operating system |first1=Pham |last1=Alex |last2=Hirsch |first2=Jerry |newspaper=Los Angeles Times |date=July 9, 2009 |url=http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/09/business/fi-google9}}</ref>

Google has partnered with the [[United States Patent and Trademark Office]] to enable free access to information about patents and trademarks. The beta website is [http://www.google.com/patents Google Patents].

==Corporate affairs and culture==
[[Image:Schmidt-Brin-Page-20080520.jpg|thumb|right|Google CEO [[Eric E. Schmidt]] with [[Sergey Brin]] and [[Larry Page]] (left to right)|alt=Eric E. Schmidt, Sergey Brin, and Larry Page sitting together]]
Google is known for having an informal corporate culture. On ''[[Fortune Magazine]]'s'' list of best companies to work for, Google ranked first in 2007 and 2008<ref name="best_company">{{cite journal |last1=Levering |first1=Robert |last2=Moskowitz |first2=Milton |editor1-first=Andrew |editor1-last=Serwer |editor1-link=Andrew Serwer |date=January 22, 2007 |title=In good company |journal=Fortune Magazine |volume=155 |issue=1 |publisher=Cable News Network |url=http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/01/22/8398125/index.htm |accessdate=June 19, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Levering |first1=Robert |last2=Moskowitz |first2=Milton |editor1-first=Andrew |editor1-last=Serwer |editor1-link=Andrew Serwer |date=February 4, 2008 |title=The 2008 list |journal=Fortune Magazine |volume=157 |issue=2 |publisher=Cable News Network |url=http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2008/full_list/index.html |accessdate=June 19, 2010}}</ref> and fourth in 2009 and 2010.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Levering |first1=Robert |last2=Moskowitz |first2=Milton |editor1-first=Andrew |editor1-last=Serwer |editor1-link=Andrew Serwer |date=February 2, 2009 |title=The 2009 list |journal=Fortune Magazine |volume=159 |issue=2 |publisher=Cable News Network |url=http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2009/full_list/index.html |accessdate=June 19, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Levering |first1=Robert |last2=Moskowitz |first2=Milton |editor1-first=Andrew |editor1-last=Serwer |editor1-link=Andrew Serwer |date=February 8, 2010 |title=The 2010 list |journal=Fortune Magazine |volume=161 |issue=2 |publisher=Cable News Network |url=http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2010/full_list/ |accessdate=June 19, 2010}}</ref> Google's corporate philosophy embodies such casual principles as "you can make money without doing evil," "you can be serious without a suit," and "work should be challenging and the challenge should be fun."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html |title=Our Philosophy |work=Corporate Information |publisher=Google, Inc. |accessdate=June 20, 2010}}</ref>

===Employees===
Google's stock performance following its [[Initial public offering|IPO]] has enabled many early employees to be competitively compensated.<ref name="shinalj">{{cite news |title=Google IPO achieved its major goal: It's all about raising cash for the company and rewarding employees, early investors |first=John |last=Shinal |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/08/22/BUGCL8BS201.DTL |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |publisher=Hearst Communications, Inc. |date=August 22, 2004 |page=J-1 |accessdate=June 20, 2010}}</ref> After the company's [[IPO]], founders [[Sergey Brin]] and [[Larry Page]] and CEO [[Eric E. Schmidt|Eric Schmidt]] requested that their base salary be cut to $1. Subsequent offers by the company to increase their salaries have been turned down, primarily because their primary compensation continues to come from returns stock in Google. Prior to 2004, Schmidt was making $250,000 per year, and Page and Brin each earned a salary of $150,000.<ref name="topsalaries">{{cite web |url=http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/31/technology/google/index.htm |title=Google leaders stick with $1 salary |last1=La Monica |first1=Paul R. |date=March 31, 2006 |work=CNNMoney.com |publisher=Cable News Network |accessdate=June 20, 2010}}</ref>

In 2007 and through early 2008, Google has seen the departure of several top executives. In October 2007, former chief financial officer of [[YouTube]] Gideon Yu joined [[Facebook]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://social.venturebeat.com/2008/03/04/facebook-hires-sheryl-sandberg-to-be-its-new-coo/|title="Another Googler goes to Facebook: Sheryl Sandburg becomes new COO"|publisher=Venture Beat|date=March 4, 2008|accessdate=March 31, 2008}}</ref> along with Benjamin Ling, a high-ranking engineer.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/04/news/newsmakers/moritz_google_exec.fortune/|title="Top Google exec jumps to Facebook"|publisher=Fortune|date=March 4, 2008|accessdate=March 31, 2008}}</ref> In March 2008, Sheryl Sandburg, then vice-president of global online sales and operations, began her position as chief operating officer of [[Facebook]]<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/04/AR2008030402766.html|title="Facebook Raids Google for Executive"|publisher=Washington Post|date=March 5, 2008|accessdate=March 31, 2008 | first=Michael | last=Liedtke}}</ref> while Ash ElDifrawi, formerly head of brand advertising, left to become chief marketing officer of Netshops, an online retail company that was renamed [[Hayneedle]] in 2009.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.prnewswire.com/|title="Netshops Inc. Appoints Ash ElDifrawi as Company's First Chief Marketing Officer"|publisher=PR Newswire|date=March 26, 2008|accessdate=March 31, 2008}}</ref>

As a motivation technique, Google uses a policy often called Innovation Time Off, where Google engineers are encouraged to spend twenty percent of their work time on projects that interest them. Some of Google's newer services, such as [[Gmail]], [[Google News]], [[Orkut]], and [[AdSense]] originated from these independent endeavors.<ref>{{cite news |title=he Google Way: Give Engineers Room |first=Bharat |last=Mediratta |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/jobs/21pre.html |newspaper=The New York Times |publisher=The New York Times Company |date=October 21, 2007 |accessdate=June 20, 2010}}</ref> In a talk at [[Stanford University]], [[Marissa Mayer]], Google's Vice President of Search Products and User Experience, showed that half of all new product launches at the time had originated from the Innovation Time Off.<ref>{{cite video |people=Mayer, Marissa (speaker) |date=June 30, 2006 |title=Marissa Mayer at Stanford University |url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soYKFWqVVzg |medium=Seminar |publisher=Martin Lafrance |accessdate=June 20, 2010 |time=11:33 |quote=Fifty percent of what Google launched in the second half of 2005 actually got built out of 20% time.}}</ref>

===Googleplex===
[[Image:Googleplexsouthsidesecondangle.jpg|thumb|left|The [[Googleplex]], Google's original and largest corporate campus|alt=The Googleplex]]
{{Main|Googleplex}}
Google's headquarters in [[Mountain View, California|Mountain View]], [[California]] is referred to as "the [[Googleplex]]", a play of words on the number [[googolplex]] and the headquarters itself being a ''complex'' of buildings. The lobby is decorated with a piano, [[lava lamps]], old server clusters, and a projection of search queries on the wall. The hallways are full of exercise balls and bicycles. Each employee has access to the corporate recreation center. Recreational amenities are scattered throughout the campus and include a workout room with weights and rowing machines, locker rooms, washers and dryers, a massage room, assorted video games, [[foosball]], a baby grand piano, a [[billiard table|pool table]], and ping pong. In addition to the rec room, there are snack rooms stocked with various foods and drinks.<ref>"[http://www.google.com/corporate/culture.html About the Googleplex]." ''Google''. Retrieved on March 5, 2008.</ref>
In 2006, Google moved into {{convert|311000|sqft|m2|-2}} of office space in New York City, at 111 [[Eighth Avenue|Eighth Ave.]] in Manhattan.<ref name="manhattan">Reardon, Marguerite. "[http://news.cnet.com/2100-1024_3-6121970.html Google takes a bigger bite of Big Apple]." ''[http://www.cnet.com/ c net].'' October 2, 2006. Retrieved on October 9, 2006.</ref> The office was specially designed and built for Google, and it now houses its largest advertising sales team, which has been instrumental in securing large partnerships.<ref name="manhattan" /> In 2003, they added an engineering staff in New York City, which has been responsible for more than 100 engineering projects, including [[Google Maps]], [[Google Spreadsheet]]s, and others. It is estimated that the building costs Google $10 million per year to rent and is similar in design and functionality to its [[Mountain View, California|Mountain View]] headquarters, including [[foosball]], [[air hockey]], and ping-pong tables, as well as a video game area. In November 2006, Google opened offices on [[Carnegie Mellon]]'s campus in [[Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania|Pittsburgh]].<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/technology/10346550/detail.html | title = Google Completes Pittsburgh Office, Holds Open House | date = November 17, 2006 | accessdate = January 13, 2008 | work = [[WTAE]] ThePittsburghChannel }}</ref> By late 2006, Google also established a new headquarters for its AdWords division in [[Ann Arbor, Michigan]].<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/webdev/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202600809| title=Inside Google's Michigan Office| date=October 24, 2007| publisher=[[InformationWeek]]}}</ref> Furthermore, Google has offices all around the world, and in the United States, including Atlanta, Austin, Boulder, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington DC.
[[File:PONYA Inland Term 1 jeh.JPG|thumb|upright|Google's NYC office building houses their largest advertising sales team.<ref name="manhattan" />|alt=Google's NYC office building]]

Google is taking steps to ensure that their operations are environmentally sound. In October 2006, the company announced plans to install thousands of [[Photovoltaic module|solar panels]] to provide up to 1.6 [[megawatt]]s of electricity, enough to satisfy approximately 30% of the campus' energy needs.<ref name="solar">Richmond, Riva. "[http://www.post1.net/lowem/entry/google_plans_to_build_huge Google plans to build huge solar energy system for headquarters]." ''[http://www.marketwatch.com/ MarketWatch].'' October 17, 2006. Retrieved on October 17, 2006.</ref> The system will be the largest solar power system constructed on a U.S. corporate campus and one of the largest on any corporate site in the world.<ref name="solar" /> In addition, Google announced in 2009 that it was deploying herds of goats to keep grassland around the Googleplex short, helping to prevent the threat from seasonal bush fires while also reducing the carbon footprint of mowing the extensive grounds.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/mowing-with-goats.html | title=Official Google Blog: Mowing with goats| date=May 1, 2009| publisher=Google}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/04/AR2009050400027.html | work=The Washington Post | title=My Day With The Google Goats | first=MG | last=Siegler | date=May 3, 2009 | accessdate=May 3, 2010}}</ref> The idea of trimming lawns using goats originated from R. J. Widlar, an engineer who worked for [[National Semiconductor]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.national.com/rap/Horrible/sheep.html |title=Sheep Mow Lawns |publisher=National Semiconductor |accessdate=2010-07-05}}</ref> Despite this, Google has faced accusations in [[Harper's Magazine]] of being extremely excessive with their energy usage, and were accused of employing their "[[Don't be evil]]" motto as well as their very public energy saving campaigns as means of trying to cover up or make up for the massive amounts of energy their servers actually require.<ref>Strand, Ginger. "[http://www.harpers.org/media/slideshow/annot/2008-03/index.html Keyword: Evil]." Retrieved on April 9, 2008.</ref>

===Easter eggs and April Fool's Day jokes===
{{Main|Google's hoaxes}}
Google has a tradition of creating [[April Fool's Day]] jokes. For example, [[Google's hoaxes#2000|Google MentalPlex]] allegedly featured the use of mental power to search the web.<ref name="mentalplex">{{cite web |url=http://www.google.com/mentalplex/ |title=Google MentalPlex |date=April 1, 2000 |publisher=Google, Inc. |accessdate=July 4, 2010 |accessdate=2010-07-05}}</ref> In 2007, Google announced a free Internet service called [[TiSP]], or Toilet Internet Service Provider, where one obtained a connection by flushing one end of a [[fiber-optic]] cable down their toilet.<ref name="TiSP">{{cite web |url=http://www.google.com/tisp/ |title=Welcome to Google TiSP |date=April 1, 2007 |publisher=Google, Inc. |accessdate=July 4, 2010 |accessdate=2010-07-05}}</ref> Also in 2007, Google's [[Gmail]] page displayed an announcement for [[Gmail Paper]], allowing users to have email messages printed and shipped to them.<ref name="gmail_paper">{{cite web |url=http://mail.google.com/mail/help/paper/more.html |title=Google Paper |date=April 1, 2000 |publisher=Google, Inc. |accessdate=July 4, 2010}}</ref> In 2010, Google jokingly changed its company name to Topeka in honor of [[Topeka, Kansas]], whose mayor actually changed the city's name to Google for a short amount of time in an attempt to sway Google's decision in its new [[Google Fiber|Google Fiber Project]].<ref name="Google Blog: A Different Kind of Company Name">{{cite web |url=http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/different-kind-of-company-name.html |title=A different kind of company name |last1=Schmidt |first1=Eric |date=April 1, 2010 |work=Official Google Blog |publisher=Google, Inc. |accessdate=July 4, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/01/business/main6353136.shtml |title=April Fools: Google Changes Name to Topeka |date=April 1, 2010 |work=CBS News |publisher=CBS Interactive, Inc. |accessdate=July 4, 2010}}</ref>

In addition to April Fool's Day jokes, Google's services contain a number of [[Easter egg (virtual)|Easter eggs]]. For instance, Google included the [[Swedish Chef]]'s "Bork bork bork," [[Pig Latin]], "Hacker" or [[leetspeak]], [[Elmer Fudd]], and [[Klingon language|Klingon]] as language selections for its search engine.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.google.com/language_tools |title=Language Tools |publisher=Google, Inc. |accessdate=July 4, 2010}}</ref> In addition, the search engine calculator provides the [[Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything]] from [[Douglas Adams]]' ''[[The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy]]''.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.google.com/search?q=answer+to+life+the+universe+and+everything |title=Google Search Results for 'answer to life the universe and everything' |publisher=Google, Inc. |accessdate=July 4, 2010}}</ref> Furthemore, when searching the word "recursion", the spell-checker's result for the properly spelled word is exactly the same word, creating a recursive link.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.google.com/search?q=recursion |title=Google Search Results for 'recursion' |publisher=Google, Inc. |accessdate=July 4, 2010}}</ref> In Google Maps, searching for directions between places separated by large bodies of water, such as Los Angeles and Tokyo, results in instructions to "kayak across the Pacific Ocean." During FIFA World Cup 2010, search queries like 'world cup', 'fifa', etc. will cause the ''Goooo...gle'' page indicator at the bottom of every result page to read ''Goooo...al!'' instead.

===Philanthropy===
{{Main|Google.org}}
In 2004, Google formed the not-for-profit philanthropic [[Google.org]], with a start-up fund of $1 billion.<ref name="philanthropy">{{cite web |url=http://www.google.org/about.html|title=About the Foundation |work=Google.org |publisher=Google, Inc. |accessdate=July 16, 2010}}</ref> The mission of the organization is to create awareness about [[climate change]], global public health, and [[global poverty]]. One of its first projects was to develop a viable [[plug-in hybrid]] [[electric vehicle]] that can attain 100 miles per gallon. Google hired [[Larry Brilliant|Dr. Larry Brilliant]] as the program's executive director in 2004<ref>{{cite news |last1=Hafner |first1=Katie |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/technology/14google.html |title=Philanthropy Google’s Way: Not the Usual |newspaper=The New York Times |date=September 14, 2006 |accessdate=July 16, 2010}}</ref> and the current director is Megan Smith.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Helft |first1=Miguel |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/technology/companies/24google.html |title=Philanthropy Google’s Way: Not the Usual |newspaper=The New York Times |date=February 23, 2009 |accessdate=July 16, 2010}}</ref>

In 2008 Google announced its "project 10100" which accepted ideas for how to help the community and then allowed Google users to vote on their favorites.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.project10tothe100.com/ |title=Project 10 to the 100th |publisher=Google, Inc. |accessdate=July 16, 2010}}</ref>

===Network neutrality===
Google is a noted supporter of [[network neutrality]]. According to Google's ''Guide to Net Neutrality'':
<blockquote>
Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days... Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/search/label/Net%20Neutrality |publisher=Google Public Policy Blog |title=Time to let the process unfold |date=October 22, 2009 |author=Richard Whitt |accessdate=December 20, 2009 }}</ref>
</blockquote>
On February 7, 2006, [[Vinton Cerf]], a co-inventor of the [[Internet Protocol]] (IP), and current Vice President and "Chief Internet Evangelist" at Google, in testimony before Congress, said, "allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success."<ref>{{cite web|author=Cerf, Vinton|authorlink=Vinton Cerf|title=The Testimony of Mr. Vinton Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google|url=http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1937&wit_id=5416|accessdate=May 4, 2008|format=PDF|page=8|date=February 7, 2006}}</ref>

===Privacy===
On December 2009, Google's CEO, [[Eric Schmidt]], declared after privacy concerns: ''"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines — including Google — do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."''<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/|title=Google chief: Only miscreants worry about net privacy|last=Cade|first=Metz |date=7 December 2009 |work=The Register|accessdate=5 January 2010}}</ref> [[Privacy International]] ranked Google as "Hostile to Privacy", its lowest rating on their report, making Google the only company in the list to receive that ranking.<ref>[http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/internet/interimrankings.pdf Privacy International 2007 Consulation Report]</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6740075.stm Google ranked 'worst' on privacy] BBC News, June 2007</ref>

At the Techonomy conference in 2010 Eric Schmidt predicted that ''"true transparency and no anonymity"'' is the way forward for the internet: ''"In a world of asynchronous threats it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you. We need a [verified] name service for people. Governments will demand it."'' He also said that ''"If I look at enough of your messaging and your location, and use artificial intelligence, we can predict where you are going to go. Show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are. You think you don't have 14 photos of yourself on the internet? You've got Facebook photos!"''<ref name="thinq.co.uk">{{cite news |url=http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/8/5/no-anonymity-future-web-says-google-ceo/ |title=No anonymity on future web says Google CEO |publisher=THINQ.co.uk |accessdate=August 07, 2010 |date=August 05, 2010}}</ref>

The non-profit group Public Information Research launched Google Watch, a website advertised as "a look at Google's monopoly, algorithms, and privacy issues."<ref name="Sherman">{{cite book |last1=Sherman |first1=Chris |title=Google power: unleash the full potential of Google |last=Sherman |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=SRadJIuhVjAC&dq=Google+Power;+Unleash+the+Full+Potential+of+Google&q=Daniel+Brandt#v=snippet&q=Daniel%20Brandt&f=false |accessdate=June 13, 2010 |year=2005 |publisher=McGraw-Hill |location=Emeryville, California |isbn=0072257873 |page=415 |quote=...a look at Google's monopoly, algorithms, and privacy issues.}}</ref><ref name="theage">{{cite news |url=http://www.theage.com.au/news/Breaking/Google-critic-releases-source-code-for-proxy/2005/01/12/1105423537735.html |title=Google critic releases source code for proxy |publisher=[[The Age]] |first=Sam |last=Varghese |date=January 12, 2005 |accessdate=October 11, 2008}}</ref> The site raised questions relating to Google's storage of [[HTTP cookies|cookies]], which in 2007 had a life span of more than 32 years and incorporated a unique ID that enabled creation of a [[data logging|user data log]].<ref name=agger>{{cite web|url=http://www.slate.com/id/2175651/|title=Google's Evil Eye: Does the Big G know too much about us?|first=Michael|last=Agger|date=October 10, 2007|publisher=Slate|accessdate=October 23, 2007}}</ref> Google's has also faced criticism with its release of [[Google Buzz]], Google's version of social networking, where [[Gmail]] users had their contact lists automatically made public unless they opted out.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://content.usatoday.com/communities/technologylive/post/2010/02/google-buzz--facebook-in-gmail/1 | work=USA Today | title=Google adds Facebook-like features to Gmail | date=February 9, 2010 | accessdate=April 30, 2010}}</ref> Google has been criticized for its censorship of certain sites in specific countries and regions. Until March 2010, Google adhered to the [[Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China|Internet censorship policies of China]], enforced by means of filters known colloquially as "The [[Great Firewall of China]]".<ref name="bbc1">{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4645596.stm |title=Google censors itself for China |publisher=BBC |accessdate=January 31, 2008 |date=January 25, 2006}}</ref>

==See also==
{{Portal box|San Francisco Bay Area|Companies}}
* [[Google logo]]
* [[Google China]]
* [[Google Ventures]] – [[venture capital]] fund
* [[Googlebot]] – web crawler
* [[Google platform|Google Platform]]
* [[Criticism of Google]]

==References==

{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}

==Further reading==
* {{cite book|title=The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture|author=[[John Battelle]]|publisher=Portfolio Hardcover|date=September 8, 2005|isbn=1-59184-088-0}}
* {{cite book|title=The Google Story|author=David Vise and Mark Malseed|publisher=Delacorte Press|date=November 15, 2005|isbn=0-553-80457-X}}
* {{cite book|title=Planet Google: One Company's Audacious Plan To Organize Everything We Know |author=Randall Stross |publisher=[[Free Press (publisher)]] |date=September 18, 2008 |isbn=1-41654-691-X|url=http://books.google.com/?id=xOk3EIUW9VgC&printsec=frontcover}}
* {{cite book |title=Inside Larry and Sergey's Brain |author=Richard L. Brandt |publisher=[[Portfolio Hardcover]] |date=September 17, 2009 |isbn=1-5918-4276-X}}
* {{cite book |title=Googled: The End of the World As We Know It |author=[[Ken Auletta]] |publisher=[[Penguin Press]] |date=November 3, 2009 |isbn=1-59420-235-4}}

==External links==

{{sisterlinks|Google}}
* [http://www.google.com/ Google.com]
* [http://www.google.com/corporate/ Corporate Homepage]
* [http://googleblog.blogspot.com/ Official Google Blog]
* {{crunchbase}}
* [http://research.google.com/ Google Research]
* {{cite web |url=http://google.com/ |title=Earliest known google website from 1998 |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/19981111183552/google.stanford.edu/ |archivedate=November 11, 1998}} – [[archive.org]]

{{-}}

==Related information==
{{Google Inc.|corporate=yes|products=yes}}
{{Open Handset Alliance Members}}
{{NASDAQ-100}}

[[Category:Google| ]]
[[Category:Internet history]]
[[Category:World Wide Web]]
[[Category:Human-computer interaction]]
[[Category:Cloud computing providers]]
[[Category:Companies based in Mountain View, California]]
[[Category:Companies established in 1998]]
[[Category:Internet properties established in 1998]]
[[Category:Internet companies of the United States]]
[[Category:Web service providers]]
[[Category:Websites by company]]

{{Link FA|bar}}

[[af:Google]]
[[am:ጉግል]]
[[ang:Google]]
[[ar:جوجل]]
[[ast:Google]]
[[az:Google]]
[[bn:গুগল অনুসন্ধান]]
[[zh-min-nan:Google]]
[[be:Google]]
[[be-x-old:Google]]
[[bar:Google]]
[[bs:Google]]
[[br:Google]]
[[bg:Google]]
[[ca:Google]]
[[cv:Кукăль (компани)]]
[[ceb:Google]]
[[cs:Google]]
[[cy:Google]]
[[da:Google]]
[[de:Google Inc.]]
[[dsb:Google]]
[[et:Google]]
[[el:Google]]
[[es:Google]]
[[eo:Google]]
[[eu:Google]]
[[fa:گوگل]]
[[fo:Google]]
[[fr:Google]]
[[ga:Google]]
[[gl:Google]]
[[ko:구글]]
[[hi:गूगल]]
[[hsb:Google]]
[[hr:Google (tvrtka)]]
[[io:Google]]
[[id:Google]]
[[iu:ᒎᒐᓪ/guugal]]
[[is:Google]]
[[it:Google Inc.]]
[[he:גוגל (חברה)]]
[[kn:ಗೂಗಲ್]]
[[ka:Google]]
[[ky:Google]]
[[rn:Google]]
[[ht:Google]]
[[ku:Google]]
[[lo:ກູໂກລ]]
[[la:Google]]
[[lv:Google]]
[[lb:Google]]
[[lt:Google]]
[[hu:Google, Inc.]]
[[mk:Google]]
[[mg:Google]]
[[ml:ഗൂഗിള്‍]]
[[mr:गूगल]]
[[arz:جوجل]]
[[ms:Google]]
[[my:Google]]
[[nah:Google]]
[[nl:Google Inc.]]
[[ne:गूगल]]
[[ja:Google]]
[[no:Google]]
[[nn:Google]]
[[oc:Google]]
[[uz:Google]]
[[pnb:گوگل]]
[[km:Google ស្វែងរក]]
[[pl:Google]]
[[pt:Google]]
[[kaa:Google]]
[[ro:Google]]
[[qu:Google]]
[[ru:Google (компания)]]
[[sah:Google]]
[[sco:Google]]
[[sq:Google]]
[[scn:Google]]
[[simple:Google]]
[[sd:گوگل]]
[[sk:Google]]
[[sl:Google]]
[[so:Google]]
[[sr:Гугл]]
[[sh:Google]]
[[fi:Google]]
[[sv:Google]]
[[tl:Google]]
[[ta:கூகிள்]]
[[kab:Google]]
[[tt:Google]]
[[te:గూగుల్]]
[[th:กูเกิล]]
[[tr:Google]]
[[uk:Google]]
[[ur:گوگل]]
[[vec:Google Inc.]]
[[vi:Google]]
[[wa:Google]]
[[vls:Google]]
[[yi:גוגל]]
[[yo:Google]]
[[zh-yue:Google]]
[[diq:Google]]
[[zh:Google]]

Talk:Workers' Day

2010-05-30T11:34:33Z

Forteller: Fixed a typo that made the link not work

How exactly does this differ from the [[International Workers' Day]]? [[User:Forteller|Forteller]] ([[User talk:Forteller|talk]]) 07:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Vulture fund

2010-05-24T21:33:50Z

Forteller: Added Norwegian

{{no footnotes|date=December 2008}}
A '''vulture fund''' is a [[private equity]] or [[hedge fund]] that invests in [[debt]] issued by an entity that is considered to be very weak or dying. The name is a [[metaphor]] comparing these investors to [[vulture]]s patiently circling, waiting to pick over the remains of a rapidly weakening company or, in the case of [[sovereign debt]], debtor country. Market practitioners prefer to refer to them as distressed debt or special situations funds.

Vulture funds focused on debt target not only corporate obligers, but also sovereign debtor states. In the recent case of [[Argentina]], for example, vulture funds bought up a significant portion of the country's external [[public debt]] at very low prices (sometimes only 20% of their [[nominal value]]), and then attempted to cash them when the [[Argentine economic crisis (1999-2002)|Argentine economic crisis]] exploded in [[2002]]. A single vulture fund run by [[Kenneth B. Dart]], heir to the [[Dart Container]] fortune, claimed 700 million [[United States dollar|USD]] in a lawsuit against the government of Argentina. However, Argentina was behind many of the secondary market purchases. Some estimate that in the debt exchange of 2005, Argentina controlled over half of the debt tendered.

Vulture funds have sometimes had success in bringing attachment and recovery actions against sovereign debtor governments, usually settling with them before actually realizing the attachments in forced sales. In one instance involving Peru, such a seizure threatened payments to other creditors of the sovereign obliger. Settlements typically are made at a discount in hard or local currency or in the form of new debt issuance. A related term is "vulture investing", where certain stocks in near bankrupt companies are purchased upon anticipation of asset divestiture or successful reorganization. A prime example in the U.S. is [[K-Mart]], where the [[real estate]] held by the company was the anticipated payout for investors who bought stock during their bankruptcy proceedings.

==History==
Sovereign debt collection was rare until the 1950s when sovereign immunity of government issuers was restricted. This trend developed due to the long history of sovereigns defaulting on commercial creditors with impunity. Accordingly sovereign debt collection actions began in the 1950s. One example was the freezing of Brazil's gold reserves held by the Federal Reserve.

Investment in sovereign debt with the intent to recover was also restricted due to the laws of [[champerty and maintenance]] and by the fact that most sovereign debt was syndicated. Under the doctrine of champerty, it was illegal in England and the United States to purchase a debt with the sole intent of litigating it. The distinction was made that if the debt was purchased to effect a recovery or facilitate investment, the doctrine was not a bar. Most jurisdictions have now eliminated the doctrine as archaic.

Similarly, sovereign debt owed to commercial creditors in the late 1980s was principally held by bank syndicates. This was the result of the [[petrodollar]] crisis of the 1970s when oil earnings were recycled into bank loans. The syndication of debt among banks made recovery impractical as a fund intending to litigate had to buy out the entire syndicate of holders or risk having the proceeds of litigation attached pursuant to sharing clauses in the loan agreements.

As the 1980s progressed debt rescheduling efforts in Latin America created many new and easily traded instruments such as Brady bonds that brought new players into the market including banks and hedge funds. The original creditors then wrote down their positions and sold the debt into the secondary market, a market consisting of banks and investment funds focused on buying at discounts to achieve above market returns on their investment.

In this process much debt was repurchased and converted into local currency by the sovereign country issuers in official debt conversion programs designed to attract investment and in severely indebted countries through World Bank funded buy-backs. The result is that the old syndicates were broken up and many unrestructured syndicate "tails" were available for purchase at discounts exceeding 80% of principal face value. That pricing encouraged funds to invest in recovery actions which would not otherwise make financial sense due to their length and cost.

In April 2010 vulture funds were banned in the [[United Kingdom]].<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8610062.stm BBC News - UK stops 'vulture funds' picking on poor]</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
* Complicating the Morality Play on Vulture Funds (Corrected Story),Christopher Faille, Senior Financial Correspondent, Hedgeworld News,Monday, February 4, 2008,
* [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/65b4be3c-3e9c-11dc-bfcf-0000779fd2ac.html Distressed Debt Returns to the Spotlight] FTfm,30 [[July 7]],
* [http://www.cerebralfund.com/ Cerebral Fund]
* [http://www.africaaction.org/stop-vulture-funds.html Africa Action Campaign to Stop Vulture Funds US]
* [http://www.jubileedebtcampaign.org.uk/?lid=2893 Jubilee Debt Campaign action on vulture funds]
* [http://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/vulturefund.asp Investopedia: vulture fund]
* [http://www.vulture-capital.net/ the largest asset-only purchase vulture fund run by Professor John W. Kercheval]
* [http://www.imf.org/external/np/vc/2002/011802.htm Should Countries like Argentina be able to Declare Themselves Bankrupt?], by [[Anne Krueger]]
* [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f9684f5c-bf78-11db-9ac2-000b5df10621,_i_rssPage=ceecf842-3b01-11da-a2fe-00000e2511c8.html Economics of Vulture Funds -Ft.com]
* [http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.cfm?sk=16487.0 - August, 2003, Manmohan Singh, IMF Working Paper WP/03/161; "Recovery Rates from Distressed Debt - Empirical Evidence from Chapter 11 Filings, International Litigation and Recent Sovereign Debt Restructurings"]
* [http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/3/vultures Investigative Journalist Greg Palast Tracks Vulture Funds Preying on African Debt] - video report by ''[[Democracy Now!]]''

[[Category:Funds]]

[[de:Geierfonds]]
[[es:Fondo buitre]]
[[hr:Lešinarski fond]]
[[ja:バイアウト・ファンド]]
[[ko:벌처펀드]]
[[nl:Aasgierfonds]]
[[no:Gribbefond]]

LibraryThing

2010-05-16T20:51:28Z

Forteller: /* Ownership and membership */ Added (now owned by Amazon) about AbeBooks

{{Infobox Website
| name = LibraryThing
| favicon =
| logo = [[Image:LibraryThing Logo medium.png]]
| screenshot =
| caption =
| url = http://www.librarything.com, http://www.librarything.de, etc.
| commercial =
| type = Catalog and community
| registration = Free with upgrade option
| owner = Tim Spalding (majority) [[AbeBooks]] [[Cambridge Information Group|CIG]]
| author = Tim Spalding
| launch date = August 29, 2005
| current status =
| revenue =
}}
[[Image:Tim Spalding, LibraryThing founder.jpg|thumb|Founder [[Tim Spalding]].]]
[[Image:Abby Blachly, LibraryThing Head Librarian.jpg|thumb|Head Librarian Abby Blachly.]]
'''LibraryThing''' is a [[social cataloging applications|social cataloging]] [[web application]] for storing and sharing personal library catalogs and book lists.

Based in [[Portland, Maine]],<ref>http://www.librarything.com/snailmail.php</ref> LibraryThing was developed by [[Tim Spalding]] and went live on August 29, 2005. As of September 2009 it has 920,000 users and nearly 45 million books catalogued.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.librarything.com/zeitgeist| title=Zeitgeist Overview| publisher=LibraryThing| accessdate=2009-09-21}}.</ref>

Users (informally known as ''thingamabrarians'', a term coined by contributor RJO) can catalog personal collections, keep reading lists, post book reviews, and chat to other users who have the same books. While it is possible to keep a library catalog private, most people choose to make their catalogs public, which makes it possible to find others with similar tastes. Thingamabrarians can browse the entire database by searching titles, authors, or tags generated by users as they enter books into their libraries.

==Features==
The primary feature of LibraryThing is the cataloging of books by importing data from booksellers and libraries through [[Z39.50]] connections. Six [[Amazon.com]] stores supply a ready (if sometimes inaccurate) source of data. Library sources supply [[MARC standards|MARC]] and [[Dublin Core]] records to LT; users can import information from over 680 libraries, including the [[Library of Congress]], [[National Library of Australia]], the [[Library and Archives Canada|Canadian National Catalogue]], the [[British Library]], and [[Yale University]].<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.librarything.com/addbooks| title=Add books to your library| accessdate=2008-06-03}}</ref> Once the correct book and edition has been located, a click adds it to the user's catalog. If the correct book or edition is not available, it can be manually added or the record can be edited later. Furthermore, books can be added from another member's catalog or by searching on LibraryThing itself. A list of [[ISBN]]s can also be imported.

A "Suggester" feature, introduced in April 2006, provides book recommendations based on catalogs with similar books. The comical "Unsuggester" lists books that are rarely owned by the same people as the books in your library. Both these features can also be applied to a specific book.

=== Social features ===
After a user catalogs books, he or she can tag them, add/correct cover pictures, and use social features. When a book is tagged, it can be viewed when other users or books use that tag. Tagging is, according to the WikiThing, <blockquote>...a simple way to categorize books according to how [a user thinks] of them.... Thus one person will tag the The DaVinci Code "novels" while another tags it "trashy, religion, mary," and still another only "summer home." Tags are particularly useful for sorting and searching by those concepts—i.e., when you need a list of all your novels or all the books at the summer home.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/Tagging| title=Tagging - WikiThing| date=2008-01-18| accessdate=2008-06-03}}</ref></blockquote>

Another feature, "Members with your books", shows the names of the members with the 50 most similar libraries. When viewing another member's profile or library, the system shows how many (and which) books are shared in common between the two users. If desired, members can leave a (public or private) comment on another member's profile. One can also add the member as a friend, to a private watch list, or as an interesting library.

In September 2006, LibraryThing added an easy way to see book data from several book-swapping web sites.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.librarything.com/blog/2006/09/arrr-swap-books.php| title=Arrr… Swap books!| date=2006-09-03| last=Spalding| first=Tim| work=The LibraryThing Blog| accessdate=2007-03-13}}</ref> LibraryThing book pages include a "swap this book" link with the number of copies available at book-swapping sites, the number of people who desire a copy of the book, and links to specific sites where people have or want the book (sorted by number of copies).

LibraryThing's social features define it as a [[Web 2.0]] application. As such, it has been compared to bookmark manager [[Del.icio.us]]<ref>{{cite news| first=Jim| last=Regan| url=http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1109/p25s01-stct.html| title=Do your own LibraryThing| work=Christian Science Monitor| date=2005-11-09| accessdate=2007-03-13}}</ref> and the collaborative music service [[Last.fm]].<ref>{{cite news| first=Alistair| last=Bain| url=http://www.desertofzin.org/2007/04/28/librarything/| title=LibraryThing| work=Desert of Zin| date=2007-04-28| accessdate=2007-06-20}}</ref> Similar book cataloging sites include [[Goodreads]], [[Shelfari]], [[aNobii]], and [[BookJetty]].<ref>{{cite news| first=Martha| last=Woodroof| url= http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88514715| title= Web Sites Let Bibliophiles Share Books Virtually| work= NPR| date=2008-03-20| accessdate=2009-05-14}}</ref>

==Ownership and membership==
By its one-year anniversary in August 2006, LibraryThing had attracted more than 73,000 registered users who had cataloged 5.1 million individual books, representing nearly 1.2 million unique works; as of March 2009 it has 650,000 users and 37 million books cataloged.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.librarything.com/zeitgeist| title=Zeitgeist Overview| publisher=LibraryThing| accessdate=2009-03-15}}.</ref> The LibraryThing website displays [[Google]] [[AdSense]] advertising on work and author pages for users that are not logged in, and receives referral fees from online bookstores that supply book cover images. Individual users can sign up at no cost and register up to 200 books. Beyond that limit and/or for commercial or group use, a subscription fee or one-time lifetime fee is charged.

Online bookseller [[AbeBooks]] (now owned by [[Amazon]]) bought a 40% share in LibraryThing in May 2006 for an undisclosed sum.<ref>{{cite news| first=Richard| last=Davies| url=http://www.abebooks.com/docs/CompanyInformation/PressRoom/library-thing.shtml| title=ABEBOOKS.COM ACQUIRES MAJOR STAKE IN LIBRARYTHING.COM – A SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE FOR BIBLIOPHILES| work=AbeBooks.com| date=2006-05-16}}</ref> In January 2009, [[Cambridge Information Group]] acquired a minority stake in the company, and their subsidiary [[R.R. Bowker|Bowker]] became the official distributor to libraries.<ref>[http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6631420.html CIG Acquires Minority Stake in LibraryThing; Bowker to Distribute to Libraries - 1/22/2009 - Library Journal]</ref> Tim Spalding retained majority ownership, but the current sizes of the minority shares have not been released to the public.

==Publicity==
At the end of June 2006, LibraryThing was subject to the [[Slashdot effect]] from a ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'' article.<ref>{{cite news| first=Aaron| last=Rutkoff| url=http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115109622468789252-i8U6LIHU7ChfgbxG1oZ_iunOIWE_20060727.html| title=Social Networking for Bookworms| work=Wall Street Journal| date=2006-06-27| accessdate=2006-12-15}}</ref> The site's developers added servers to compensate for the increased traffic. In December of the same year, the site received yet more attention from [[Slashdot]] itself over its UnSuggester feature, which draws suggestions from books least likely to appear in the same catalog as a given book.<ref>{{cite web| title=Unsuggester: Finding the Book You'll Never Want| url=http://slashdot.org/articles/06/12/04/125217.shtml| work=Slashdot| date=2006-12-04| accessdate=2006-12-15}}</ref>

LibraryThing maintains two [[blog]]s and a forum for discussions about LibraryThing. Since the introduction of the forum section of the site, called "Talk," the previously active LibraryThing [[Google Groups|Google Group]] has been retired.

==Internationalization==
LibraryThing has members across the world. The site supports international members by including sources (libraries and shops) from a number of countries and translated versions of the site which are available at separate URLs which can be found at the site.

== See also==
* [[Folksonomy]]
* [[Tag (metadata)|Tags]]
* [[Bibliographic database]]
* [[OPAC]] (Online Public Access Catalog)

== References ==
{{reflist}}

== Further reading ==
* Wenzler, J. [http://online.sfsu.edu/~jwenzler/research/LTFL.pdf LibraryThing and the library catalog: adding collective intelligence to the OPAC]. A Workshop on Next Generation Libraries. San Francisco State University CARL NITIG; September 7, 2007.

== External links ==
*[http://www.librarything.com LibraryThing]

{{Amazon}}

[[Category:Companies based in Maine]]
[[Category:Library 2.0]]
[[Category:Book websites]]
[[Category:Virtual communities]]
[[Category:Internet properties established in 2005]]
[[Category:Amazon.com]]
[[Category:Social cataloging applications]]

[[ca:LibraryThing]]
[[da:LibraryThing]]
[[de:LibraryThing]]
[[fr:LibraryThing]]
[[nl:LibraryThing]]
[[pl:LibraryThing]]
[[sv:LibraryThing]]

Talk:Workers' Day

2010-05-01T07:34:23Z

Forteller: ←Created page with 'How exactly does this differ from the International Worker's Day? ~~~~'

How exactly does this differ from the [[International Worker's Day]]? [[User:Forteller|Forteller]] ([[User talk:Forteller|talk]]) 07:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibilianism

2010-04-24T13:28:24Z

Forteller: Added "External links" and link to possibilian.com

'''Possibilianism''' is a philosophy which rejects both the idiosyncratic claims of traditional [[theism]] and the positions of certainty in [[atheism]] in favor of a middle, exploratory ground.<ref>[http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/02/envisioning-the-afterlife Envisioning the Afterlife], interview with David Eagleman on NPR's ''On Point'', Feb 27, 2009.</ref><ref name= "nytimesPaperCuts"> [http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/stray-questions-for-david-eagleman Stray questions for David Eagleman], ''New York Times'' Paper Cuts, July 10, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.kpbs.org/news/2009/mar/16/neuroscientist-imagines-40-different-versions-of/ Neuroscientist Imagines 40 Different Versions of the Afterlife], KPBS interview with David Eagleman, Mar 16, 2009.</ref> The term was first defined by neuroscientist [[David Eagleman]] in relation to his book of fiction [[Sum (novel)|''Sum'']].<ref name="TOTN">[http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=100778241 NPR Talk of the Nation: Interview with David Eagleman], Feb 17, 2009.</ref> Asked whether he was an atheist or a religious person on a National Public Radio interview in February, 2009, he replied "I call myself a Possibilian: I'm open to a lot of ideas that we don't have any way of testing right now."<ref name="TOTN" /> In a subsequent interview with the [[New York Times]], Eagleman expanded on the definition:
<blockquote>
"Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true. But with Possibilianism I'm hoping to define a new position -- one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story." <ref name= "nytimesPaperCuts"/>
</blockquote>

An adherent of Possibilianism is called a '''possibilian'''.<ref>[http://trashotron.com/agony/news/2009/03-09-09-podcast.htm#podcast031309 "I'm a possibilian"], Rick Kleffel's ''The Agony Column'', Mar 13, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kari-henley/are-you-surrounded-with-a_b_170583.html Are you surrounded with authentic communities?], The Huffington Post, March 1, 2009.</ref><ref name="MSNBC">[http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/10/2063070.aspx?p=1 Choose your afterlife], MSNBC.com, Sept 10, 2009.</ref> The possibilian perspective is distinguished from [[agnosticism]] in that it consists of an active exploration of novel possibilities and an emphasis on the necessity of holding multiple positions at once if there is no available data to privilege one over the others. Eagleman has emphasized that possibilianism reflects the scientific temperament of creativity and tolerance for multiple ideas<ref>Lanham, F. [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/features/6266014.html# Writing about what comes next]. ''Houston Chronicle''. Feb 16, 2009.</ref>

According to the [[Dallas Morning News]] and [[MSNBC]], the possibilian concept -- including various spellings (e.g. "possibillion") and modifications (e.g. "possibilitarian") -- has become popular on the internet.<ref> [http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/ent/books/stories/DN-eagleman_0616gd.ART0.State.Edition1.50ba880.html Houston author stunned by buzz over 'possibilian' theory], ''Dallas Morning News'', June 16, 2009.</ref><ref name="MSNBC"/> By November 2009, [[The List (magazine)|The List]] Magazine wrote: <blockquote>"Googling 'possibilian', the position Eagleman invented to explain his belief system, throws up the beginnings of a worldwide movement."<ref>[http://www.list.co.uk/article/21958 Choose (after)life]. ''The List Magazine'', Issue 643, 4 November 2009.</ref></blockquote>

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
[http://www.possibilian.com/ David Eagleman's possibilian.com]

[[Category:Philosophy of religion]]
[[Category:Theology]]

Act of God

2010-04-19T11:06:26Z

Forteller: /* Contract law */ Tiny typo

{{otheruses}}
{{Globalize}}

[[File:Tornado Damage, Illinois 2.JPG|right|thumb|This [[tornado]] damage to an [[Illinois]] home would be considered an "Act of God" for insurance purposes]]
'''Act of God''' is a [[List of legal Latin terms|legal term]]<ref>{{cite book |last = Black |first = Henry Campbell |title = Black's Law Dictionary |isbn = 0-314-76271-X |publisher = West Publishing Co. |year = 1990 |edition = 6th edition |page = 33 |location = [[Saint Paul, Minnesota]]}}</ref> for events outside of human control, such as sudden [[flood]]s or other [[natural disaster]]s, for which no one can be held responsible.

== Contract law ==
In the law of [[contract]]s, an act of God may be interpreted as an implied defense under the rule of [[impossibility]], e.g., the promise is discharged because of unforeseen, naturally occurring events that were unavoidable and which would result in insurmountable delay, expense or other [[material breach]]. In other contracts, such as [[Indemnity|indemnification]], an act of God may be no excuse, and in fact may be the central risk assumed by the promisor, e.g., [[flood insurance]] or [[crop insurance]], the only variables being the timing and extent of the damage. In many cases, failure by way of ignoring obvious risks due to "natural phenomena" will not be sufficient to excuse performance of the obligation, even if the events are relatively rare, e.g., the [[year 2000 problem]] in computers. Under the [[Uniform Commercial Code]], 2-615, failure to deliver goods sold may be excused by an "act of God" if the absence of such act was a "basic assumption" of the contract, but has made the delivery commercially "impracticable".

Recently, human activities have been identified by engineers as root causes of events until now considered natural disasters. In particular:
- water pressure in dams releasing geological fault (earthquake in China)
- geothermal injections of water provoking earthquakes (Zurich, Switzerland, 2003 - currently on trial)
- drilling provoking mud volcano (Java, ongoing)

Such events are possibly threatening the legal status of Acts of God and may establish liabilities where none existed until now.

== Tort law ==

In the law of [[tort]]s, an ''act of God'' may be asserted as a type of intervening cause, the lack of which would have avoided the cause or diminished the result of liability (e.g., but for the earthquake, the old, poorly constructed building would be standing). However, foreseeable results of unforeseeable causes may still raise liability. For example, a bolt of lightning strikes a ship carrying volatile compressed gas, resulting in the expected explosion. Liability may be found if the carrier did not use [[duty of care|reasonable care]] to protect against sparks—regardless of their origins. Similarly, [[strict liability]] could defeat a defense for an ''act of God'' where the defendant has created the conditions under which any accident would result in harm. For example, a long-haul truck driver takes a shortcut on a back road and the load is lost when the road is destroyed in an unforeseen flood. Other cases (and the preferred federal rule in the [[United States]]) find that a common carrier is not liable for the unforeseeable forces of nature. ''Memphis & Charlestown RR Co. v. Reeves,'' 1870, 77 U.S. 176.

A particularly interesting example is that of "rainmaker" [[Charles Hatfield]] who was hired in 1915 by the city of [[San Diego, California|San Diego]] to fill the Morena reservoir to capacity with rainwater for $10,000. The region was soon flooded by heavy rains, nearly bursting the reservoir's dam, killing nearly 20 people, destroying 110 bridges (leaving 2), knocking out [[telephone]] and [[telegraph]] lines, and causing an estimated $3.5 million in damage in total. When the city refused to pay him (he had forgotten to sign the contract), he sued the city. The floods were ruled an act of God, excluding him from liability but also from payment.

==Other uses==
The phrase, “act of God”, is sometimes used to attribute an event to divine intervention. Often it is used in conjunction with a [[natural disaster]] or tragic event: A [[miracle]], by contrast, is often considered a fortuitous event attributed to divine intervention. Some consider it separate from ''acts of nature'' and being related to fate or [[destiny]] <ref>{{Cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Introductory Session – Four Theories of Disaster
| work =
| publisher = FEMA Emergency Management Institute
| date =
| url = http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/docs/hazdem/Session%205%20--%20The%20Four%20Theories%20of%20Disaster.doc
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate =30 December 2009}}</ref>

Theologians differ on their views and their interpretations of scripture. Some say that God ''causes'' a disaster <ref>{{Cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Religious conservatives claim Katrina was God's omen, punishment for the United States
| work =
| publisher = Media Matters for America
| date = September 13, 2005
| url = http://mediamatters.org/research/200509130004
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 30 December 2009}}</ref>. [[R. C. Sproul]] speaks of [[Divine Providence]]: “In a universe governed by God, there are no chance events”<ref>{{Cite book
| last = Sproule
| first = R C
| title = Essential Truths of the Christian Faith
| publisher = Tyndale
| date = 1992
| location =
| pages = 61–63
| url =
| doi =
| id =
| isbn =0-8423-2001-6 }}</ref>
Others indicate that God may ''allow'' a tragedy to occur.<ref>
{{Cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = God Allowing Tragedy
| work =
| publisher = Lutheran Church Missouri Synod
| date =
| url = http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2191
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 30 December 2009}}</ref>
Yet others just accept unfortunate events as part of life<ref>{{Cite web
| last =Robinson
| first = B A
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Why do tragedies happen?
| work =
| publisher = Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
| date = 2005-09-04
| url = http://www.religioustolerance.org/tsunami04a.htm
| doi =
| accessdate =30 December 2009 }}</ref>
and reference [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 5:45 ([[KJV]]): “for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”

== See also ==

* [[Force majeure]]
* [[Lawsuits against God]]

== References ==

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Emergency management]]
[[Category:God]]
[[Category:Legal terms]]
[[Category:Nature]]

[[ar:قضاء وقدر]]
[[de:Höhere Gewalt]]
[[es:Caso fortuito]]
[[it:Nesso di causalità]]
[[he:סיכול (דיני החוזים)]]
[[nl:overmacht]]
[[pl:Siła wyższa]]

Goliath birdeater

2010-03-27T11:22:49Z

Forteller: /* Habitat */ Just added one space

{{Taxobox | name = Goliath Bird-eating Spider
| image = THERAPHOSA BLONDI HEMBRA ADULTA.jpg
| image_caption = ''Theraphosa blondi'', adult female
| image_width = 220px
| regnum = [[Animal]]ia
| phylum = [[Arthropod]]a
| classis = [[Arachnid]]a
| ordo = [[Spider|Araneae]]
| subordo = [[Mygalomorphae]]
| familia = [[Theraphosidae]]
| genus = ''[[Theraphosa]]''
| species = '''''T. blondi'''''
| binomial = ''Theraphosa blondi''
| binomial_authority = ([[Pierre André Latreille|Latreille]], 1804)
}}
The '''Goliath Bird-eater Spider''' (also called the '''Goliath Birdeater''') (''Theraphosa blondi'') is an arachnid belonging to the [[tarantula]] group, [[Theraphosidae]], and is considered to be the largest [[spider]] (by leg-span) in the world.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050222192426.htm World's Largest Spider]</ref> The spider was named by explorers from the [[Victorian era]], who witnessed one eating a [[hummingbird]].<ref>[http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/goliath_bird_eating_spider.htm Goliath Bird-Eating Spider - ''Theraphosa blondi'']</ref>

==Habitat==
It is native to the [[rain forest]] regions of northern [[South America]]. These spiders have up to a 11 inch (25 cm) leg span and can weigh over 6 ounces (170 g). Wild Goliath birdeaters are a deep-burrowing species, found commonly in [[marsh]]y or [[swamp]]y areas, usually living in burrows that they have dug or which have been abandoned by other burrowing creatures.

Females always mate, but eventually kill their mates. Females mature in 3 to 4 years and have an average life span of 15 to 25 years. Males die soon after maturity and have a lifespan of three to six years. Colors range from dark to light brown with faint markings on the legs. Birdeaters have hair on their bodies, abdomens, and legs. The female lays anywhere from 100 to 200 [[egg (biology)|eggs]], which hatch into spiderlings within two months.

Birdeaters are one of the few tarantula species which lack tibial spurs, located on the first pair of legs of most adult males, which serve to keep the fangs of the female immobilized during mating, so that the female doesn't eat the male.

The Goliath birdeater is fairly harmless to humans, as are most species of tarantulas. Like all tarantulas, they have [[fang]]s large enough to break the skin of a human (.75 to 1.5 inches or 1.9 cm to 3.8 cm). They carry [[venom (poison)|venom]] in their fangs and have been known to bite when threatened, but the venom is relatively harmless and its effects are comparable to those of a wasp's sting. Also when threatened they rub their abdomen with their hind legs and release hairs that are a severe irritant to the skin and mucus membranes. Tarantulas generally bite humans only in self-defense, and these bites do not always result in [[envenomation]] (known as a "[[dry bite]]"). The Goliath birdeater has poor eyesight and mainly relies on vibrations in the ground that it can sense from its burrow.

==Behavior==
[[File:Male goliath birdeater 111508 013.jpg‎|thumb|right|This male specimen is {{convert|16|cm|in|1}} long (including legs), as shown by the adjacent ruler.]]

Birdeaters are defensive and may make a hissing noise when disturbed. This noise is called [[stridulation]] and is produced when the spider rubs the bristles on its legs together. Birdeaters can defend themselves by biting or by kicking [[urticating hair]] towards their perceived assailant. These hairs can be severely irritating to the skin and lungs, and have been reported to feel like shards of fiberglass. While feeding, the spider will turn and leave a web barrier to prevent interruption from other animals.

==Diet==
Despite its name, the Goliath Birdeater does not normally eat birds.
As with other species of spider, (specifically tarantulae), their diet consists primarily of insects and other invertebrates. However, because of its naturally large size, it is not uncommon for this species to kill and consume a variety of vertebrates. In the wild, larger species of tarantula have been seen feeding on rodents, [[lizards]], [[bats]] and even deadly venomous [[snakes]].

In captivity, the Goliath Birdeater's staple diet should consist of cockroaches (generally the Madagascar hissing cockroach, [[Gromphadorhina portentosa]]), [[anoles]], and an occasional small mouse. Spiderlings and juveniles can be fed crickets or cockroaches that do not exceed the body length of the individual.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.care-sheet.com/index/Theraphosa_blondi Caring for your Goliath Bird Eating Tarantula]

[[Category:Theraphosidae]]
[[Category:Spiders of South America]]

[[ar:عنكبوت آكل الطير]]
[[da:Theraphosa blondi]]
[[de:Goliath-Vogelspinne]]
[[es:Theraphosa blondi]]
[[eo:Bird-manĝanta Goliato]]
[[fr:Theraphosa blondi]]
[[it:Theraphosa blondi]]
[[lt:Didysis paukštėda]]
[[nl:Goliathvogelspin]]
[[ja:ルブロンオオツチグモ]]
[[pl:Ptasznik goliat]]
[[pt:Aranha-golias-comedora-de-pássaro]]
[[ru:Терафоза Блонда]]
[[fi:Goljatlintuhämähäkki]]

Office suite

2010-01-06T21:01:58Z

Forteller: /* Online office suites */ Updated the name of OpenGoo, added ContactOffice

In [[computing]], an '''office suite''', sometimes called an '''office software suite''' or '''productivity suite''' is a collection of programs intended to be used by [[knowledge worker]]s. The components are generally distributed together, have a consistent [[user interface]] and usually can interact with each other, sometimes in ways that the [[operating system]] would not normally allow.

The currently dominant office suites are [[Microsoft Office]], which is available for [[Microsoft Windows]] and [[Apple Inc.]]'s [[Mac OS X]], and [[OpenOffice.org]], a [[free software]] / open source alternative available for many operating systems. Microsoft Office's binary [[file format]]s have been the ''de facto'' default, but are being supplanted{{Citation needed|date=July 2009}} by the open standard [[ODF]], OpenOffice.org's (among other programs') native format. ODF is becoming the standard choice for governments, educational environments and businesses seeking neutral document formats for information exchange or seeking to save money. There are numerous office suites attempting to challenge Microsoft and OpenOffice.org.

== Typical office suite components ==
{{col-begin}}
{{col-3}}
* [[Word processor]]
* [[Spreadsheet]]
* [[Presentation program]]
* [[Database]]
{{col-3}}
* [[Graphics suite]]
* [[Communication]]
* [[Email client]]
* [[Personal information manager]]
{{col-3}}
* [[Notetaking|Notetaking program]]
* [[Groupware]]
* [[Formula editor]]
* [[Web log analysis software]]
{{col-end}}

== Multi-platform office suites ==

=== Freeware suites ===
* [[IBM Lotus Symphony]] — based upon an older version of OpenOffice.org. Its components include Documents, Spreadsheets, and Presentations. For Microsoft Windows, Linux and Mac OS X.

=== Open source suites ===
* [[Go-oo]] - OpenOffice.org variant with a number of enhancements similar to the Novell Edition but freely available. It has better support for Office Open XML (MS Office 2007) file formats than the official OpenOffice.org releases produced by Sun Microsystems, and other enhancements that have not yet been accepted into the upstream Sun version.
* [[KOffice]] — [[Free software|free]] and [[Open source software|open-source]] office suite.
* [[OpenOffice.org]] — an [[open source software|open-source]] software project upon which Sun's [[StarOffice]] is based. The initial code was provided by [[Sun Microsystems]], based on the Star Office package by German company, Star Division, which it had previously acquired. Sun has provided much of the labour for its development since. Its components include Writer, Impress, Math, Draw, Calc, and Base. Releases are available for Microsoft Windows, GNU/Linux, Mac OS X and Solaris.
* OpenOffice.org Novell Edition — features the Office Open XML translator add-on. Based upon OpenOffice.org. Its components include Writer, Impress, Math, Draw, Calc, and Base.<ref name="autogenerated1">[http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/features/ooo.html NOVELL: SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop: OpenOffice.org]</ref>

=== Proprietary suites ===
* [[Kingsoft Office]] (Chinese version known as ''WPS Office'') — a native Chinese-language office suite. English and Japanese versions are currently available also. For Microsoft Windows and some versions are available also for Linux.
* [[SoftMaker Office]] 2010 — a word processor, spreadsheet and presentation graphics program, provided by a German company. For Microsoft Windows, [[Linux]] (SoftMaker 2008 only), [[Windows Mobile]], and [[Windows CE]]. Softmaker 2006 is a free download for Windows.
* [[StarOffice]] — an office suite from Sun Microsystems. Originally developed by the German firm Star Division, which Sun acquired. Early versions shared code with [[OpenOffice.org]] project, which Sun funded and continues to support, but there has been separate development of the two packages. For Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, Solaris.

== Office suites for DOS ==

=== Proprietary suites ===
* [[GEOS_(16-bit_operating_system)#Breadbox_Ensemble|Breadbox Office]] — A word processor, spreadsheet, address book and drawing program. It is part of a broader software package called Breadbox Ensemble which also includes programs such as email, web-browser and html editor. Breadbox Ensemble runs under the [[GEOS (16-bit operating system)]] and effectively requires a version of DOS to be installed on the host system.

== Office suites for Microsoft Windows ==

=== Freeware suites ===
* [[IBM Lotus Symphony]] — Freeware word, spreadsheet and presentation suite.
* [[SoftMaker Office]] 2006
* [[Kingsoft Office|WPS Office]] — The Chinese version is available for free if used non-commecially.of the computer suite

=== Open source suites ===
* [[GNOME Office]]
* [[KOffice]] — [[Free software|free]] and [[Open source software|open-source]], native for Windows since version 2.0
* [[OpenOffice.org]]
** OpenOffice.org Novell Edition<ref name="autogenerated1" />

=== Proprietary suites ===
* [[Ability Office]]
* [[GEOS_(16-bit_operating_system)#Breadbox_Ensemble|Breadbox Office]] — DOS software, but has been successfully tested with Win3.x, Win95/98/98SE/ME, WinNT4.0, Win2000 and the 32bit-versions of WinXP, WinVista and Win7.0.
* [[Celframe Office]] — supports Microsoft Office and other popular file formats, with a user interface styled on Microsoft Office 2003.
* [[EasyOffice]]
* [[EIOffice]][http://www.evermoresw.com/] (Evermore Integrated Office) — a Chinese / English / Japanese / French language integrated office suite. Available for Windows / Linux operating systems
* [[Framework (office suite)|Framework]] — historical but also still supported for Windows by the present developer, Selection & Functions Inc.
* [[Gobe Productive]] — Originally written for BeOS by developers of the original [[ClarisWorks]], GoBe Productive is a lightweight integrated Works-like office suite with a generous "Hassle-Free License."
* [[Ichitaro]] JUST Suite 2008 — a full Japanese-language suite from [[JustSystems]], the most direct competitor to Microsoft Office in Japan. For Windows only.
* [[Kingsoft Office]] (Chinese version known as ''WPS Office'') — a native Chinese-language office suite. English and Japanese versions are currently available also.
* IBM [[Lotus SmartSuite]] — For Windows 2000 and XP only
* [[Microsoft Office]]
* [[Microsoft Works]]
* [[SoftMaker Office]] 2010
* [[StarOffice]]
* [[WordPerfect Office]]

== Office suites for Mac OS X==

=== Freeware suites ===
* [[IBM Lotus Symphony]] 1.2.1 — freeware word, spreadsheet and presentation suite.

=== Open source suites ===
* [[KOffice]] — [[Free software|free]] and [[Open source software|open-source]], native support since version 2.0
* [[NeoOffice]] — NeoOffice is a Mac-specific free/open-source software development project, to integrating OpenOffice.org with native features of Mac OS X such as Quartz and Aqua, and by so doing giving the suite a more "Mac-like" look and feel.
* [[OpenOffice.org]] runs on Mac natively in an Aqua version.

=== Proprietary suites ===
* [[iWork]] — [[Apple Inc.]]'s Mac-only office suite. Includes [[Pages]], for word-processing, [[Numbers (software)|Numbers]] for spreadsheets, and [[Keynote (software)|Keynote]], for presentations. iWork replaces the now-discontinued [[AppleWorks]] suite.
* [[Mariner Software|MarinerPak]] — MarinerPak includes Mariner Write, a fully-featured word processor, and Mariner Calc, a fully-featured Spreadsheet application.
* [[Microsoft Office#Current edition for Mac OS X|Microsoft Office for Mac]] — Microsoft's office suite for Mac operating systems. The [[Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac|current version]] is a [[universal binary]] that supports both [[PowerPC]]- and Intel-based Macs. [[Microsoft Office#Prior editions for Mac OS .26 Mac OS X|Prior editions]] ran on PowerPC systems and Intel based systems using Rosetta<ref name="prior Microsoft Office editions run on Intel based macs">{{cite news |title=Office 2004 Benchmarks on Intel-based Macs |first= |last=MacTech Editorial Staff |url=http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.22/22.05/Office2004Benchmark/ |accessdate=2008-04-06 |work=[[MacTech]]}}</ref>.
* [[Microsoft Works]] — 4.0 is the last version for Mac.
* [[StarOffice]] — Sun's supported version of [[OpenOffice.org]] added support for Intel-based Mac OS X systems with StarOffice 9.

== Office suites for Unix/Unix-like operating systems==

=== Freeware suites ===
* [[IBM Lotus Symphony]] — freeware word, spreadsheet and presentation suite.

=== Open source suites ===
* [[Andrew Project#The Andrew User Interface System|AUIS]] — an office suite developed by [[Carnegie Mellon University]] and named after [[Andrew Carnegie]].
* [[GNOME Office]] — includes [[AbiWord]], [[Gnumeric]] and [[GNOME-DB]] data access components. It is a part of the GNOME environment for the [[X Window System]] (on Linux, the BSDs, and other [[Unix-like]] operating systems).
* [[Jambo OpenOffice]] — a Swahili version of OpenOffice.org.
* [[KOffice]] — [[Free software|free]], [[Open source software|open-source]] and [[cross-platform]], integrated office suite for [[KDE]].
* MagyarOffice and EuroOffice — Hungarian and European multilingual commercial office suites based on OpenOffice.org
* [[Siag Office]] — a free office suite for Unix systems. Primarily written by programmer Ulric Erikkson, with contributions from other authors. Includes a word processor, a spreadsheet, and an animation program.

=== Proprietary suites ===
* [http://www.evermoresw.com/ EIOffice] (Evermore Integrated Office) — a Chinese / English / Japanese / French language integrated office suite. Available for Windows / Linux operating systems
* SoftMaker Office 2008

== Online office suites ==
{{main|Online office suite}}

=== Freeware suites ===
* [[Google Docs]] — an [[AJAX]]-based online office suite from [[Google]], Inc. The suite includes a word processor, a spreadsheet program, and a presentation editor. Available free and as an enterprise service.

=== Open source suites ===
* [[Feng Office Community Edition|Feng Office]] (formerly OpenGoo) — an open source, fully featured online office suite. The application can be downloaded and installed on a server.

=== Proprietary suites ===
* [[ContactOffice]]
* [[ShareOffice]] — a Web-based office suite from ShareMethods. This suite utilizes separate word processing, spreadsheet, and presentation applications from other vendors. It is distributed through [[Salesforce.com]]'s AppExchange program.
* [[Simdesk]] — an online office suite from Simdesk Technologies, Inc. This suite offers partial compatibility with the Microsoft Office file formats (Word, Excel, and Powerpoint). With a monthly subscription to Simdesk Services (costing $3.50 – $20 per month), one is allowed to install the application anywhere.
* [[ThinkFree Office]] — an office suite written in Java, from ThinkFree, Inc. It includes a word processor (Write), a spreadsheet (Calc), and a presentation program (Show). For Microsoft Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X.
* [[Zoho Office Suite]] — a free online office suite from AdventNet, Inc. Includes a word processor, spreadsheet, presentations, and collaboration groupware.

==Comparison of general and technical information==
The following tables compare general and technical information for a number of office suites. Please see the individual products' articles for further information. The table only includes systems that are widely used and currently available.

=== General information ===
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="font-size: 85%; text-align: center; width: auto"
|-
! style="width:12em" |
! Developer
! First public release
! Predecessor
! Latest Stable version
! Operating system
! Microsoft Office (.doc, .xls) support
! Microsoft [[Office Open XML]] support
! [[OpenDocument]] support
! Costs in [[USD]]
! [[software license|License]]
! Online capability
|-
!| [[Ability Office]]
| [[Ability Plus Software]]
| 1985
| —
| 5.00
| [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]]
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{no|Planned for Ability Office 6}}
| {{nonfree}} 49.99 - 59.99
| {{proprietary}}
| {{no}}
|-
!| [[GEOS_(16-bit_operating_system)#Breadbox_Ensemble|Breadbox Office]]
| Breadbox Computer Company
| 1990
| —
| 4.1.3.0
| [[DOS]], [[Windows]]
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| {{nonfree}} 99.95
| {{proprietary}}
| {{no}}
|-
!| [[Celframe Office]]
| Celframe
| 2006 (Windows)
| —
| Celframe Office 2008
| [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]]
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{nonfree}} 68.20 - 190.96
| {{proprietary}}
| {{no|Celframe Office Online - 2011}}
|-
!| [[GNOME Office]]
| [[GNOME Foundation]],[[AbiSource]]
| —
| [[AbiWord]],[[Gnumeric]]
| [[AbiWord|2.4.5]]/[[Gnumeric|1.6.3]]/[[GNOME-DB|1.9 & 0.62]]
| [[Cross-platform]]
| {{yes}}
| {{no}}
| {{yes}}
| {{free}}
| {{free|[[GNU General Public License|GPL]]}}
| {{no}}
|-
!| [[GobeProductive]]
| [[Gobe Software]]
| 1998
| —
| 3.04 / 2.01
| [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]] and [[BeOS]]
| {{yes}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| {{nonfree}} 49.95
| {{proprietary}}
| {{no}}
|-
!| [[Google Apps]], [[Google Docs]]
| [[Google]]
| 2006
| Writely
| 2009
| Fully online
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}<ref>http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/06/02/finally-google-docs-can-open-docx-and-xlsx-files</ref>
| {{yes}}
| {{free}}
| {{proprietary}}
| {{yes|can be used offline with [[Google Gears]]}}
|-
!| [[IBM Lotus Symphony]]
| [[IBM]]
| 2007
| OpenOffice.org
| 1.3
| [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]], [[Linux]] and [[Mac OS X]]
| {{yes}}
| {{yes2}} Import only <ref>{{cite web
| url=http://symphony.lotus.com/software/lotus/symphony/help.nsf/ReleaseNotes
| title=What's new in Lotus Symphony 1.3
| publisher=IBM
| accessdate=2009-06-11}}</ref>
| {{yes}}
| {{free}}
| {{proprietary}}
| {{no}}
|-
!| [[iWork]]
| [[Apple Computer|Apple]]
| 2005
| [[AppleWorks]]<ref name="iWork_05">{{cite web |url=http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jan/11iwork.html |date=2005-01-11 |title=Apple Unveils iWork ’05 |accessdate=2007-08-21 |publisher=Apple, Inc.}}</ref>
| '09
| [[Mac OS X]]
| {{yes}}
| {{yes2}} Import only
| {{no}}
| {{nonfree}} 79.00
| {{proprietary}}
| {{yes|[[iWork.com]]}}
|-
!| [[Kingsoft Office]] (WPS Office)
| [[Kingsoft]]
| 1988
| WPS (word processor)
| 2009
| [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]] and [[Linux]]
| {{yes}}
| {{yes2}} Import only support for .docx and .xlsx
| {{no}}<ref name="kingsoft-odf">[http://www.kingsoftsupport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=250&sid=18f719dd0ba250c766179ae9e8911657 Kingsoft Office 2009 has no ODF support]</ref>
| {{nonfree}} 69.95
| {{proprietary}}
| {{no}}
|-
!| [[KOffice]]
| [[KDE|KDE Project]]
| 1998
| —
| 2.1
| [[BSD]], [[Linux]], [[Solaris (operating system)|Solaris]], [[Mac OS X]] and [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]]
| {{yes}}
| {{no}}
| {{yes}}
| {{free}}
| {{free|[[LGPL]] and [[GNU General Public License|GPL]]}}
| {{no}}
|-
!| [[Lotus SmartSuite]]
| [[IBM]]
| 1992<ref>Release date of Lotus SmartSuite from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3563/is_n7_v9/ai_14346979</ref>
| —
| 9.8
| [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]] and [[OS/2]]
| {{yes}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| {{nonfree}} 313.00
| {{proprietary}}
| {{no}}
|-
!| [[Mariner Software|MarinerPak]]
| [[Mariner Software]]
| 1996
| —
| 10.0
| [[Mac OS]] and [[Mac OS X]]
| {{yes2}} Import only
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| {{nonfree}} 79.95
| {{proprietary}}
| {{no}}
|-
!| [[Microsoft Office]]
| [[Microsoft]]
| 1990 (Macintosh), 1992 (Windows)
| [[Microsoft Word]] [[Microsoft Excel]] [[PowerPoint]]
| 2007 (12.0) (Windows), 2008 (12.2.3) (Macintosh)
| [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]] and [[Apple Macintosh|Macintosh]]
| {{yes}}
| {{yes|[[Office 2007]] supports ECMA-376 1st edition.<ref>[http://www.itpro.co.uk/199692/no-ooxml-in-office-2007-service-pack No OOXML in Office 2007 service pack]</ref>}}
| {{yes|[[OpenDocument_software#Microsoft|Poor native support]] starting with [[Microsoft Office 2007]] [[Service pack|SP2]]}}
| {{nonfree}} 149.95 - 679.95
| {{proprietary}}
| {{yes|[[Microsoft Office Live]]}}
|-
!| [[Microsoft Works]]
| [[Microsoft]]
| 1986
| —
| (9.0) (Windows), (4.0) (Macintosh)
| [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]] and [[Apple Macintosh|Macintosh]]
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{no}}
| {{nonfree}} 39.95
| {{proprietary}}
| {{yes|[[Microsoft Office Live]]}}
|-
!| [[NeoOffice]]
| [[Planamesa Software]]
| 2005-06-02
| OpenOffice.org 1.1 for Mac OS X
| 3.0.1
| [[Mac OS X]]
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{free}}
| {{free|[[GNU General Public License|GPL]]}}
| {{no}}
|-
!| [[OpenGoo]]
| [[Feng Office]]
| 2007
| -
| 1.6.1
| Fully online
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| {{free}}
| {{free|[[AGPL]]}}
| {{yes}}
|-
!| [[OpenOffice.org]]
| [[OpenOffice.org]] Organization
| 2001 October
| [[StarOffice]]
| 3.1.1
| [[Cross-platform]]
| {{yes}}
| {{yes2}} With free plugins
| {{yes}}
| {{free}}
| {{free|[[LGPL]]}}
| {{yes2}} With free plugins
|-
!| [[ShareOffice]]
| [[ShareMethods]]
| 2007 May
| —
| —
| Fully online
| {{yes}}
| {{no}}
| {{yes}}
| {{nonfree}} > 10,000.00 / year
| {{proprietary}}
| {{yes}}
|-
!| [[SoftMaker Office]]
| [[SoftMaker]]
| 1989
| —
| 2010 (Windows), 2008 ([[Linux]], [[Pocket PC]], Windows CE), 2006 (Handheld PC)
| [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]], [[Linux]], [[PocketPC]] ([[Windows Mobile]], [[Windows CE]]
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{nonfree}} 79.95
| {{proprietary}}
| {{no}}
|-
!| [[StarOffice]]
| [[Sun Microsystems]]
| 1995
| [[StarWriter (word processor)|StarWriter]]
| 9.0
| [[Cross-platform]]
| {{yes}}
| {{yes2}} With free plugins
| {{yes}}
| {{nonfree}} 34.95
| {{proprietary}}
| {{yes2}} With free plugins
|-
!| [[StarOffice]] from [[Google Pack]]
| [[Sun Microsystems]]
| 1995
| [[StarWriter (word processor)|StarWriter]]
| 8.0 - Update 10
| [[Cross-platform]]
| {{yes}}
| {{yes2}} With free plugins
| {{yes}}
| {{free}}
| {{proprietary}}
| {{yes2}} With free plugins
|-
!| [[ThinkFree Office]]
| [[Haansoft]]
| 1998
| —
| 3.5
| [[Cross-platform]]
| {{yes}}
| {{yes2}} Import only
| {{no}}<ref>[http://jonreagan.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/thinkfree-office-running-on-ubuntu-804/ ThinkFree on Ubuntu]</ref><ref>[http://product.thinkfree.com/office ThinkFree features]</ref>
| {{nonfree}} 49.95
| {{proprietary}}
| {{yes|ThinkFree.com}}
|-
!| [[WordPerfect Office]]
| [[Corel]]
| 1991
| [[WordPerfect]] (1982)
| X4
| [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]]
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{nonfree}} 69.99 - 399.99
| {{proprietary}}
| {{yes}}
|-
!| [[ZCubes]]
| [[ZCubes Inc.]]
| 2006
| —
| 2007
| Fully online
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| {{nonfree}}
| {{proprietary}}
| {{yes}}
|-
!| [[Zoho Office Suite]]
| [[AdventNet]]
| 2005
| —
|
| Fully online
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| 0 - 25 / User / Month
| {{proprietary}}
| {{yes}}
|-class="sortbottom"
!
! Developer
! First public release
! Predecessor
! Stable version
! Operating system
! Microsoft Office (.doc, .xls...) support
! Microsoft [[Office Open XML]] support
! [[OpenDocument]] Support
! Costs in [[USD]]
! [[software license|License]]
! Online Capability
|}

===Operating system support===
The [[operating system]]s the office suites were designed to run on without [[emulator|emulation]]; for the given office suite/OS combination, there are five possibilities:
* ''No'' indicates that it does not exist or was never released.
* ''Partial'' indicates that while the office suite works, it lacks important functionality compared to versions for other OSs; it is still being developed however.
* ''Beta'' indicates that while a version of the office suite is fully functional and has been released, it is still in development (e.g. for stability).
* ''Yes'' indicates that the office suite has been officially released in a fully functional, stable version.
* ''Dropped'' indicates that while the office suite works, new versions are no longer being released for the indicated OS; the number in parentheses is the last known stable version which was officially released for that OS.

Please note that the list is not exhaustive, but rather reflects the most common operating systems today.
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="font-size: 85%; text-align: center; width: auto;"
|-
! style="width: 12em" | Office suite
! [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]]
! [[Mac OS X]]
! [[Linux]]
! [[Berkeley Software Distribution|BSD]]
! [[Unix]]
|-
! {{rh}} | [[Ability Office]]
| {{yes}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
|-

! {{rh}} | [[GEOS_(16-bit_operating_system)#Breadbox_Ensemble|Breadbox Office]]
| {{yes|[[DOS]], [[Windows]]}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
|-

! {{rh}} | [[Celframe Office]]
| {{yes}}
| {{yes2}} with plugins
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
|-
! {{rh}} | [[GNOME Office]]
| {{yes2}} yes <ref>Only [[Abiword]], [[Gnumeric]], [[GIMP]] and [[Inkscape]] are available for MS Windows.</ref>
| {{yes2}} yes <ref>Only Abiword is available as a native application. Using [[X11]], one can run [[GIMP]] and [[Inkscape]]. With [[X11]] and [[DarwinPorts]], one can also run Gnumeric.</ref>
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
|-
! {{rh}} | [[Gobe Software|Gobe Productive]]
| {{yes}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
|-
! {{rh}} | [[Google Apps]]
| {{yes|Fully online}}
| {{yes|Fully online}}
| {{yes|Fully online}}
| {{yes|Fully online}}
| {{yes|Fully online}}
|-
! {{rh}} | [[IBM Lotus Symphony]]
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{Yes}}
| {{?}}
| {{?}}
|-
! {{rh}} | [[iWork]]
| {{no}}
| {{yes}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
|-
! {{rh}} | [[Kingsoft Office]] (WPS Office)
| {{yes}}
| {{no}}
| {{yes2}} some versions<ref name="kingsoft-os">[http://www.kingsoftsupport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=97&sid=053e605ecb953061639fd614069ef79d Kingsoft Office 2009 - supported operating systems]</ref>
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
|-
! {{rh}} | [[KOffice]]
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
|-
! {{rh}} | [[Lotus SmartSuite]]
| {{yes}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
|-
! {{rh}} | [[Mariner Software|MarinerPak]]
| {{no}}
| {{yes}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
|-
! {{rh}} | [[Microsoft Office]]
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}} (no support for [[Visual Basic for Applications|VBA]] in [[Microsoft Excel|Excel]])
| {{Some}} (with [[Wine_software|Wine]])
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
|-
! {{rh}} | [[Microsoft Works]]
| {{yes}}
| {{dropped}} (4.0; [[Mac OS Classic|Classic]] only)
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
|-
! {{rh}} | [[NeoOffice]]
| {{no}}
| {{yes|[[Mac OS X v10.3]] or above}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
|-
! {{rh}} | [[OpenGoo]]
| {{yes|Fully online}}
| {{yes|Fully online}}
| {{yes|Fully online}}
| {{yes|Fully online}}
| {{yes|Fully online}}
|-
|-
! {{rh}} | [[OpenOffice.org]]
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
|-
! {{rh}} | [[ShareOffice]]
| {{yes|Fully online}}
| {{yes|Fully online}}
| {{yes|Fully online}}
| {{yes|Fully online}}
| {{yes|Fully online}}
|-
! {{rh}} | [[SoftMaker Office]]
| {{yes}}
| {{no}}
| {{yes}}
| {{dropped}} (2006)
| {{no}}
|-
! {{rh}} | [[StarOffice]]
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}} (Intel only)
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
| {{yes}}
|-
! {{rh}} | [[ThinkFree Office]]
| {{yes|Fully online}}
| {{yes|Fully online}}
| {{yes|Fully online}}
| {{yes|Fully online}}
| {{yes|Fully online}}
|-
! {{rh}} | [[WordPerfect Office]]
| {{yes}}
| {{no}}
| {{some}} (Ver. 2000)
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
|-
! {{rh}} | [[ZCubes]]
| {{yes|Fully online}}
| {{yes|Fully online}}
| {{yes|Fully online}}
| {{yes|Fully online}}
| {{yes|Fully online}}
|-
! {{rh}} | [[Zoho]]
| {{yes|Fully online}}
| {{yes|Fully online}}
| {{yes|Fully online}}
| {{yes|Fully online}}
| {{yes|Fully online}}
|-
|-class="sortbottom"
! Office suite
! [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]]
! [[Mac OS X]]
! [[Linux]]
! [[Berkeley Software Distribution|BSD]]
! [[Unix]]
|}

== Main components ==
=== Offline capabilities ===
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="font-size: 85%; text-align: center; width: auto"
|-
! style="width:12em" |
! [[Word processor]]
! [[Spreadsheet]]
! [[Presentation]]
! [[Notetaking]]
! [[Flowchart]]
! [[Raster graphics]]
! [[Vector graphics]]
! [[Image viewer]]
! [[Formula editor]]
! [[Database]]
! [[Project management]]
! [[Desktop publishing]]
! [[PDF]] export
|-
!| [[Ability Office]]
|{{yes|[[Ability Write]]}}
|{{yes|[[Ability Spreadsheet]]}}
|{{yes|[[Ability Presentation]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[Ability Draw]]}}
|{{yes|[[Ability Photopaint]]}}
|{{yes|[[Ability Draw]]}}
|{{yes|[[Ability Photoalbum]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[Ability Database]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes}}
|-

!| [[GEOS_(16-bit_operating_system)#Breadbox_Ensemble|Breadbox Office]]
|{{yes|Writer}}
|{{yes|Spreadsheet}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|Artist}}
|{{yes|Artist}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|Geofile}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|-

!| [[Celframe Office]]
|{{yes|[[Celframe Write]]}}
|{{yes|[[Celframe Spreadsheet]]}}
|{{yes|[[Celframe Power Presentation]]}}
|{{yes|[[Celframe Note Taker]]}}
|{{yes|[[Celframe Draw]]}}
|{{yes|[[Celframe Draw]]}}
|{{yes|[[Celframe Studio]]}}
|{{yes|[[Celframe Photo Album]]}}
|{{yes|[[Celframe Spreadsheet]] Inbuilt}}
|{{yes|[[Celframe DataAccess]]}}
|{{yes|[[Celframe Project]]}}
|{{yes|[[Celframe Publisher]]}}
|{{yes2}}With [[Adobe Distiller]] functions
|-
!| [[GNOME Office]]
|{{yes|[[Abiword]]}}
|{{yes|[[Gnumeric]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes2}}[[Dia (software)|Dia]]<ref name="os" />
|{{yes2}}[[GIMP]]
|{{yes2}}[[Inkscape]]<ref name="os" />
|{{yes2}}[[F-Spot]]<ref name="os" />
|{{yes|built into [[Abiword]]}}
|{{yes|[[GNOME-DB]]}}
|{{yes2}}[[Planner (project management)|Planner]]<ref name="os" />
|{{no}}
|{{yes2}}Yes<ref name="os" />
|-
!| [[GobeProductive]]
|{{yes}}
|{{yes}}
|{{yes}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes}}
|{{yes}}
|{{yes}}
|{{yes}}
|{{no}}
|-
!| [[Google Apps]]
|{{yes|[[Google Docs]]}}
|{{yes|[[Google Docs]]}}
|{{yes|[[Google Docs]]}}
|{{yes2}}[[Google Notebook]]
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes2}}[[Picasa]], [[Picasaweb]]
|{{yes|[[TeX]] compatible}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes}}
|-
!| [[IBM Lotus Symphony]]
|{{yes|[[IBM Lotus Symphony|Documents]]}}
|{{yes|[[IBM Lotus Symphony|Spreadsheets]]}}
|{{yes|[[IBM Lotus Symphony|Presentations]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes}}
|-
!| [[iWork]]
|{{yes|[[Pages]]}}
|{{yes|[[Numbers (software)|Numbers]]}}
|{{yes|[[Keynote (presentation software)|Keynote]]}}
|{{yes2}}[[Stickies (software)|Stickies]]<ref name="os" />
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes2}}[[iPhoto]]<ref name="iLife">With additional [[iLife]] software included with every new [[Macintosh]]</ref> and [[Preview (software)|Preview]]<ref name="os" />
|{{yes2}}[[Grapher]]<ref name="os" />
|{{yes2}}[[Bento (database)|Bento]]<ref>With additional software from [[FileMaker Inc.]], an [[Apple Inc.]] [[subsidiary]].</ref>
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[Pages]]}}
|{{yes}}
|-
!| [[Kingsoft Office]] (WPS Office)
|{{yes|[[Kingsoft Writer]]}}
|{{yes|[[Kingsoft Spreadsheets]]}}
|{{yes|[[Kingsoft Presentation]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[Equation Editor]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes}}
|-
!| [[KOffice]]
|{{yes|[[Kword]] }}
|{{yes|[[KSpread]]}}
|{{yes|[[KPresenter]]}}
|{{yes2}}[[BasKet]]<ref name="os" />
|{{yes|[[Kivio]], [[Kugar]], [[Umbrello]] and [[KChart]]}}
|{{yes|[[Krita]]}}
|{{yes|[[Karbon14]]}}
|{{yes2}}[[Digikam]]<ref name="os" />
|{{yes|[[KFormula]]}}
|{{yes|[[Kexi]]}}
|{{yes|[[KPlato]]}}
|{{yes|[[Kword]]}}
|{{yes2}}Yes<ref name="os" />
|-
!| [[Lotus SmartSuite]]
|{{yes|[[Lotus Word Pro]]}}
|{{yes|[[Lotus 1-2-3]]}}
|{{yes|[[Lotus Freelance Graphics]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[Lotus Freelance Graphics]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|built in}}
|{{yes|[[Lotus Approach]]}}
|{{yes|[[Lotus Organizer]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|-
!| [[Mariner Software|MarinerPak]]
|{{yes|[[Mariner Write]]}}
|{{yes|[[Mariner Calc]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|-
!| [[Microsoft Office]]
|{{yes|[[Microsoft Word]]}}
|{{yes|[[Microsoft Excel]]}}
|{{yes|[[Microsoft PowerPoint]]}}
|{{yes|[[Microsoft OneNote]]}}
|{{yes|[[Microsoft Visio]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[Microsoft Office Picture Manager]]}}
|{{yes|[[Equation Editor]]}}
|{{yes|[[Microsoft Access]]}}
|{{yes|[[Microsoft Project]]}}
|{{yes|[[Microsoft Publisher]]}}
|{{yes|Yes<ref>Native support starting with [[Microsoft Office 2007]] [[Service pack|SP2]]; free Microsoft plugins are available for older versions [https://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=F1FC413C-6D89-4F15-991B-63B07BA5F2E5&displaylang=en]</ref>}}
|-
!| [[Microsoft Works]]
|{{yes|[[Microsoft Works Word Processor]]}}
|{{yes|[[Microsoft Works Spreadsheet]]}}
|{{partial|[[Microsoft Office PowerPoint Viewer]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[Microsoft Works Database]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|-
!| [[NeoOffice]]
|{{yes|[[NeoOffice Writer]]}}
|{{yes|[[NeoOffice Calc]]}}
|{{yes|[[NeoOffice Impress]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[NeoOffice Draw]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[NeoOffice Draw]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[NeoOffice Math]]}}
|{{yes|[[NeoOffice Base]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[NeoOffice Draw]]}}
|{{yes}}
|-
!| [[OpenGoo]]
|{{yes}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes}}
|{{yes}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|-
!| [[OpenOffice.org]]
|{{yes|[[OpenOffice.org Writer]]}}
|{{yes|[[OpenOffice.org Calc]]}}
|{{yes|[[OpenOffice.org Impress]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[OpenOffice.org Draw]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[OpenOffice.org Draw]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[OpenOffice.org Math]]}}
|{{yes|[[OpenOffice.org Base]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[OpenOffice.org Draw]]}}
|{{yes}}
|-
!| [[ShareOffice]]
|{{yes|[[iNetOffice]]}}
|{{yes|[[EditGrid]]}}
|{{yes|[[Preezo]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|-
!| [[SoftMaker Office]]
|{{yes|[[Textmaker]]}}
|{{yes|[[PlanMaker]]}}
|{{yes|[[Presentations]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes}}
|{{yes2}}[[DataMaker]]
|{{no}}
|{{yes}}
|{{yes}}
|-
!| [[StarOffice]]
|{{yes|[[StarWriter (word processor)|StarWriter]]}}
|{{yes|[[StarCalc]]}}
|{{yes|[[StarImpress]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[StarDraw]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[StarDraw]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[StarMath]]}}
|{{yes|[[StarBase]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[StarDraw]]}}
|{{yes}}
|-
!| [[WordPerfect Office]]
|{{yes|[[WordPerfect]]}}
|{{yes|[[Quattro Pro]]}}
|{{yes|[[Corel Presentations]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[Corel Presentations]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[Equation Editor]]}}
|{{yes|[[Corel Paradox|Paradox]]}}
|{{yes}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes}}
|-
!| [[ZCubes]]
|{{yes|[[ZText Editor]]}}
|{{yes|[[Calci]]}}
|{{yes|[[ZSlide]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[ZCharts]]}}
|{{yes|[[ZPaint]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[ZAlbum]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[ZPlatform]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|-class="sortbottom"
!
! [[Word processor]]
! [[Spreadsheet]]
! [[Presentation]]
! [[Notetaking]]
! [[Flowchart]]
! [[Raster graphics]]
! [[Vector graphics]]
! [[Image viewer]]
! [[Formula]]
! [[Database]]
! [[Project management]]
! [[Desktop publishing]]
! [[PDF]] export
|}

=== Online capabilities ===
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="font-size: 85%; text-align: center; width: auto"
|-
! style="width:12em" |
! [[Email]]
! [[Web design]]
! [[Collaboration]]
|-
!| [[Ability Office]]
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|-

!| [[GEOS_(16-bit_operating_system)#Breadbox_Ensemble|Breadbox Office]]
|{{Yes}}
|{{Yes}}
|{{no}}
|-

!| [[Celframe Office]]
|{{yes|[[Celframe Mail]]}}
|{{yes|[[Celframe Publishing]], [[Celframe Write]] Inbuilt}}
|{{yes2}}[[Google Docs]], plugin in all apps
|-
!| [[GNOME Office]]
|{{yes2}}[[Evolution (Software)|Evolution]]<ref name="os">Not included in this office suite, but provided in the Desktop Environment.</ref>
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|-
!| [[GobeProductive]]
|{{no}}
|{{yes}}
|{{no}}
|-
!| [[Google Apps]]
|{{yes2}}[[Gmail]]
|{{yes2}}[[Google Sites]]
|{{yes}}
|-
!| [[IBM Lotus Symphony]]
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
| {{no}}
|-
!| [[iWork]]
|{{yes2}}[[Mail (application)|Mail]]<ref name="os" />
|{{yes2}}[[iWeb]]<ref name="iLife" />
|{{yes|[[iWork.com]]}}
|-
!| [[Kingsoft Office]] (WPS Office)
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|-
!| [[KOffice]]
|{{yes2}}[[Kontact]]<ref name="os" />
|{{yes2}}[[Quanta Plus|Quanta+]]<ref name="os" />
|{{no}}
|-
!| [[Lotus SmartSuite]]
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[Lotus FastSite]]}}
|{{yes}}
|-
!| [[Mariner Software|MarinerPak]]
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|-
!| [[Microsoft Office]]
|{{yes|[[Microsoft Outlook]], [[Microsoft Entourage]]}}
|{{yes|[[Microsoft SharePoint Designer]]}}
|{{yes|[[Microsoft Groove]]}}
|-
!| [[Microsoft Works]]
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|-
!| [[NeoOffice]]
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[NeoOffice Writer]]<ref name="web">When in [[WYSIWYG]] [[HTML]] editing mode.</ref>}}
|{{no}}
|-
!| [[OpenGoo]]
|{{yes2}} beta
|{{no}}
|{{yes}}
|-
!| [[OpenOffice.org]]
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[OpenOffice.org Writer]]<ref name="web" />}}
|{{no}}
|-
!| [[ShareOffice]]
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes}}
|-
!| [[SoftMaker Office]]
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|-
!| [[StarOffice]]
|{{no}}
|{{yes|[[StarWriter (word processor)|StarWriter]]<ref name="web" />}}
|{{no}}
|-
!| [[WordPerfect Office]]
|{{yes|[[WordPerfect MAIL]]}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|-
!| [[ZCubes]]
|{{no}}
|{{yes}}
|{{yes}}
|-class="sortbottom"
!
! [[Email]]
! [[Web design]]
! [[Collaboration]]
|}

== Unicode support ==
Not all office suites support Unicode; some have restricted Unicode support or, like [[Corel WordPerfect Office]], use their own encoding standard.

==Historical==
* [[AppleWorks]] (previously known as "ClarisWorks") — an early Mac Office suite. It has morphed and branched into [[AppleWorks]] and [[Gobe Software|GoBe Productive]]. When the original developers split up, ClarisWorks continued as AppleWorks after being bought by Apple, and GoBeProductive was redeveloped from the ground up using ideas from the original. Apple discontinued this suite after the release of [[iWork]] '08 in August 2007.<ref name=appleworks_discontinued>{{cite news |title=Apple cans AppleWorks |first=Jonny |last=Evans |url=http://www.macworld.co.uk/macsoftware/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=18827 |date=2007-08-15 |accessdate=2007-08-15 |work=[[Macworld UK]]}}</ref>
* [[IBM Works]] — was an office suite for the [[IBM OS/2]] [[operating system]]. It included [[word processing]], [[spreadsheet]], [[database]] and [[personal information manager|PIM]] applications.
* Island Office was available in the 1990s on many Unix platforms. This included Island Write, Draw, Paint, Presents, Calc, Chart, Table and Equation. Island Draw was, at the time, an extremely powerful PostScript editor. The company that created this software was/is called [[Island Software]].
* [[Lotus Symphony]] — Following the popularity of office suites made by competitors, the makers of the wildly popular Lotus 123, tried their hand at a suite for DOS. (Name resurrected by IBM in September 2007 as a free OpenOffice based suite)
* [[Lotus Jazz]] — Mac sister product to Lotus Symphony.
* LotusWorks — DOS and Windows suite containing a word processor, spreadsheet, database, graphing tools and telecommunications (modem terminal) module.
* Open Access — Integrated software by Software Products International (SPI).
* [[Q&A (software)]] — Featured a database management system, "intelligent assistant", and integrated word processor.
* WindowWorks — Successor to LotusWorks above.
* Xoom Office — Historical but still available on eBay and elsewhere. Produced by the former makers of WordStar.

==See also==
* [[List of collaborative software]]
* [[List of online spreadsheets]]
* [[List of word processors]]
* [[Online office suite]]
* [[Office Open XML software]]
* [[OpenDocument software]]
* [[Web desktop]]
* [[Web operating system]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
* [http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Office_Suites/ DMOZ / Office Suites]
* [http://www.pcmag.com/products/0%2C%2Ctqs%3D3CDB422BB1FE1251736923BD8B16980E81F74C38%2C00.asp?action=defaultadvancedquery&cid=1739&sid=1739&gridtitle=Recent%20Product%20Reviews&googlequery=q%3d%26mt823%3d21132%26start%3d0%26sort%3darticledate%26dir%3ddesc&stpdinglp=1 Comparison of online office suite with reviews and cost]
* [http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9007884 Free Web-based Office alternatives ]
*[http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/enterpriseapps/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212201932&pgno=1&queryText=&isPrev= Review: Open-Source Office Suites Compared]

[[Category:Office suites|*]]
[[Category:Lists of software|Office suites]]
[[Category:Software comparisons|Office suites]]

[[af:Kantoorpakket]]
[[ca:Paquet ofimàtic]]
[[cs:Kancelářský balík]]
[[da:Kontorprogram]]
[[de:Office-Paket]]
[[et:Kontoritarkvara]]
[[es:Suite ofimática]]
[[eo:Ofica programaro]]
[[eu:Bulegotika-suite]]
[[fa:نرم‌افزار اداری]]
[[fr:Bureautique]]
[[ko:오피스 제품군]]
[[id:Paket aplikasi perkantoran]]
[[it:Software di produttività personale]]
[[he:חבילת יישומים משרדיים]]
[[hu:Irodai alkalmazáscsomag]]
[[nl:Kantoorsoftwarepakket]]
[[ja:オフィススイート]]
[[no:Kontorsystem]]
[[nn:Kontorpakke]]
[[pl:Pakiet biurowy]]
[[pt:Programa para escritório]]
[[ru:Офисный пакет]]
[[simple:Office suite]]
[[sk:Kancelársky balík]]
[[fi:Toimisto-ohjelma]]
[[sv:Kontorspaket]]
[[th:โปรแกรมสำนักงาน]]
[[uk:Офісний пакет]]

Feng Office Community Edition

2010-01-06T20:26:33Z

Forteller: Updated the name, website, and logo. Added internal Wikipedia Online office suit-links.

{{infobox software
| logo = [[File:Feng Office Logo.jpg]]
| developer = [[Feng Office]]
| latest_release_version = 1.5.3
| latest_release_date = {{release date|2009|09|03}}
| operating_system = [[Cross-platform]], [[Linux]], [[Mac OS X]], [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]]
| language = [[Multilingual]]
| genre = [[Online office suite]]
| license = [[Affero General Public License|AGPL]] ([[free software]])
| website = [http://www.fengoffice.com/ fengoffice.com]
}}

'''Feng Office Community Edition''' (formerly OpenGoo) is an [[open source]] [[online office suite]] [[software package (installation)|software package]] developed by [[Feng Office]]<ref>http://www.fengoffice.com</ref> and the OpenGoo community. It is a fully featured [[online office suite]] with a similar set of features as [[Comparison_of_office_suites#Online_office_suites|other online office suites]], like [[Google Apps]], [[Microsoft Office Live]], [[Zimbra]], and [[Zoho]]. The application can be downloaded and installed on a server.

Feng Office could also be categorized as [[collaborative software]]<ref>http://obsessivecollaborator.com/2008/03/more_updates_opengoo_eyeos.html</ref> and as [[personal information manager]] software.

== Features ==
Feng Office Community Edition main features include [[document management]], [[contact management]], [[e-mail]], [[project management]], and [[time management]]. Text documents and presentations can be created and edited [[online]].<ref>http://thinkofit.com/webconf/workspaces.htm#groupware</ref> Files can be uploaded, organized and shared, independent of [[file formats]].

Organization of the information in Feng Office Community Edition is done using [[Workspace#Online applications|workspaces]] and [[Tag (metadata)|tags]].<ref>http://www.artduszynski.com/?p=31</ref>

The application presents the information stored using different [[Interface (computer science)|interfaces]] such as lists, [[Dashboards (management information systems)|dashboards]] and [[calendar]] views.

== Licensing ==
Feng Office Community Edition is distributed under the [[AGPL]] license.<ref>http://sourceforge.net/project/platformdownload.php?group_id=191520</ref>

== Technology used ==
Feng Office uses [[PHP]], [[JavaScript]], [[AJAX]] ([[ExtJS]]) and [[MySQL]] technology.

Several open source projects served as a basis for development. [[ActiveCollab]]'s last open sourced release was used as the initial [[code base]]. It includes [[Fckeditor]] for online document editing.

== System requirements ==
The server could run on any operating system. The system needs the following packages:
* [[Apache HTTP Server]] 2.0+
* [[PHP]] 5.0+
* [[MySQL]] 4.1+ (with [[InnoDB]] support)

On the client side, the user is only required to use a modern [[Web browser]].

== History ==
OpenGoo started as a degree project at the faculty of Engineering of the [[University of the Republic, Uruguay]]. The project was presented and championed by Software Engineer Conrado Viña.<ref>http://www.fing.edu.uy/inco/cursos/proygrado/bosquejos2008.html#0039</ref> Software Engineers Marcos Saiz and Ignacio de Soto developed the first prototype as their thesis. Professors Eduardo Fernández and Tomás Laurenzo [http://www.fing.edu.uy/~laurenzo] served as tutors. Conrado, Ignacio and Marcos founded the OpenGoo community and remain active members and core developers. The thesis was approved with the highest score.

Currently there is a second project for OpenGoo at the same University being developed by students Fernando Rodríguez, Ignacio Vázquez and Juan Pedro del Campo.<ref>http://www.fing.edu.uy/inco/cursos/proygrado/asigestud_2008.htm</ref> Their project aims to build an open source [[World Wide Web|Web]]-based [[spreadsheet]].<ref>http://www.opengoo.org/who.html</ref>

== See also ==
{{portal|Free software|Free Software Portal Logo.svg}}
* [[Project management software]]
* [[Personal information management]]
* [[List of project management software]]
* [[Collaborative software]]

== External links ==
* [http://opengoo.org/ OpenGoo community site]
* [http://sourceforge.net/projects/opengoo/ Sourceforge Project site]

== References ==
{{Reflist|2}}

[[Category:Collaborative software]]
[[Category:Office suites]]
[[Category:Web applications]]
[[Category:Personal information managers]]
[[Category:Free groupware]]
[[Category:Free project management software]]
[[Category:Open source office suites]]
[[Category:Online office suites]]
[[Category:Cloud applications]]

[[de:OpenGoo]]
[[es:Opengoo]]
[[fr:OpenGoo]]
[[ru:OpenGoo]]

File:Feng Office Logo.jpg

2010-01-06T20:24:40Z

Forteller: {{logo fur  |Article = http://en.wikipedia.org/w/Feng_Office_Community_Edition |Use = Org  |Source = http://www.fengoffice.com/web/press-resources.php <!-- ADDITIONAL INFORM

== Summary ==
{{logo fur

|Article = http://en.wikipedia.org/w/Feng_Office_Community_Edition
|Use = Org

|Source = http://www.fengoffice.com/web/press-resources.php

|Used for =
|Owner = Feng Office
|Website = http://www.fengoffice.com/
|History =
|Commentary =

|Description =
|Portion =
|Low_resolution = Yes
|Purpose =
|Replaceability =
|other_information =
}}
== Licensing ==
{{Non-free logo}}

Talk:Feng Office Community Edition

2010-01-06T19:59:56Z

Forteller: moved Talk:OpenGoo to Talk:Feng Office Community Edition: According to this official page, this is now the name of the FLOSS version of Feng Office http://www.fengoffice.com/web/products.php

Talk:OpenGoo

2010-01-06T19:59:56Z

#REDIRECT [[Talk:Feng Office Community Edition]]

Feng Office Community Edition

2010-01-06T19:59:55Z

Forteller: moved OpenGoo to Feng Office Community Edition: According to this official page, this is now the name of the FLOSS version of Feng Office http://www.fengoffice.com/web/products.php

{{infobox software
| logo = [[File:Logo opengoo.png]]
| developer = [[Feng Office]]
| latest_release_version = 1.5.3
| latest_release_date = {{release date|2009|09|03}}
| operating_system = [[Cross-platform]], [[Linux]], [[Mac OS X]], [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]]
| language = [[Multilingual]]
| genre = [[Online office suite]]
| license = [[Affero General Public License|AGPL]] ([[free software]])
| website = [http://opengoo.org/ opengoo.org]
}}

'''OpenGoo''' is an [[open source]] [[online office suite]] [[software package (installation)|software package]] developed by [[Feng Office]]<ref>http://www.fengoffice.com</ref> and the OpenGoo community. It is a fully featured online office suite with a similar set of features as alternatives: [[Google Apps]], [[Microsoft Office Live]], [[Zimbra]], and [[Zoho]]. The application can be downloaded and installed on a server.

OpenGoo could also be categorized as [[collaborative software]]<ref>http://obsessivecollaborator.com/2008/03/more_updates_opengoo_eyeos.html</ref> and as [[personal information manager]] software.

== Features ==
OpenGoo main features include [[document management]], [[contact management]], [[e-mail]], [[project management]], and [[time management]]. Text documents and presentations can be created and edited [[online]].<ref>http://thinkofit.com/webconf/workspaces.htm#groupware</ref> Files can be uploaded, organized and shared, independent of [[file formats]].

Organization of the information in OpenGoo is done using [[Workspace#Online applications|workspaces]] and [[Tag (metadata)|tags]].<ref>http://www.artduszynski.com/?p=31</ref>

The application presents the information stored using different [[Interface (computer science)|interfaces]] such as lists, [[Dashboards (management information systems)|dashboards]] and [[calendar]] views.

== Licensing ==
OpenGoo is distributed under the [[AGPL]] license.<ref>http://sourceforge.net/project/platformdownload.php?group_id=191520</ref>

== Technology used ==
OpenGoo uses [[PHP]], [[JavaScript]], [[AJAX]] ([[ExtJS]]) and [[MySQL]] technology.

Several open source projects served as a basis for development. [[ActiveCollab]]'s last open sourced release was used as the initial [[code base]]. It includes [[Fckeditor]] for online document editing.

== System requirements ==
The server could run on any operating system. The system needs the following packages:
* [[Apache HTTP Server]] 2.0+
* [[PHP]] 5.0+
* [[MySQL]] 4.1+ (with [[InnoDB]] support)

On the client side, the user is only required to use a modern [[Web browser]].

== History ==
OpenGoo started as a degree project at the faculty of Engineering of the [[University of the Republic, Uruguay]]. The project was presented and championed by Software Engineer Conrado Viña.<ref>http://www.fing.edu.uy/inco/cursos/proygrado/bosquejos2008.html#0039</ref> Software Engineers Marcos Saiz and Ignacio de Soto developed the first prototype as their thesis. Professors Eduardo Fernández and Tomás Laurenzo [http://www.fing.edu.uy/~laurenzo] served as tutors. Conrado, Ignacio and Marcos founded the OpenGoo community and remain active members and core developers. The thesis was approved with the highest score.

Currently there is a second project for OpenGoo at the same University being developed by students Fernando Rodríguez, Ignacio Vázquez and Juan Pedro del Campo.<ref>http://www.fing.edu.uy/inco/cursos/proygrado/asigestud_2008.htm</ref> Their project aims to build an open source [[World Wide Web|Web]]-based [[spreadsheet]].<ref>http://www.opengoo.org/who.html</ref>

== See also ==
{{portal|Free software|Free Software Portal Logo.svg}}
* [[Project management software]]
* [[Personal information management]]
* [[List of project management software]]
* [[Collaborative software]]

== External links ==
* [http://opengoo.org/ OpenGoo community site]
* [http://sourceforge.net/projects/opengoo/ Sourceforge Project site]

== References ==
{{Reflist|2}}

[[Category:Collaborative software]]
[[Category:Office suites]]
[[Category:Web applications]]
[[Category:Personal information managers]]
[[Category:Free groupware]]
[[Category:Free project management software]]
[[Category:Open source office suites]]
[[Category:Online office suites]]
[[Category:Cloud applications]]

[[de:OpenGoo]]
[[es:Opengoo]]
[[fr:OpenGoo]]
[[ru:OpenGoo]]

OpenGoo

2010-01-06T19:59:55Z

Forteller: moved OpenGoo to Feng Office Community Edition: According to this official page, this is now the name of the FLOSS version of Feng Office http://www.fengoffice.com/web/products.php

#REDIRECT [[Feng Office Community Edition]]

StatusNet

2009-12-26T01:54:35Z

Forteller: /* External links */ Added link to StatusNet wiki

{{Refimprove|date=August 2008}}
{{Infobox Software
| name = StatusNet
| logo =
| screenshot =
| caption =
| author = [[Evan Prodromou]]
| developer = [http://status.net/company/ StatusNet, Inc.]
| released =
| latest release version = 0.8.2<ref>[http://status.net/wiki/StatusNet_0.8.2 StatusNet 0.8.2 release notes]</ref>
| latest release date = {{release date|2009|11|01}}
| latest preview version =
| latest preview date =
| operating system = [[Cross-platform]]
| platform =
| language =
| programming language = [[PHP]]
| genre = [[Web application framework]]
| license = [[Affero GPL]]v3+<ref>{{cite web
|title = README file
|url = http://gitorious.org/~candrews/laconica/candrews-clone/blobs/master/README#line43
|quote = ...under the terms of the GNU Affero General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
}}</ref>
| website = [http://status.net status.net]
}}
{{Portal|Free software|Free Software Portal Logo.svg}}
'''StatusNet''' (formerly '''Laconica'''<ref name=laconica-is-now-statusnet>Laconica is now StatusNet [http://status.net/2009/08/28/laconica-is-now-statusnet/], retrieved 2009-10-04</ref>) is an [[open source]] [[microblogging]] server written in [[PHP]] that implements the [[OpenMicroBlogging]] standard for interoperation between installations. While offering functionality similar to [[Twitter]], StatusNet seeks to provide the potential for open, inter-service and distributed communications between microblogging communities. Enterprises and individuals can install and control their own services and data<ref name="cn20081006totwoss">[[Daniel Terdiman|Terdiman, Daniel]] (2008-10-6) [http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-10058946-52.html Taking on Twitter with open-source software], CNet. Retrieved 2009-1-3.</ref><ref name="opnmdca080828"> Bastien, Malcolm (2008-8-28) [http://openmode.ca/2008/08/why-laconica-means-big-things-for-corporate-micro-blogging/ Why Laconica Means Big Things For Corporate Micro Blogging]. Retrieved 2009-1-3.</ref>.

== Names ==
StatusNet was renamed from Laconica coinciding with the release of the release of version 0.8.1 (aka "Second Guessing") of the StatusNet software.<ref name="StatusNet081WikiPageAug282009"> StatusNet 0.8.1 (2009-8-28) [http://status.net/wiki/StatusNet_0.8.1], StatusNet Wiki Retrieved 2009-8-29.</ref>

'''StatusNet''''s name "simply reflects what our software does: sends ''status'' updates into your social ''net''work."<ref name=laconica-is-now-statusnet />

'''Laconica''''s name was a reference to the [[Laconic phrase]], a particularly concise or terse statement the likes of which are famously attributed to the leaders of [[Sparta]] ([[Laconia]] being the Greek region containing Sparta). In microblogging, all messages are forced to be very short due to the ~140 character limit on message size, thus they are all de facto laconic phrases.

== Notable deployments==
StatusNet is now prominently deployed on several dozen public services.

=== Identi.ca ===
The first StatusNet (as Laconica) deployment was the [[Identi.ca]] openmicroblogging service. Hosted by StatusNet creators StatusNet Inc., Identi.ca offers free accounts to the public and serves as the flagship for the installable version of StatusNet. <ref>[http://status.net/wiki/ListOfServers List of StatusNet servers]</ref>

=== TWiT Army ===
Another popular instance of StatusNet is [[This Week in Tech]]'s TWiT Army.<ref>[http://army.twit.tv TWiT Army]</ref>

== Features ==
*Updates using a [[Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol|XMPP]]/[[Jabber]]/[[Google Talk]] [[List of XMPP client software|client]]
*[[OpenID]] authentication
*Supports Federation, which provides the ability to subscribe to notices by users on a remote service through the [[OpenMicroBlogging]] protocol
*[[SMS]] updates and notifications
*A Twitter-compatible API
*[[Hashtag]]s
*Multilingual interface (using [[Gettext]])
*Cross-posting to Twitter
*[[Facebook]] integration
*Groups
*Automatic URL-shortening
*Geolocations and maps
*Live update of stream
*Attachments (add files, images, video, audio to your tweets)
*Embedding of content from other sites, like YouTube, Flickr, etc.

Upcoming priority features:<ref>[http://mail.laconi.ca/pipermail/laconica-dev/2009-January/000833.html Laconica-dev Roadmap for the near future]</ref>
*More [[Ajax (programming)|Ajax]]-y interface
*Cross-posting to Jaiku, Plurk, etc.
*Pull messages from [[Twitter]], [[Plurk]], [[Jaiku]], etc.

== See also ==

* [[Comparison of micro-blogging services]]

==References==
<references />
==External links==
* [http://status.net StatusNet website]
* [http://status.net/wiki StatusNet wiki]
* Identi.ca user [http://identi.ca/marinamartin marinamartin] hosts a blog with tips for new users at [http://ohidentica.com/ http://ohidentica.com/]
* The [http://identi.ca/doc/faq Identi.ca FAQ] explains how Identi.ca is different from other MicroBlogging services.

[[Category:Online social networking]]
[[Category:Blog software]]

{{web-software-stub}}

[[de:StatusNet]]
[[fr:StatusNet]]
[[pl:StatusNet]]

StatusNet

2009-12-26T01:51:59Z

Forteller: /* Features */ Updated the list

{{Refimprove|date=August 2008}}
{{Infobox Software
| name = StatusNet
| logo =
| screenshot =
| caption =
| author = [[Evan Prodromou]]
| developer = [http://status.net/company/ StatusNet, Inc.]
| released =
| latest release version = 0.8.2<ref>[http://status.net/wiki/StatusNet_0.8.2 StatusNet 0.8.2 release notes]</ref>
| latest release date = {{release date|2009|11|01}}
| latest preview version =
| latest preview date =
| operating system = [[Cross-platform]]
| platform =
| language =
| programming language = [[PHP]]
| genre = [[Web application framework]]
| license = [[Affero GPL]]v3+<ref>{{cite web
|title = README file
|url = http://gitorious.org/~candrews/laconica/candrews-clone/blobs/master/README#line43
|quote = ...under the terms of the GNU Affero General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
}}</ref>
| website = [http://status.net status.net]
}}
{{Portal|Free software|Free Software Portal Logo.svg}}
'''StatusNet''' (formerly '''Laconica'''<ref name=laconica-is-now-statusnet>Laconica is now StatusNet [http://status.net/2009/08/28/laconica-is-now-statusnet/], retrieved 2009-10-04</ref>) is an [[open source]] [[microblogging]] server written in [[PHP]] that implements the [[OpenMicroBlogging]] standard for interoperation between installations. While offering functionality similar to [[Twitter]], StatusNet seeks to provide the potential for open, inter-service and distributed communications between microblogging communities. Enterprises and individuals can install and control their own services and data<ref name="cn20081006totwoss">[[Daniel Terdiman|Terdiman, Daniel]] (2008-10-6) [http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-10058946-52.html Taking on Twitter with open-source software], CNet. Retrieved 2009-1-3.</ref><ref name="opnmdca080828"> Bastien, Malcolm (2008-8-28) [http://openmode.ca/2008/08/why-laconica-means-big-things-for-corporate-micro-blogging/ Why Laconica Means Big Things For Corporate Micro Blogging]. Retrieved 2009-1-3.</ref>.

== Names ==
StatusNet was renamed from Laconica coinciding with the release of the release of version 0.8.1 (aka "Second Guessing") of the StatusNet software.<ref name="StatusNet081WikiPageAug282009"> StatusNet 0.8.1 (2009-8-28) [http://status.net/wiki/StatusNet_0.8.1], StatusNet Wiki Retrieved 2009-8-29.</ref>

'''StatusNet''''s name "simply reflects what our software does: sends ''status'' updates into your social ''net''work."<ref name=laconica-is-now-statusnet />

'''Laconica''''s name was a reference to the [[Laconic phrase]], a particularly concise or terse statement the likes of which are famously attributed to the leaders of [[Sparta]] ([[Laconia]] being the Greek region containing Sparta). In microblogging, all messages are forced to be very short due to the ~140 character limit on message size, thus they are all de facto laconic phrases.

== Notable deployments==
StatusNet is now prominently deployed on several dozen public services.

=== Identi.ca ===
The first StatusNet (as Laconica) deployment was the [[Identi.ca]] openmicroblogging service. Hosted by StatusNet creators StatusNet Inc., Identi.ca offers free accounts to the public and serves as the flagship for the installable version of StatusNet. <ref>[http://status.net/wiki/ListOfServers List of StatusNet servers]</ref>

=== TWiT Army ===
Another popular instance of StatusNet is [[This Week in Tech]]'s TWiT Army.<ref>[http://army.twit.tv TWiT Army]</ref>

== Features ==
*Updates using a [[Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol|XMPP]]/[[Jabber]]/[[Google Talk]] [[List of XMPP client software|client]]
*[[OpenID]] authentication
*Supports Federation, which provides the ability to subscribe to notices by users on a remote service through the [[OpenMicroBlogging]] protocol
*[[SMS]] updates and notifications
*A Twitter-compatible API
*[[Hashtag]]s
*Multilingual interface (using [[Gettext]])
*Cross-posting to Twitter
*[[Facebook]] integration
*Groups
*Automatic URL-shortening
*Geolocations and maps
*Live update of stream
*Attachments (add files, images, video, audio to your tweets)
*Embedding of content from other sites, like YouTube, Flickr, etc.

Upcoming priority features:<ref>[http://mail.laconi.ca/pipermail/laconica-dev/2009-January/000833.html Laconica-dev Roadmap for the near future]</ref>
*More [[Ajax (programming)|Ajax]]-y interface
*Cross-posting to Jaiku, Plurk, etc.
*Pull messages from [[Twitter]], [[Plurk]], [[Jaiku]], etc.

== See also ==

* [[Comparison of micro-blogging services]]

==References==
<references />
==External links==
* [http://status.net StatusNet website]
* Identi.ca user [http://identi.ca/marinamartin marinamartin] hosts a blog with tips for new users at [http://ohidentica.com/ http://ohidentica.com/]
* The [http://identi.ca/doc/faq Identi.ca FAQ] explains how Identi.ca is different from other MicroBlogging services.

[[Category:Online social networking]]
[[Category:Blog software]]

{{web-software-stub}}

[[de:StatusNet]]
[[fr:StatusNet]]
[[pl:StatusNet]]

Libuše Šafránková

2009-12-26T01:44:08Z

Forteller: /* Filmography */ Added an omitted space

{{BLP unsourced|date=August 2009|bot=yes}}
'''Libuše Šafránková''' (born [[7 June]] [[1953]] in [[Brno]], [[Czechoslovakia]] now [[Czech Republic]]) is a [[Czech people|Czech]] actress. Her husband is [[Josef Abrhám]]. They have one son together.

== Filmography ==
* ''[[Babička (1971 film)|Babicka]]'' ([[1971]])
* ''[[Three Nuts for Cinderella]]'' (Tři oříšky pro Popelku) ([[1973]])
* ''[[Prijela k nam pout]]'' ([[1973]])
* ''[[How to Drown Dr. M. or the End of Water Spirits in Bohemia]]'' (Jak utopit doktora Mráčka aneb Konec vodníků v Čechách) ([[1974]])
* ''[[My Brother Has a Cute Brother]]'' ([[1975]])
* ''[[Paleta lasky]]'' ([[1975]])
* ''[[The Day That Shook the World]]'' ([[1975]])
* ''[[The Little Mermaid (cz)]]'' ([[1976]])
* ''[[Splynuti dusi]]'' ([[1976]])
* ''[[Bracha za vsechny penize]]'' ([[1978]])
* ''[[The Prince and the Evning Star]]'' (Princ a Vecernice) ([[1978]])
* ''[[Run Waiter Run!]]'' (Vrchní, prchni!) ([[1981]])
* ''[[Krtiny]]'' ([[1981]])
* ''[[The Third Prince]]'' ([[1982]])
* ''[[The Salt Prince]]'' ([[1982]])
* ''[[Svatební cesta do Jiljí]]'' ([[1983]])
* ''[[Jára Cimrman Lying, Sleeping]]'' (Jára Cimrman ležící, spící) ([[1983]])
* ''[[The Snowdrop Festival]]'' ([[1983]])
* ''[[My Sweet Little Village]]'' ([[1985]])
* ''[[Zurivý reporter]]'' ([[1987]])
* ''[[Clovek proti zkaze]]'' ([[1989]])
* ''[[The Elementary School]]'' (Obecná škola) ([[1991]])
* ''[[The Beggar's Opera (cz)]]'' ([[1991]])
* ''[[The Necklace (cz)]]'' ([[1992]])
* ''[[Kralovský zivot otroka]]'' ([[1992]])
* ''[[Nesmrtelna teta]]'' ([[1993]])
* ''[[Kolya]]'' ([[1996]])
* ''[[Wonderful Years That Sucked]]'' ([[1997]])
* ''[[All My Loved Ones]]'' ([[1999]])
* ''[[Which Side Eden]]'' ([[1999]])
* ''[[Elixir a Halibela]]'' ([[2001]])
* ''[[Četnické humoresky]]'' ([[2003]])
* ''[[Fišpánská Jablíčka]]'' ([[2008]])

{{DEFAULTSORT:Safrankova}}
[[Category:1953 births]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:Czech actors]]
[[Category:People from Brno]]

{{Czech-bio-stub}}

[[cs:Libuše Šafránková]]
[[de:Libuše Šafránková]]
[[eo:Libuše Šafránková]]
[[fr:Libuše Šafránková]]
[[no:Libuše Šafránková]]
[[pl:Libuše Šafránková]]
[[ru:Шафранкова, Либуше]]
[[sk:Libuše Šafránková]]

Melbourne International Film Festival

2009-12-26T01:42:47Z

Forteller: /* Rebiya Kadeer film controversy */ Linkified The 10 Conditions of Love

{{Infobox Film Festival
| name = Melbourne International Film Festival (MIFF)
| image = MIFF2008.jpg
| caption = MIFF logo for 2008
| location = [[Melbourne]], [[Australia]]
| awards =
| founded = 1951
| number = 400 [[approx]]
| website = http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/
}}

The '''Melbourne International Film Festival''' ('''MIFF''') is an acclaimed annual [[film festival]] held over three weeks in [[Melbourne]], [[Australia]]. It was founded in 1951,<ref name=AboutMIFF>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/about/index.php Melbourne International Film Festival - About MIFF]</ref> making it one of the oldest in the World.

MIFF is Australia's largest film festival with over 400 films shown from more than 50 different countries, as well as the largest showcase of new [[Australian cinema]].<ref name=AboutMIFF>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/about/index.php About MIFF - Melbourne International Film Festival (website)]</ref> It's also Australia's most attended film festival with over 182,000 admissions (2007 estimate). In 2007, it contributed more than AU$8 million to Melbourne's economy,<ref name=AboutMIFF>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/about/index.php Melbourne International Film Festival - About MIFF]</ref> making it a significant city event.

The festival is currently accredited by the [[Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences|American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences]],<ref name=FFWR>[http://www.filmfestivalworld.com/resources Film Festival World Resource - Academies and Awards]</ref> the [[Australian Film Institute]],<ref>[http://www.afi.org.au/AM/ContentManagerNet/ContentDisplay.aspx?ContentID=7083&Section=Criteria Australian Film Institute - Professional Accreditation Criteria]</ref> and the [[British Academy of Film and Television Arts]];<ref name=FFWR /> and is the only festival in Australia to be accredited by all three.

MIFF is a member of the four major Melbourne film festivals line up, which also include the [[Melbourne International Animation Festival]] (MIAF), [[Melbourne Queer Film Festival]] (MQFF) and [[Melbourne Underground Film Festival]] (MUFF).

The current festival director is Richard Moore, and its ambassadors include [[Eric Bana]], [[Geoffrey Rush]], [[Fred Schepisi]] and [[Morgan Spurlock]].<ref name=InsideFilm>[http://www.if.com.au/2008/08/08/article/undefined-title/AHFYGXDMOM.html Morgan Spurlock becomes MIFF ambassador] - [http://www.if.com.au/ Inside Film], August 8 2008</ref>

The 58th festival took place between July 24th and August 9th, 2009. The 59th festival will take place between July 23rd and August 8th, 2010.

==Festival==
[[Image:Forum Theatre Melbourne.jpg|thumb|right|The Forum Theatre]]
[[Image:Australian Centre for the Moving Image.jpg|thumb|right|The Australian Centre for the Moving Image]]
'''Official programs:''' 
*Opening Night Film - in 2009, the opening night film was ''[[Balibo (2009 film)|Balibo]]''<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/341/film_id/92007.html Melbourne International Film Festival - Opening Night]</ref>
*Homegrown - short and feature fiction and documentary films from Australia<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/469/homegrown.html Melbourne International Film Festival - Homegrown]</ref>
*International Panorama - short and feature fiction and documentary films from around the World<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/470/international-panorama.html Melbourne International Film Festival - International Panorama]</ref>
*Neighbourhood Watch - short and feature fiction and documentary films from Asia<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/471/neighbourhood-watch.html Melbourne International Film Festival - Neighbourhood Watch]</ref>
*Closing Night Film - in 2009, the closing night film was ''[[Bran Nue Dae]]''<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/341/film_id/92008.html Melbourne International Film Festival - Closing Night]</ref>
'''Special programs:''' 
*Arts and Minds - a program of films celebrating the creative industries<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/461/arts-and-minds.html Melbourne International Film Festival - Arts and Minds]</ref>
*[http://www.melbournecitymission.org.au/ Melbourne Citymission] Charity Screening - in 2009, the charity screening was ''[[Blessed (2009 film)|Blessed]]''<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/341/film_id/92006.html Melbourne International Film Festival - Melbourne Citymission Charity Screening]</ref>
*NextGen - a program of films aimed at younger generations<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/428/next-gen-2009.html Melbourne International Film Festival - NextGen]</ref>
*Night Shift - a program of cult films screened after midnight till the early morning<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/473/night-shift.html Melbourne International Film Festival - Night Shift]</ref>
*Special Screenings - generally film premieres or screenings with a director's Q&A
*States of Dissent - a program of films dedicated to human rights<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/476/states-of-dissent.html Melbourne International Film Festival - States of Dissent]</ref>
'''Reoccurring events:''' 
*Opening Night Gala - the red carpet launch of the festival
*37° South Market - film business forums and national and international financing markets<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/432/miff-37-south-market.html Melbourne International Film Festival - 37° South Market]</ref>
*Accelerator - workshops and screenings for filmmakers to develop their skills, craft and industry contacts<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/60/accelerator.html Melbourne International Film Festival - Accelerator]</ref>
*Festival Lounge - a venue offering free events, music and performances for the duration of the festival<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/384/festival-lounge.html Melbourne International Film Festival - Festival Lounge]</ref>
*Lights, Camera, TRACKtion - short film mini-competition celebrating [[Trams in Melbourne|Melbourne's trams]]<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/341/film_id/90161.html Melbourne International Film Festival - Lights, Camera, TRACKtion]</ref>
*Short Film Competition - see: [[#Awards]]

==Venues==
The festival is conducted across various venues located in the [[Melbourne city centre]], which include the [[Australian Centre for the Moving Image]], the [[Forum Theatre]], [[Melbourne Town Hall|Melbourne's Town Hall]], [[RMIT University|RMIT]]'s [[Capitol Theatre, Melbourne|Capitol Theatre]], the [[The Arts Centre (Melbourne)|Victorian Arts Centre]] and various cinema complexes.<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/program/venues Melbourne International Film Festival - Venues]</ref>

==Awards==
Whilst MIFF remains mostly a non-competitive festival, since 1962 it has staged a highly regarded short film competition.<ref name=IMBDAwards>[http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Melbourne_International_Film_Festival/awards_summary Melbourne International Film Festival - Award Summary] - [[Internet Movie Database]]</ref> It also presents audience popularity awards for feature film and documentary.<ref name=IMBDAwards />

The first award ever presented was for "Best Short Film", which was changed to the "Grand Prix for Best Short Film" in 1964.<ref name=IMBDAwards /> From 1985, the Grand Prix has been officially presented by the City of Melbourne.<ref name=IMBDAwards>[http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Melbourne_International_Film_Festival/awards_summary Melbourne International Film Festival - Award Summary] - [[Internet Movie Database]]</ref>

===Awards for feature film===
*Most Popular Feature Film
*Most Popular Documentary
*[[FIPRESCI]] Prize

===Short film competition===
'''All competition'''
*Grand Prix for Best Short Film (presented by the [[City of Melbourne]])
*Best Short Screenplay (presented by the [http://www.awg.com.au Australian Writer's Guild])
*Best Fiction Short Film
*Best Animated Short Film (presented by [[RMIT University|RMIT]])
*Best Documentary Short Film (presented by RMIT)
*Best Experimental Short Film
*Best Student Short Film
*Human Rights Award

'''Australian only'''
*Erwin Rado Award for Best Australian Short Film (presented by [http://www.film.vic.gov.au Film Victoria])
*Emerging Australian Filmmaker Award (presented by [[Melbourne Airport|Melbourne International Airport]])
*Award for Creative Excellence in an Australian Short Film (presented by [http://www.cinemanova.com.au Cinema Nova])
*Best Australian Achievement in Cinematography (presented by [[Panavision]])
*Best Australian Achievement in Editing (presented by [[Avid Technology]])

===Winners of Grand Prix===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year || Film
! Director || Country of origin
|-
| 1962 || Unknown
| ||
|-
| 1963 || Unknown
| ||
|-
|你妈比| 1965 || ''La gazza ladra''
| Giulio Giannini, [[Emanuele Luzzati]] || [[Italy]]
|-
| 1966 || ''The Inheritance''
| Harold Mayer || [[USA]]
|-
| 1967 || ''Petrol-Carburant-Kraftstoff''
| Hugo Niebeling || [[West Germany]]
|-
| 1968 || ''You're Human Like the Rest of Them''
| [[B.S. Johnson]] || [[UK]]
|-
| 1969 || ''Pas de deux''
| [[Norman McLaren]] || [[Canada]]
|-
| 1970 || ''Calcutta''
| [[Louis Malle]] || [[France]]
|-
| 1971 || ''Blake''
| [[Bill Mason]] || [[Canada]]
|-
| 1972 || ''Scarabus''
| Gérald Frydman || [[Belgium]]
|-
| 1973 || ''Street Musique''
| [[Ryan Larkin]] || [[Canada]]
|-
| 1974 || ''Edward Burra''
| Peter K. Smith || [[UK]]
|-
| 1975 || ''Last Grave at Dimbaza''
| Nana Mahamo || [[South Africa]]
|-
| 1976 || ''Leisure''
| [[Bruce Petty]] || [[Australia]]
|-
| 1977 || ''Corralejas de Sincelejo''
| Mario Mitrotti || [[Colombia]]
|-
| 1978 || ''Manimals''
| Robin Lehman || [[USA]]
|-
| 1979 || ''The Mallet''
| || [[Australia]]
|-
| 1980 || ''Interview''
| [[Caroline Leaf]] || [[Canada]]
|-
| 1981 || ''New York Story''
| Jackie Raynal || [[USA]]
|-
| 1982 || ''Shadows''
| Royden Irvine || [[Australia]]
|-
| 1983 || ''Douglas Mawson: The Survivor''
| [[David Parer]] || Australia
|-
| 1984 || ''Aquí se lo halla''
| Lee Sokol || [[USA]]
|-
| 1985 || ''In Heaven There Is No Beer?''
| [[Les Blank]] || USA
|-
| 1986 || ''My Life Without Steve''
| Gillian Leahy || [[Australia]]
|-
| 1987 || ''Panya shugeki''
| Naoto Yamakawa || [[Japan]]
|-
| 1988 || ''The Critical Years''
| Gérard L'Ecuyer || [[Canada]]/[[USA]]
|-
| 1989 || ''Twilight City''
| Reece Auguiste || [[UK]]
|-
| 1990 || ''Swimming''
| Belinda Chayko || [[Australia]]
|-
| 1991 || ''Sink or Swim''
| [[Su Friedrich]] || [[USA]]
|-
| 1992 || ''The Writing in the Sand''
| Sirkka-Liisa Konttinen || [[UK]]
|-
| 1993 || ''Lektionen in Finsternis''
| [[Werner Herzog]] || [[Germany]]
|-
| 1994 || ''Only the Brave''
| [[Ana Kokkinos]] || [[Australia]]
|-
| 1995 || ''Twilight''
| [[Tengai Amano]] || [[Japan]]
|-
| 1996 || ''Baka''
| Thierry Knauff || [[Belgium]]
|-
| 1997 || ''At Sea''
| Penny Fowler-Smith || [[Australia]]
|-
| 1998 || ''The Storekeeper''
| [[Gavin Hood]] || [[South Africa]]
|-
| 1999 || ''So-poong''
| [[Song Il-gon]] || [[South Korea]]
|-
| 2000 || ''Wildlife''
| Kate de Pury || [[UK]]
|-
| 2001 || ''Muakah''
| Hadar Friedlich || [[Israel]]
|-
| 2002 || ''Palace II''
| [[Kátia Lund]], [[Fernando Meirelles]] || [[Brazil]]
|-
| 2003 || ''Destino''
| Dominique Monfery || [[France]]
|-
| 2004 || ''Talking with Angels''
| Yousaf Ali Khan || [[UK]]
|-
| 2005 || ''Silent Companion''
| Elham Hosseinzadeh || [[Iran]]
|-
| 2006 || ''Avatar''
| Lluis Quilez || [[Spain]]
|-
| 2007 || ''Blood Sisters''
| Louise N.D. Friedberg || [[Denmark]]
|-
| 2008 || ''Dennis''
| Mads Matthiesen || Denmark
|-
| 2009 || ''Next Floor''
| [[Denis Villeneuve]], Phoebe Greenberg || [[Canada]]
|}

==Rebiya Kadeer film controversy==
During the 58th festival in 2009, the controversial film ''[[Rebiya Kadeer#The 10 Conditions of Love|The 10 Conditions of Love]]'', which documents the life of exiled [[Uyghur people|Uyghur]] leader [[Rebiya Kadeer]], was screened in spite of attempts by the [[Government of the People's Republic of China|Government of China]] (which labels her a terrorist) to have the film withdrawn from the festival. The [[14th Dalai Lama|Dalai Lama]] sent a message of support:

<blockquote>Australian Federal Labor Member of Parliament, Michael Danby, says he discussed Ms Kadeer with ''[the Dalai Lama]'' recently: "He asked me to convey to you, in Melbourne, that she is another one of the national leaders who is a paradigm of non-violence," he said. "He wanted to make it very clear to people that the claims of this woman being a violent person or instigating violence, is from his point of view, and with all of his authority, wrong."<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/09/2650267.htm?section=justin Dalai Lama sends message of support to Kadeer] - [[ABC News (Australia)|ABC News]], August 9 2009
</ref></blockquote>

Chinese filmmakers pulled their films out of the festival two days before it opened on July 24.<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/21/2632440.htm Chinese entries boycott film festival] - [[ABC News (Australia)|ABC News]], July 21 2009</ref> MIFF director Richard Moore refused to drop the film from the festival program,<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/26/2636770.htm MIFF 'sticking to guns' over Uighur film] - [[ABC News (Australia)|ABC News]], July 26 2009</ref> despite the festival website and its online ticketing system being hacked from an [[IP address]] of Chinese origin.<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/26/2636571.htm MIFF website hacked amid Chinese film row] - [[ABC News (Australia)|ABC News]], July 26 2009</ref> The festival website was hacked soon after the launch of its 2009 program, with festival information replaced with the Chinese flag and anti-Kadeer slogans.<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/01/2643083.htm Chinese hackers attack film festival site] - [[ABC News (Australia)|ABC News]], August 1 2009</ref> [[Victoria Police]] was placed on alert during the screening of the film, and pro-Uighur demonstrators gathered outside the [[Melbourne Town Hall]].<ref name=MTH>[http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/08/2650130.htm Demonstrators turn out at Kadeer film screening] - [[ABC News (Australia)|ABC News]], August 8 2009</ref>

The Government of China attempted to have the film withdrawn from the festival, going to the extent of contacting the [[Lord Mayor of Melbourne]], [[Robert Doyle]].<ref name=MTH /> Doyle, however, refused to intervene. Australia's Ambassador to China, Geoff Raby, was summoned by China's Deputy Foreign Minister, Zhang Zhijun, to express displeasure about Kadeer's attendance at MIFF.<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/01/2642974.htm China summons Australia over Uighur leader visit] - [[ABC News (Australia)|ABC News]], August 1 2009</ref>

==MUFF v MIFF==
MIFF's rejection in 2000 of a feature film written and directed by [[Richard Wolstencroft]] led Wolstencroft to form the [[Melbourne Underground Film Festival]] (MUFF). In subsequent years MUFF has attempted to attract controversy by criticising the content of MIFF and its running by directors James Hewison and Richard Moore. MUFF claims to champion "authentic independent, genre, and alternative Australian films" but is primarily concerned with presenting low budget commercial [[exploitation films]].

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
* [http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au Official website of the Melbourne International Film Festival]

==See also==
'''Major film festivals in Melbourne'''
*[[Melbourne International Animation Festival]], Australia's largest animation festival
*[[Melbourne Queer Film Festival]], one of the oldest queer film festivals in the World
*[[Melbourne Underground Film Festival]]
'''Other film festivals in Melbourne'''
*[[Human Rights Arts and Film Festival]]

{{coord missing|Australia}}

{{Template:Melbourne events}}

[[Category:International film festivals]]
[[Category:Film festivals in Australia]]
[[Category:Festivals in Melbourne|International Film Festival]]
[[Category:Recurring events established in 1951]]

[[id:Festival Film Internasional Melbourne]]
[[fi:Melbournen elokuvajuhla]]

Melbourne International Film Festival

2009-12-24T00:39:14Z

Forteller: /* Rebiya Kadeer film controversy */ Fixed a link

{{Infobox Film Festival
| name = Melbourne International Film Festival (MIFF)
| image = MIFF2008.jpg
| caption = MIFF logo for 2008
| location = [[Melbourne]], [[Australia]]
| awards =
| founded = 1951
| number = 400 [[approx]]
| website = http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/
}}

The '''Melbourne International Film Festival''' ('''MIFF''') is an acclaimed annual [[film festival]] held over three weeks in [[Melbourne]], [[Australia]]. It was founded in 1951,<ref name=AboutMIFF>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/about/index.php Melbourne International Film Festival - About MIFF]</ref> making it one of the oldest in the World.

MIFF is Australia's largest film festival with over 400 films shown from more than 50 different countries, as well as the largest showcase of new [[Australian cinema]].<ref name=AboutMIFF>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/about/index.php About MIFF - Melbourne International Film Festival (website)]</ref> It's also Australia's most attended film festival with over 182,000 admissions (2007 estimate). In 2007, it contributed more than AU$8 million to Melbourne's economy,<ref name=AboutMIFF>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/about/index.php Melbourne International Film Festival - About MIFF]</ref> making it a significant city event.

The festival is currently accredited by the [[Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences|American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences]],<ref name=FFWR>[http://www.filmfestivalworld.com/resources Film Festival World Resource - Academies and Awards]</ref> the [[Australian Film Institute]],<ref>[http://www.afi.org.au/AM/ContentManagerNet/ContentDisplay.aspx?ContentID=7083&Section=Criteria Australian Film Institute - Professional Accreditation Criteria]</ref> and the [[British Academy of Film and Television Arts]];<ref name=FFWR /> and is the only festival in Australia to be accredited by all three.

MIFF is a member of the four major Melbourne film festivals line up, which also include the [[Melbourne International Animation Festival]] (MIAF), [[Melbourne Queer Film Festival]] (MQFF) and [[Melbourne Underground Film Festival]] (MUFF).

The current festival director is Richard Moore, and its ambassadors include [[Eric Bana]], [[Geoffrey Rush]], [[Fred Schepisi]] and [[Morgan Spurlock]].<ref name=InsideFilm>[http://www.if.com.au/2008/08/08/article/undefined-title/AHFYGXDMOM.html Morgan Spurlock becomes MIFF ambassador] - [http://www.if.com.au/ Inside Film], August 8 2008</ref>

The 58th festival took place between July 24th and August 9th, 2009. The 59th festival will take place between July 23rd and August 8th, 2010.

==Festival==
[[Image:Forum Theatre Melbourne.jpg|thumb|right|The Forum Theatre]]
[[Image:Australian Centre for the Moving Image.jpg|thumb|right|The Australian Centre for the Moving Image]]
'''Official programs:''' 
*Opening Night Film - in 2009, the opening night film was ''[[Balibo (2009 film)|Balibo]]''<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/341/film_id/92007.html Melbourne International Film Festival - Opening Night]</ref>
*Homegrown - short and feature fiction and documentary films from Australia<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/469/homegrown.html Melbourne International Film Festival - Homegrown]</ref>
*International Panorama - short and feature fiction and documentary films from around the World<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/470/international-panorama.html Melbourne International Film Festival - International Panorama]</ref>
*Neighbourhood Watch - short and feature fiction and documentary films from Asia<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/471/neighbourhood-watch.html Melbourne International Film Festival - Neighbourhood Watch]</ref>
*Closing Night Film - in 2009, the closing night film was ''[[Bran Nue Dae]]''<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/341/film_id/92008.html Melbourne International Film Festival - Closing Night]</ref>
'''Special programs:''' 
*Arts and Minds - a program of films celebrating the creative industries<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/461/arts-and-minds.html Melbourne International Film Festival - Arts and Minds]</ref>
*[http://www.melbournecitymission.org.au/ Melbourne Citymission] Charity Screening - in 2009, the charity screening was ''[[Blessed (2009 film)|Blessed]]''<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/341/film_id/92006.html Melbourne International Film Festival - Melbourne Citymission Charity Screening]</ref>
*NextGen - a program of films aimed at younger generations<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/428/next-gen-2009.html Melbourne International Film Festival - NextGen]</ref>
*Night Shift - a program of cult films screened after midnight till the early morning<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/473/night-shift.html Melbourne International Film Festival - Night Shift]</ref>
*Special Screenings - generally film premieres or screenings with a director's Q&A
*States of Dissent - a program of films dedicated to human rights<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/476/states-of-dissent.html Melbourne International Film Festival - States of Dissent]</ref>
'''Reoccurring events:''' 
*Opening Night Gala - the red carpet launch of the festival
*37° South Market - film business forums and national and international financing markets<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/432/miff-37-south-market.html Melbourne International Film Festival - 37° South Market]</ref>
*Accelerator - workshops and screenings for filmmakers to develop their skills, craft and industry contacts<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/60/accelerator.html Melbourne International Film Festival - Accelerator]</ref>
*Festival Lounge - a venue offering free events, music and performances for the duration of the festival<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/384/festival-lounge.html Melbourne International Film Festival - Festival Lounge]</ref>
*Lights, Camera, TRACKtion - short film mini-competition celebrating [[Trams in Melbourne|Melbourne's trams]]<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/content/341/film_id/90161.html Melbourne International Film Festival - Lights, Camera, TRACKtion]</ref>
*Short Film Competition - see: [[#Awards]]

==Venues==
The festival is conducted across various venues located in the [[Melbourne city centre]], which include the [[Australian Centre for the Moving Image]], the [[Forum Theatre]], [[Melbourne Town Hall|Melbourne's Town Hall]], [[RMIT University|RMIT]]'s [[Capitol Theatre, Melbourne|Capitol Theatre]], the [[The Arts Centre (Melbourne)|Victorian Arts Centre]] and various cinema complexes.<ref>[http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au/program/venues Melbourne International Film Festival - Venues]</ref>

==Awards==
Whilst MIFF remains mostly a non-competitive festival, since 1962 it has staged a highly regarded short film competition.<ref name=IMBDAwards>[http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Melbourne_International_Film_Festival/awards_summary Melbourne International Film Festival - Award Summary] - [[Internet Movie Database]]</ref> It also presents audience popularity awards for feature film and documentary.<ref name=IMBDAwards />

The first award ever presented was for "Best Short Film", which was changed to the "Grand Prix for Best Short Film" in 1964.<ref name=IMBDAwards /> From 1985, the Grand Prix has been officially presented by the City of Melbourne.<ref name=IMBDAwards>[http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Melbourne_International_Film_Festival/awards_summary Melbourne International Film Festival - Award Summary] - [[Internet Movie Database]]</ref>

===Awards for feature film===
*Most Popular Feature Film
*Most Popular Documentary
*[[FIPRESCI]] Prize

===Short film competition===
'''All competition'''
*Grand Prix for Best Short Film (presented by the [[City of Melbourne]])
*Best Short Screenplay (presented by the [http://www.awg.com.au Australian Writer's Guild])
*Best Fiction Short Film
*Best Animated Short Film (presented by [[RMIT University|RMIT]])
*Best Documentary Short Film (presented by RMIT)
*Best Experimental Short Film
*Best Student Short Film
*Human Rights Award

'''Australian only'''
*Erwin Rado Award for Best Australian Short Film (presented by [http://www.film.vic.gov.au Film Victoria])
*Emerging Australian Filmmaker Award (presented by [[Melbourne Airport|Melbourne International Airport]])
*Award for Creative Excellence in an Australian Short Film (presented by [http://www.cinemanova.com.au Cinema Nova])
*Best Australian Achievement in Cinematography (presented by [[Panavision]])
*Best Australian Achievement in Editing (presented by [[Avid Technology]])

===Winners of Grand Prix===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year || Film
! Director || Country of origin
|-
| 1962 || Unknown
| ||
|-
| 1963 || Unknown
| ||
|-
|你妈比| 1965 || ''La gazza ladra''
| Giulio Giannini, [[Emanuele Luzzati]] || [[Italy]]
|-
| 1966 || ''The Inheritance''
| Harold Mayer || [[USA]]
|-
| 1967 || ''Petrol-Carburant-Kraftstoff''
| Hugo Niebeling || [[West Germany]]
|-
| 1968 || ''You're Human Like the Rest of Them''
| [[B.S. Johnson]] || [[UK]]
|-
| 1969 || ''Pas de deux''
| [[Norman McLaren]] || [[Canada]]
|-
| 1970 || ''Calcutta''
| [[Louis Malle]] || [[France]]
|-
| 1971 || ''Blake''
| [[Bill Mason]] || [[Canada]]
|-
| 1972 || ''Scarabus''
| Gérald Frydman || [[Belgium]]
|-
| 1973 || ''Street Musique''
| [[Ryan Larkin]] || [[Canada]]
|-
| 1974 || ''Edward Burra''
| Peter K. Smith || [[UK]]
|-
| 1975 || ''Last Grave at Dimbaza''
| Nana Mahamo || [[South Africa]]
|-
| 1976 || ''Leisure''
| [[Bruce Petty]] || [[Australia]]
|-
| 1977 || ''Corralejas de Sincelejo''
| Mario Mitrotti || [[Colombia]]
|-
| 1978 || ''Manimals''
| Robin Lehman || [[USA]]
|-
| 1979 || ''The Mallet''
| || [[Australia]]
|-
| 1980 || ''Interview''
| [[Caroline Leaf]] || [[Canada]]
|-
| 1981 || ''New York Story''
| Jackie Raynal || [[USA]]
|-
| 1982 || ''Shadows''
| Royden Irvine || [[Australia]]
|-
| 1983 || ''Douglas Mawson: The Survivor''
| [[David Parer]] || Australia
|-
| 1984 || ''Aquí se lo halla''
| Lee Sokol || [[USA]]
|-
| 1985 || ''In Heaven There Is No Beer?''
| [[Les Blank]] || USA
|-
| 1986 || ''My Life Without Steve''
| Gillian Leahy || [[Australia]]
|-
| 1987 || ''Panya shugeki''
| Naoto Yamakawa || [[Japan]]
|-
| 1988 || ''The Critical Years''
| Gérard L'Ecuyer || [[Canada]]/[[USA]]
|-
| 1989 || ''Twilight City''
| Reece Auguiste || [[UK]]
|-
| 1990 || ''Swimming''
| Belinda Chayko || [[Australia]]
|-
| 1991 || ''Sink or Swim''
| [[Su Friedrich]] || [[USA]]
|-
| 1992 || ''The Writing in the Sand''
| Sirkka-Liisa Konttinen || [[UK]]
|-
| 1993 || ''Lektionen in Finsternis''
| [[Werner Herzog]] || [[Germany]]
|-
| 1994 || ''Only the Brave''
| [[Ana Kokkinos]] || [[Australia]]
|-
| 1995 || ''Twilight''
| [[Tengai Amano]] || [[Japan]]
|-
| 1996 || ''Baka''
| Thierry Knauff || [[Belgium]]
|-
| 1997 || ''At Sea''
| Penny Fowler-Smith || [[Australia]]
|-
| 1998 || ''The Storekeeper''
| [[Gavin Hood]] || [[South Africa]]
|-
| 1999 || ''So-poong''
| [[Song Il-gon]] || [[South Korea]]
|-
| 2000 || ''Wildlife''
| Kate de Pury || [[UK]]
|-
| 2001 || ''Muakah''
| Hadar Friedlich || [[Israel]]
|-
| 2002 || ''Palace II''
| [[Kátia Lund]], [[Fernando Meirelles]] || [[Brazil]]
|-
| 2003 || ''Destino''
| Dominique Monfery || [[France]]
|-
| 2004 || ''Talking with Angels''
| Yousaf Ali Khan || [[UK]]
|-
| 2005 || ''Silent Companion''
| Elham Hosseinzadeh || [[Iran]]
|-
| 2006 || ''Avatar''
| Lluis Quilez || [[Spain]]
|-
| 2007 || ''Blood Sisters''
| Louise N.D. Friedberg || [[Denmark]]
|-
| 2008 || ''Dennis''
| Mads Matthiesen || Denmark
|-
| 2009 || ''Next Floor''
| [[Denis Villeneuve]], Phoebe Greenberg || [[Canada]]
|}

==Rebiya Kadeer film controversy==
During the 58th festival in 2009, the controversial film ''The 10 Conditions of Love'', which documents the life of exiled [[Uyghur people|Uyghur]] leader [[Rebiya Kadeer]], was screened in spite of attempts by the [[Government of the People's Republic of China|Government of China]] (which labels her a terrorist) to have the film withdrawn from the festival. The [[14th Dalai Lama|Dalai Lama]] sent a message of support:

<blockquote>Australian Federal Labor Member of Parliament, Michael Danby, says he discussed Ms Kadeer with ''[the Dalai Lama]'' recently: "He asked me to convey to you, in Melbourne, that she is another one of the national leaders who is a paradigm of non-violence," he said. "He wanted to make it very clear to people that the claims of this woman being a violent person or instigating violence, is from his point of view, and with all of his authority, wrong."<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/09/2650267.htm?section=justin Dalai Lama sends message of support to Kadeer] - [[ABC News (Australia)|ABC News]], August 9 2009
</ref></blockquote>

Chinese filmmakers pulled their films out of the festival two days before it opened on July 24.<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/21/2632440.htm Chinese entries boycott film festival] - [[ABC News (Australia)|ABC News]], July 21 2009</ref> MIFF director Richard Moore refused to drop the film from the festival program,<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/26/2636770.htm MIFF 'sticking to guns' over Uighur film] - [[ABC News (Australia)|ABC News]], July 26 2009</ref> despite the festival website and its online ticketing system being hacked from an [[IP address]] of Chinese origin.<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/26/2636571.htm MIFF website hacked amid Chinese film row] - [[ABC News (Australia)|ABC News]], July 26 2009</ref> The festival website was hacked soon after the launch of its 2009 program, with festival information replaced with the Chinese flag and anti-Kadeer slogans.<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/01/2643083.htm Chinese hackers attack film festival site] - [[ABC News (Australia)|ABC News]], August 1 2009</ref> [[Victoria Police]] was placed on alert during the screening of the film, and pro-Uighur demonstrators gathered outside the [[Melbourne Town Hall]].<ref name=MTH>[http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/08/2650130.htm Demonstrators turn out at Kadeer film screening] - [[ABC News (Australia)|ABC News]], August 8 2009</ref>

The Government of China attempted to have the film withdrawn from the festival, going to the extent of contacting the [[Lord Mayor of Melbourne]], [[Robert Doyle]].<ref name=MTH /> Doyle, however, refused to intervene. Australia's Ambassador to China, Geoff Raby, was summoned by China's Deputy Foreign Minister, Zhang Zhijun, to express displeasure about Kadeer's attendance at MIFF.<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/01/2642974.htm China summons Australia over Uighur leader visit] - [[ABC News (Australia)|ABC News]], August 1 2009</ref>

==MUFF v MIFF==
MIFF's rejection in 2000 of a feature film written and directed by [[Richard Wolstencroft]] led Wolstencroft to form the [[Melbourne Underground Film Festival]] (MUFF). In subsequent years MUFF has attempted to attract controversy by criticising the content of MIFF and its running by directors James Hewison and Richard Moore. MUFF claims to champion "authentic independent, genre, and alternative Australian films" but is primarily concerned with presenting low budget commercial [[exploitation films]].

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
* [http://www.melbournefilmfestival.com.au Official website of the Melbourne International Film Festival]

==See also==
'''Major film festivals in Melbourne'''
*[[Melbourne International Animation Festival]], Australia's largest animation festival
*[[Melbourne Queer Film Festival]], one of the oldest queer film festivals in the World
*[[Melbourne Underground Film Festival]]
'''Other film festivals in Melbourne'''
*[[Human Rights Arts and Film Festival]]

{{coord missing|Australia}}

{{Template:Melbourne events}}

[[Category:International film festivals]]
[[Category:Film festivals in Australia]]
[[Category:Festivals in Melbourne|International Film Festival]]
[[Category:Recurring events established in 1951]]

[[id:Festival Film Internasional Melbourne]]
[[fi:Melbournen elokuvajuhla]]

Libuše Šafránková

2009-12-06T22:42:33Z

Forteller: Added the original title of Three Nuts for Cinderella

{{BLP unsourced|date=August 2009|bot=yes}}
'''Libuše Šafránková''' (born [[7 June]] [[1953]] in [[Brno]], [[Czechoslovakia]] now [[Czech Republic]]) is a [[Czech people|Czech]] actress. Her husband is [[Josef Abrhám]]. They have one son together.

== Filmography ==
* ''[[Babička (1971 film)|Babicka]]'' ([[1971]])
* ''[[Three Nuts for Cinderella]]'' (Tri orísky pro Popelku) ([[1973]])
* ''[[Prijela k nam pout]]'' ([[1973]])
* ''[[How to Drown Dr. M. or the End of Water Spirits in Bohemia]]''(Jak utopit doktora Mráčka aneb Konec vodníků v Čechách) ([[1974]])
* ''[[My Brother Has a Cute Brother]]'' ([[1975]])
* ''[[Paleta lasky]]'' ([[1975]])
* ''[[The Day That Shook the World]]'' ([[1975]])
* ''[[The Little Mermaid (cz)]]'' ([[1976]])
* ''[[Splynuti dusi]]'' ([[1976]])
* ''[[Bracha za vsechny penize]]'' ([[1978]])
* ''[[The Prince and the Evning Star]]'' (Princ a Vecernice) ([[1978]])
* ''[[Run Waiter Run!]]'' (Vrchní, prchni!) ([[1981]])
* ''[[Krtiny]]'' ([[1981]])
* ''[[The Third Prince]]'' ([[1982]])
* ''[[The Salt Prince]]'' ([[1982]])
* ''[[Svatební cesta do Jiljí]]'' ([[1983]])
* ''[[Jára Cimrman Lying, Sleeping]]'' (Jára Cimrman ležící, spící) ([[1983]])
* ''[[The Snowdrop Festival]]'' ([[1983]])
* ''[[My Sweet Little Village]]'' ([[1985]])
* ''[[Zurivý reporter]]'' ([[1987]])
* ''[[Clovek proti zkaze]]'' ([[1989]])
* ''[[The Elementary School]]'' (Obecná škola) ([[1991]])
* ''[[The Beggar's Opera (cz)]]'' ([[1991]])
* ''[[The Necklace (cz)]]'' ([[1992]])
* ''[[Kralovský zivot otroka]]'' ([[1992]])
* ''[[Nesmrtelna teta]]'' ([[1993]])
* ''[[Kolya]]'' ([[1996]])
* ''[[Wonderful Years That Sucked]]'' ([[1997]])
* ''[[All My Loved Ones]]'' ([[1999]])
* ''[[Which Side Eden]]'' ([[1999]])
* ''[[Elixir a Halibela]]'' ([[2001]])
* ''[[Četnické humoresky]]'' ([[2003]])
* ''[[Fišpánská Jablíčka]]'' ([[2008]])

{{DEFAULTSORT:Safrankova}}
[[Category:1953 births]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:Czech actors]]
[[Category:People from Brno]]

{{Czech-bio-stub}}

[[cs:Libuše Šafránková]]
[[de:Libuše Šafránková]]
[[eo:Libuše Šafránková]]
[[fr:Libuše Šafránková]]
[[no:Libuše Šafránková]]
[[pl:Libuše Šafránková]]
[[ru:Шафранкова, Либуше]]
[[sk:Libuše Šafránková]]

Libuše Šafránková

2009-12-06T22:40:46Z

Forteller: Added the english title of Princ a Vecernice

{{BLP unsourced|date=August 2009|bot=yes}}
'''Libuše Šafránková''' (born [[7 June]] [[1953]] in [[Brno]], [[Czechoslovakia]] now [[Czech Republic]]) is a [[Czech people|Czech]] actress. Her husband is [[Josef Abrhám]]. They have one son together.

== Filmography ==
* ''[[Babička (1971 film)|Babicka]]'' ([[1971]])
* ''[[Three Nuts for Cinderella]]'' ([[1973]])
* ''[[Prijela k nam pout]]'' ([[1973]])
* ''[[How to Drown Dr. M. or the End of Water Spirits in Bohemia]]''(Jak utopit doktora Mráčka aneb Konec vodníků v Čechách) ([[1974]])
* ''[[My Brother Has a Cute Brother]]'' ([[1975]])
* ''[[Paleta lasky]]'' ([[1975]])
* ''[[The Day That Shook the World]]'' ([[1975]])
* ''[[The Little Mermaid (cz)]]'' ([[1976]])
* ''[[Splynuti dusi]]'' ([[1976]])
* ''[[Bracha za vsechny penize]]'' ([[1978]])
* ''[[The Prince and the Evning Star]] (Princ a Vecernice)'' ([[1978]])
* ''[[Run Waiter Run!]]'' (Vrchní, prchni!) ([[1981]])
* ''[[Krtiny]]'' ([[1981]])
* ''[[The Third Prince]]'' ([[1982]])
* ''[[The Salt Prince]]'' ([[1982]])
* ''[[Svatební cesta do Jiljí]]'' ([[1983]])
* ''[[Jára Cimrman Lying, Sleeping]]'' (Jára Cimrman ležící, spící) ([[1983]])
* ''[[The Snowdrop Festival]]'' ([[1983]])
* ''[[My Sweet Little Village]]'' ([[1985]])
* ''[[Zurivý reporter]]'' ([[1987]])
* ''[[Clovek proti zkaze]]'' ([[1989]])
* ''[[The Elementary School]]'' (Obecná škola) ([[1991]])
* ''[[The Beggar's Opera (cz)]]'' ([[1991]])
* ''[[The Necklace (cz)]]'' ([[1992]])
* ''[[Kralovský zivot otroka]]'' ([[1992]])
* ''[[Nesmrtelna teta]]'' ([[1993]])
* ''[[Kolya]]'' ([[1996]])
* ''[[Wonderful Years That Sucked]]'' ([[1997]])
* ''[[All My Loved Ones]]'' ([[1999]])
* ''[[Which Side Eden]]'' ([[1999]])
* ''[[Elixir a Halibela]]'' ([[2001]])
* ''[[Četnické humoresky]]'' ([[2003]])
* ''[[Fišpánská Jablíčka]]'' ([[2008]])

{{DEFAULTSORT:Safrankova}}
[[Category:1953 births]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:Czech actors]]
[[Category:People from Brno]]

{{Czech-bio-stub}}

[[cs:Libuše Šafránková]]
[[de:Libuše Šafránková]]
[[eo:Libuše Šafránková]]
[[fr:Libuše Šafránková]]
[[no:Libuše Šafránková]]
[[pl:Libuše Šafránková]]
[[ru:Шафранкова, Либуше]]
[[sk:Libuše Šafránková]]

Skyr

2009-12-04T02:00:35Z

Forteller: I live in Norway and have just recently heard of skyr. There's no article on it in [no] Wikipedia. Removing sentence about it being popular in Norway.

[[Image:Skyr.JPG|thumb|right|200px|Skyr in a store]]

'''Skyr''' is an [[Iceland]]ic cultured [[Milk|dairy product]], similar to [[strained yogurt]]. Technically it is a very soft [[cheese]]. It is very popular in [[Icelandic cuisine]], and seems to have originated in [[Norway]], and brought to Iceland by the [[Viking]]s. It is traditionally served cold with a topping of sugar and cream.<ref>[http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-agLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=sVQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1675,2550688&dq=iceland+pickles] July 23, 1926 The Evening Independent</ref>

Traditionally, skyr is made with raw milk, however modern skyr is made with pasteurized skim milk. A small portion of skyr is added to the warm milk, to introduce the right bacteria, such as ''[[Streptococcus thermophilus]]'' and ''[[Lactobacillus bulgaricus]]''. [[Rennet]] is added as well, and the milk is left to coagulate. The skyr is then strained through fabric to remove the [[whey]] (''mysa'' in Icelandic) and the milk solids retained.

Skyr, has a slightly sour dairy flavor, with a hint of residual sweetness. Commercial Icelandic manufacturers of skyr have added flavors such as vanilla, berries, etc. common to [[yoghurt]] to the final product, to increase its appeal. Skyr-based smoothies have become very popular.

Skyr is a very popular health product in [[Iceland]] and can also be purchased in parts of the US, UK, and Scandinavia at specialty markets. As of September 1. 2009 a licensed version produced by [[Q-meieriene]] is available in [[Norway]].<ref>[http://www.q-meieriene.no/wps/wcm/connect/Q/Aktuelt/Nye+produkter/NO-Q-nyhet-skyr Q-Meieriene article about Skyr]</ref>

Varying slightly between brands, unflavored skyr is roughly 12% protein, 3% carbohydrate, and 0.5% fat. It is high in [[calcium]] and vitamins commonly found in milk products.

Skyr may be used in a traditional Icelandic dish called ''hræringur'' (meaning "stirred" or "made by stirring") which consists of roughly equal amounts of skyr and [[porridge]]. It is often mixed with jam or fruit for a dessert, or with cereals for breakfast. Children often like sugar sprinkled on top. It will keep without refrigeration, making it a good high-protein food to take on a trip.

In Norway, skyr (or ''skjør''), usually a byproduct from cheese production, was diluted with water when used as a beverage, or mixed with milk and crumbs of flat-bread as a quick meal.

==See also==
*[[Súrmjólk]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
{{Commons category|Skyr}}
* Skyr Web Site of Icelandic Skyr producer, [http://www.ms.is MS] (Mjólkursamsalan) [http://www.skyr.is skyr.is]
* [http://www.amateurgourmet.com/2008/04/siggis_skyr.html Amateur Gourmet] blog article on trying skyr
* [http://www.food-info.net/uk/qa/qa-wi13.htm Food-Info] article on skyr
* [http://www.isholf.is/gullis/jo/Miscellaneous.htm Recipe] for making skyr (in English)
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/dining/14icel.html?ei=5090&en=44b876ffef6e7551&ex=1284350400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print Iceland woos America with lamb and skyr] - NY Times article (October 18, 2005) on Whole Foods introducing skyr to the US.
* Web site of New York-based Skyr producer [http://www.skyr.com Siggi's Skyr]
* Blog [http://catdynamics.blogspot.com/2005/09/food-for-fighting-in-praise-of-skyr.html ''Dynamics of Cats''] entry on skyr

[[Category:Icelandic cuisine]]
[[Category:Dairy products]]
[[Category:Fermented foods]]

[[da:Skyr]]
[[de:Skyr]]
[[es:Skyr]]
[[fr:Skyr]]
[[is:Skyr]]
[[it:Skyr]]
[[nl:Skyr]]
[[pl:Skyr]]
[[fi:Skyr]]

The Matrix (franchise)

2009-11-08T22:14:22Z

Forteller: /* Books */ - I just can't believe that a danish book on The Matrix is official. I googled it and could not find any proof, not even on the official web site for the book. Moved it to Unofficial.

{{Infobox Film
| name = The Matrix trilogy
| image =
| image_size =
| caption = ''The Matrix'' film poster
| director = [[Wachowski brothers|Andy Wachowski Larry Wachowski]]
| producer = [[Joel Silver]]
| writer = Andy Wachowski Larry Wachowski
| narrator =
| starring = [[Keanu Reeves]] [[Laurence Fishburne]] [[Carrie-Anne Moss]] [[Hugo Weaving]]
| music = [[Don Davis (composer)|Don Davis]]
| cinematography = [[Bill Pope]]
| editing = [[Zach Staenberg]]
| studio = [[Village Roadshow Pictures]] [[Silver Pictures]]
| distributor = [[Warner Bros.|Warner Bros. Pictures]]
| released = 1999–2003
| country = {{filmUS}}
| language = English
| budget = US$ 300 million
| gross = US$ 1.632 billion
| website =
| amg_id =
| imdb_id =
}}

'''The ''Matrix'' series''' primarily comprises a [[trilogy]] of [[science fiction film|science-fiction]]-[[action film]]s written and directed by the [[Wachowski brothers]] and produced by [[Joel Silver]]. The first film ''[[The Matrix]]'' was released in March 1999; after its success, two sequels, ''[[The Matrix Reloaded]]'' and ''[[The Matrix Revolutions]]'', were released in 2003. The characters and settings of the Matrix [[fictional universe]] are further explored in other media, including [[animation]], [[comic book]]s, and [[video game]]s.

The series depicts a complex [[science fiction]] story incorporating many [[Philosophy|philosophical]] elements. Other influences include [[idealism]], [[cyberpunk]], [[mythology]], [[anime]], [[Hong Kong action cinema|Hong Kong action films]] (particularly "[[heroic bloodshed]]" and [[martial arts film|martial arts]] movies), [[simulated reality]] and [[philosophy of mind]]. Though not directly, key concepts of several [[belief]]s are touched upon, including [[Christianity]], [[Judaism]], [[Buddhism]], [[Hinduism]], [[Jainism]] and [[Sufism]].<ref>{{cite paper | author = Ismali MF | title = Sufi Secret - Hidden Law of Life | date =2007 | url = http://www.scribd.com/doc/33637/Sufi-Secret-Hidden-Law-of-Life | format = HTML | accessdate =2009 }}</ref>

==''Films''==
{{main|The Matrix}}
The series began with 1999's '''''[[The Matrix]]'''''. The film, directed by the [[Wachowski brothers]] and produced by [[Joel Silver]], was highly successful, earning $460 million worldwide and beating ''[[Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace]]'' for the [[Academy Awards|Academy Award]] for Visual Effects. In addition, by 2000, the DVD release of the film reached three million sales, the first DVD release in [[North America]] to do so.<ref name="dvdsales">''[http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/rl_cmp/rl_press_August_01_00.html "Press release - August 1, 2000 - The Matrix DVD: The first to sell 3 million"]. URL retrieved July 26, 2006.</ref>

{{main|The Matrix Reloaded|The Matrix Revolutions}}

The first film's mainstream success led to the [[greenlight]]ing of the next two films of the trilogy, [[The Matrix Reloaded]] and [[The Matrix Revolutions]]. Under the project codename "'''The Burlyman'''" (later to become the name of the Wachowski brothers' comic book production company, [[Burlyman Entertainment]]), it took a number of years and several iterations of scripts before the final films were approved. The two sequels, which tell a continuous story rather than being stand-alone episodes, were filmed simultaneously and released six months apart.

==Reception==
===Critical reaction===
{| class="wikitable" width=99% border="1"
| rowspan="2" align="center" | '''Film'''
| colspan="2" align="center" | '''[[Rotten Tomatoes]]'''
| rowspan="2" align="center" | '''[[Metacritic]]'''
| rowspan="2" align="center" | '''[[Yahoo!|Yahoo! Movies]]'''
|-
| align="center" | '''Overall'''
| align="center" | '''Cream of the Crop'''
|-
| ''[[The Matrix]]''
| 86% (122 reviews)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/matrix/ | title=The Matrix Movie Reviews, Pictures | publisher=[[Rotten Tomatoes]] | accessdate=2008-12-15}}</ref>
| 68% (28 reviews)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/matrix/?critic=creamcrop | title=The Matrix (Cream of the Crop) | publisher=[[Rotten Tomatoes]] | accessdate=2008-12-15}}</ref>
| 73% (35 reviews)<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/matrix?q=The%20Matrix| title=The Matrix (1999):Reviews | publisher=[[Metacritic]] | accessdate=2008-12-15}}</ref>
| B+ (10 reviews) <ref>{{cite web|url=http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&id=1800019594&cf=info | title=The Matrix – Yahoo! Movies | accessdate=2008-12-15}}</ref>
|-
| ''[[The Matrix Reloaded]]''
| 73% (229 reviews)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/matrix_reloaded/ | title=The Matrix Reloaded Movie Reviews, Pictures | publisher=[[Rotten Tomatoes]] | accessdate=2008-12-15}}</ref>
| 74% (42 reviews)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/matrix_reloaded/?critic=creamcrop | title=The Matrix Reloaded (Cream of the Crop) | publisher=[[Rotten Tomatoes]] | accessdate=2008-12-15}}</ref>
| 63% (41 reviews)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/matrixreloaded?q=The%20Matrix | title=The Matrix Reloaded (2003):Reviews | publisher=[[Metacritic]] | accessdate=2008-12-15}}</ref>
| B (15 reviews)<ref>{{cite web|url= http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1807428853/info | title=The Matrix Reloaded – Yahoo! Movies | publisher=[[Yahoo! Movies]] | accessdate=2008-12-11}}</ref>
|-
| ''[[The Matrix Revolutions]]''
| 37% (203 reviews)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/matrix_revolutions/ | title= The Matrix Revolutions Movie Reviews, Pictures | publisher=[[Rotten Tomatoes]] | accessdate=2008-12-15}}</ref>
| 28% (37 reviews)<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/matrix_revolutions/?critic=creamcrop | title=The Matrix Revolutions (Cream of the Crop) | publisher=[[Rotten Tomatoes]] | accessdate=2008-12-15}}</ref>
| 48% (35 reviews)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/matrixrevolutions/ | title=The Matrix Revolutions (2003):Reviews | publisher=[[Metacritic]] | accessdate=2008-12-11}}</ref>
| C+ (15 reviews)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808402448/info | title=The Matrix Revolutions - Yahoo! Movies | publisher=[[Yahoo! Movies]] | accessdate=2008-12-11}}</ref>
|-
|}

===Box office===
{| class="wikitable" width=99% border="1"
| rowspan="2" align="center" | '''Film'''
| rowspan="2" align="center" | '''Release date'''
| colspan="3" align="center" | '''Box office revenue'''
| colspan="2" align="center" text="wrap" | '''Box office ranking'''
| rowspan="2" align="center" | '''Reference'''
|-
| align="center" | '''North America'''
| align="center" | '''Outside North America'''
| align="center" | '''Worldwide'''
| align="center" | '''All-time domestic'''
| align="center" | '''All-time worldwide'''
|-
| ''[[The Matrix]]''
| [[March 31]], [[1999]]
| $171,479,930
| $288,901,000
| $463,517,383
| align="center" | #141
| align="center" | #81
| align="center" | <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=matrix.htm | title=The Matrix (1999) | publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]] | accessdate=2008-12-11}}</ref>
|-
| ''[[The Matrix Reloaded]]''
| [[May 15]], [[2003]]
| $281,576,462
| $457,023,240
| $742,128,461
| align="center" | #39
| align="center" | #32
| align="center" | <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=matrixreloaded.htm | title=The Matrix Reloaded (2003) | publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]] | accessdate=2008-12-11}}</ref>
|-
| ''[[The Matrix Revolutions]]''
| [[November 5]], [[2003]]
| $139,313,948
| $285,674,263
| $427,343,298
| align="center" | #218
| align="center" | #102
| align="center" | <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=matrixrevolutions.htm | title=The Matrix Revolutions (2003) | publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]] | accessdate=2008-12-11}}</ref>
|-
| '''The Matrix'' film series'''
| '''[[1999 in film|1999]]–[[2003 in film|2003]]'''
| '''$592,370,340'''
| '''$1,031,597,503'''
| '''$1,632,989,142'''
| colspan="3" |
|}

== Reputation and influence ==

While the first film was extremely successful, both critically and popularly, the quality of the sequels is still a matter of debate. Some fans and professional critics believe they exceed the quality and conceptual heights of the first film, while others found the later films disappointing.<ref>[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/matrix_revolutions/ Rotten tomatoes review of Matrix Revolutions]</ref>

''The Matrix Reloaded'' was well received by critics, currently holding an average rating of 73% (Certified Fresh) on Rotten Tomatoes. However, the reaction of some fans to this sequel has been mixed.

When ''The Matrix Revolutions'' was released, one complaint was that it did not give clear cut answers to the questions raised in ''Reloaded'' but rather raised new ones.<ref>[http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/movies/reviews/n_9482/index1.html New York Metro review of Matrix Revolutions]</ref>

The ''Matrix'' series has also inspired a [[new religious movement]] called '''Matrixism: The path of the One'''.<ref name="sj">[[Sam Jordison|Jordison, Sam]] (2005). ''The Joy of Sects: An A-Z of Cults, Cranks and Religious Eccentrics: Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sects But Were Afraid to Ask'', pp 127-9, Robson Books. ISBN 1861059051</ref><ref>Bouma, Gary (2007). Australian Soul, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521673891</ref><ref name="gm">{{cite web | author= Morris, Linda | date=May 19, 2005 | title= They're all God Movies| publisher= NPR|url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Theyre-all-god-movies/2005/05/18/1116361618786.html| accessdate=2006-08-05}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newstext.com.au/docs/ADV/2004/get.jsp?docid=ADV-20041223-1-019-2122103V38@SA-METRO-2004-2003|title= Matter of faith|author=Moscaritolo, Maria|publisher= News Limited Australia|date=June 12, 2006|accessdate=2007-04-24}}</ref><ref>{{citejournal|journal=Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions|pages=103–112 |volume =10|issue =4|id= {{ISSN|1092-6690}} |year= 2007 |publisher= The Regents of the University of California|title=Perspective: New New Religions: Revisiting a Concept|author=J. Gordon Melton|url=http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/pdf/10.1525/nr.2007.10.4.103|doi=10.1525/nr.2007.10.4.103}}</ref> The religion was conceived by an anonymous group in mid-2004<ref name="R&PC">Possamai, Adam (2005). "Religion and Popular Culture: A Hyper-Real Testament", Peter Lang Publishing Group. ISBN 90-5201-272-5 / US-ISBN 0-8204-6634-4 pb.</ref><ref name="Scotsman">{{cite web | author= Jordison, Sam | date=April 8, 2006| title= Everything you always wanted to know about sects| publisher= ''[[The Scotsman]]'' | url=http://living.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=539792006| accessdate=2007-05-04}}</ref> and by November 2004 it claimed to have attracted upwards of 300 members.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.jtnews.net/index.php?/news/item/when_movies_inspire_a_religion/|title= When movies inspire a religion|author=Frishberg, Manny|publisher= JTNews|date=November 26, 2004|accessdate=2008-06-19}}</ref><ref name="gm"/> Current reports indicate that there are now approximately 16,000 followers of Matrixism worldwide.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sundaytimes.lk/080615/Mirror/mirror006.html|title= Behind Matrixism|author=Kotelawala, Himal|publisher= The Sunday Times Sri Lanka|date=June 14, 2008|accessdate=2008-06-19}}</ref> Even though Matrixism has grown substantially and its Geocities website (username: matrixism2069) has received significant attention in the media<ref name="sun">{{cite web | author=Kasriel, Alex | year=2006 | title= The joy of sects| publisher= ''[[The Sun (newspaper)|The Sun]]'' | url=http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,5-2005590116,00.html | accessdate=2007-06-03}}</ref><ref name="esquire">{{cite web | date=May 24, 2007 | title="Nieuw geloof" | publisher=''[[Esquire Magazine]] [[Netherlands]]'' | url=http://www.esquire.nl/lifestyle/article.aspx?aid=149 | accessdate=2007-06-14 |quote= English translation: ''Because there is nothing more fun than discussing a film, 1400 fans of the film have set up a new religion, Matrixism (not to be confused with Marxism). Just like their hero Neo from The Matrix, they release themselves from The Matrix with a red pill.''}}</ref><ref>{{citejournal|title=Matrixism -"The Path of the One"|journal=[[Esquire Magazine]] [[UK]]|publisher= Zinio |date= January 19, 2007|url= http://www.zinio.com/search?q=Matrixism&d=mc|quote=''The 1,400 worldwide "Matrixists", or "Pathists", cite the three Matrix films as their religious texts. Like Matrix hero Neo, they choose to free themselves from the Matrix''}}</ref> some still debate whether Matrixists are serious about their beliefs.<ref name="sj"/><ref name="Scotsman"/>

==Additional media==
===Anime===
{{main|The Animatrix}}
In acknowledgment of the strong influence of [[Japan]]ese [[anime]] on the ''Matrix'' series, '''''[[The Animatrix]]''''' was produced in 2003. This is a collection of nine [[animation|animated]] short films intended to further flesh out the concepts, history, characters and setting of the series. The objective of ''The Animatrix'' project was to give other writers and directors the opportunity to lend their voices and interpretation to the ''Matrix'' universe; the Wachowski brothers conceived of and oversaw the process, and they wrote four of the segments themselves, although they were given to other directors to execute. Many of the segments were produced by notable figures from the world of Japanese animation. Four of the films were originally released on the series' official website, one was shown in cinemas with ''[[Dreamcatcher (film)|Dreamcatcher]]'', one was shown on MTV, MTV2, MTV3, and MTV4, and the others first appeared with the DVD release of all nine shorts shortly after the release of ''The Matrix Reloaded''.

===Video games===
On May 15, 2003, the game '''''[[Enter the Matrix]]''''' was released in [[North America]] concurrently with ''The Matrix Reloaded''. The first of three video games related to the films, it told a story running parallel to ''The Matrix Reloaded'' and featured scenes shot during the filming of ''The Matrix Reloaded'' and ''The Matrix Revolutions''.

Two more ''Matrix'' video games were released in 2005. The [[MMORPG]] ''[[The Matrix Online]]'' continued the story beyond ''The Matrix Revolutions'', while ''[[The Matrix: Path of Neo]]'' allows players to control the series' protagonist Neo in scenes from the film trilogy.

===DVD releases===
Over a year after the cinematic release of the final film, ''Revolutions'', Warner Home Video released ''[[The Ultimate Matrix Collection]]'', a 10-Disc DVD set of the films. It included the three films, ''[[The Animatrix]]'', and six discs of additional material. A Limited Edition of the collection encases the ten discs, as well as a resin bust of Neo, inside a Lucite box.

===Comic books===
In addition, several [[comic book]]s and [[short story|short stories]] based on the series – one written by the Wachowskis, the others by guest writers – were released on the official website. Many of these have since been collected in two printed volumes of '''''[[The Matrix Comics]]'''''.

===Books===
====Official====
* ''The Art of the Matrix'' by Spencer Lamm (Newmarket Press, 2000) ISBN 1-55704-405-8
* ''The Matrix Comics'' by various (Titan Books, 2003) ISBN 1-84023-806-2
* ''The Matrix Comics Volume 2'' by various (Titan Books, 2005) ISBN 1-84576-021-2
* ''The Matrix Shooting Script'' by Larry and Andy Wachowski (with introduction by [[William Gibson]]) (Newmarket Press, 2002) ISBN 1-55704-490-2
* ''Enter The Matrix: Official Strategy Guide by Doug Walsh (Brady Games, 2003) ISBN 0-7440-0271-0
* ''The Matrix Online: Prima Official Game Guide'' (Prima Games, 2005) ISBN 0-7615-4943-9
* ''The Matrix: Path of Neo Official Strategy Guide'' (Brady Games, 2005) ISBN 0-7440-0658-9
====Unofficial====
* ''[[Jacking In to the Matrix Franchise: Cultural Reception and Interpretation]]'' by [[Matthew Kapell]] and [[William G. Doty]] (Continuum International, 2004) ISBN 0-8264-1587-3
* ''Taking the Red Pill: Science, Philosophy and Religion in "The Matrix"'' by Glenn Yeffeth (Summersdale, 2003) ISBN 1-84024-377-5
* ''Matrix Warrior: Being the One'' by Jake Horsley (Gollancz, 2003) ISBN 0-575-07527-9
* ''The "Matrix" and Philosophy: Welcome to the Desert of the Real'' by William Irwin (Open Court, 2002) ISBN 0-8126-9502-X
* ''More Matrix and Philosophy'' by William Irwin (Open Court, 2005) ISBN 0-8126-9572-0
* ''Like a Splinter in Your Mind: The Philosophy Behind the "Matrix" Trilogy'' by Matt Lawrence (Blackwell, 2004) ISBN 1-4051-2524-1
* ''The Matrix'' ([[British Film Institute]], 2004) ISBN 1-84457-045-2
* ''Matrix Revelations: A Thinking Fan's Guide to the Matrix Trilogy'' by Steve Couch (Damaris, 2003) ISBN 1-904753-01-9
* ''Beyond the Matrix: Revolutions and Revelations'' by Stephen Faller (Chalice Press, 2004) ISBN 0-8272-0235-0
* ''The "Matrix" Trilogy: Cyberpunk Reloaded'' by Stacy Gillis (Wallflower Press, 2005) ISBN 1-904764-32-0
* ''Exegesis of the Matrix'' by Peter B. Lloyd (Whole-Being Books, 2003) ISBN 1-902987-09-8
* ''The Gospel Reloaded'' by Seay Garrett (Pinon Press, 2003) ISBN 1-57683-478-6
* ''The "Matrix": What Does the Bible Say About...'' by D. Archer (Scripture Union, 2001) ISBN 1-85999-579-9
* ''[Journey to the Source: Decoding Matrix Trilogy]'' by Pradheep Challiyil (Sakthi Books 2004) ISBN 0-9752586-0-5
* ''Exploring the Matrix: Visions of the Cyber Present'' by Karen Haber (St. Martin's Press, 2003) ISBN 0-312-31358-6
* ''Philosophers Explore The Matrix'' by Christopher Gray (Oxford University Press, 2005) ISBN 0-19-518107-7
* ''The Matrix Cultural Revolution'' by Michel Marriot (Thunder's Mouth Press, 2003) ISBN 1-56025-574-9
* ''The Matrix Reflections: Choosing between reality and illusion'' by Eddie Zacapa (Authorhouse, 2005) ISBN 1-42080-782-X
* ''The One'' by A.J. Yager & Dean Vescera (Lifeforce Publishing, 2003) ISBN 0-97097-961-4
* ''Matrix og ulydighedens evangelium'' (Danish for: "Matrix and the Evangelium of disobedients" by [[Rune Engelbreth Larsen]] (Bindslev, 2004) ISBN 87-91229-12-8

==See also==
* [[The Meatrix]]
* [[Neuromancer]]
* [[Religion and the Internet]]
* [[Simulated reality]]

==References==
{{reflist}}
{{Wikiquote}}

== External links ==
* [http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com Official Website for the series ]
* [http://www.horrorlair.com/movies/the_matrix.html The Matrix multiple screenplays by Andy & Larry Wachowski]
* [http://www.horrorlair.com/movies/the_matrix_reloaded.html The Matrix Reloaded October 27, 2001 draft screenplay by Andy & Larry Wachowski]
* [http://www.horrorlair.com/movies/the_matrix_revolutions.html The Matrix Revolutions October 27, 2000 draft screenplay by Andy & Larry Wachowski]
* {{dmoz|Arts/Movies/Titles/M/Matrix_Series}}
* [http://www.integralnaked.org/talk.aspx?id=205 The Many Meanings of ''The Matrix''], [[Wachowski brothers|Larry Wachowski]] in a dialogue with [[Ken Wilber]].
* [http://www.sequart.com/matrixchronology.htm The Matrix Narrative Chronology]

{{Matrix}}
{{Wachowski brothers}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Matrix}}
[[Category:1999 introductions]]
[[Category:American films]]
[[Category:1990s action films]]
[[Category:2000s action films]]
[[Category:Action films by series]] 
[[Category:Film series]]
[[Category:Film trilogies]]
[[Category:Matrix series| ]]
[[Category:Dystopian films]]
[[Category:Science fiction films by series]]
[[Category:1990s science fiction films]]
[[Category:2000s science fiction films]]
[[Category:Monomyths]]

[[es:Matrix (trilogía)]]
[[fa:مجموعه ماتریکس]]
[[ka:მატრიცა (ფილმების სერია)]]
[[ko:매트릭스 시리즈]]
[[pt:Matrix]]
[[sv:Matrix (serie)]]
[[tr:Matrix serisi]]
[[zh:黑客帝国系列]]

Red pill and blue pill

2009-10-15T20:23:00Z

Forteller: Removed unnecessary spoiler for Total Recall.

The term '''redpill''' is a pop culture term that was popularised in science fiction culture via the 1999 film ''[[The Matrix]]''. The movie relies on the premise that an artificial reality that is advanced enough will be indistinguishable from reality and that no test exists that can conclusively prove that reality is not a simulation. This ties in closely with the skeptical idea that the everyday world is illusory. In the movie, a '''Redpill''' is the term used to describe a human who has been freed from [[Matrix (fictional universe)|the Matrix]], a fictional computer-generated world set in 1999. '''Bluepill''' refers to a human still connected to the Matrix.<ref>http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2009/04/162_16449.html</ref>

Borrowing from the movie, the terms '''blue pill''' and '''red pill''' have become a popular [[metaphor]] for the choice between the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue) and embracing the sometimes painful, sometimes pleasant, truth of reality (red).

==Background==
In the [[The Matrix (series)|Matrix Universe]], an authorized member of a Zion ship crew offers a prospective human in the Matrix a choice of ingesting a red or [[blue pill]]. The red pill activates a trace program that allows the crew to locate the human's body in the Matrix powerplant. {{cquote|''"You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in [[Alice in Wonderland|Wonderland]], and I show you how deep the [[rabbit hole]] goes."''}} Once the person is found, commands are sent to the pod to awake him or her, and the freed individual is rescued by the respective ship crew.

Redpills appear to have either seen "glitches" within the Matrix (e.g. a book continuously respawning on a shelf, regardless of attempts to remove the book), or question their lives within the Matrix, refusing to dismiss strange events. These are the people most likely to recognize the Matrix as an illusion.

According to [[Morpheus (The Matrix)|Morpheus]], leaving the Matrix can be traumatic, particularly to those who have lived in it too long. As a rule, crews only offer the red pill to those younger than 18. After that, the risk of denial and psychotic episodes from the reality of separation is much higher. The exception to this rule (as seen in the movies) is Neo, whose age is around 30 when he is released by Morpheus.

''The Matrix'' makes many references to past films and literature, and the idea of the red pill is no exception, having appeared in the 1990 film ''[[Total Recall]]'' with the same premise – to wake the [[protagonist]] Douglas Quaid from his "dream". In the scene in question, the character Dr. Edgemar tells Quaid that he is dreaming, and offers him a red pill with the words:
{{cquote|''It's a symbol. Of your desire to return to reality.
''Inside your dream, you'll fall asleep.'' <ref>[http://scifiscripts.name2host.com/msol/Totalre_final_draft.txt ''Total Recall - final script''], [http://www.scifiscripts.com/ scifiscripts.com], retrieved 8 Feb 2009.</ref><ref>When Edgemar says that "in your dream you will fall asleep", the inference is that "and then you will wake up in the real world".</ref>}}
While this scene appears to be taking place ''in reality'' (Quaid notices a bead of sweat trickle down Edgemar's face, convincing him of this) the crucial point is that ''according to Edgemar's argument'' Quaid is currently dreaming and therefore needs the red pill to take him out of his dream and back to reality.

==Analysis==
An essay written by Russell Blackford discusses the red and blue pills, questioning whether if a person were fully informed they would take the red pill, opting for the real world, believing that choosing physical reality over a digital simulation is not clear-cut. Both Neo and another character, Cypher, both take the red pill over the blue pill, with the latter showing regret for having made such a choice, having stated that if Morpheus fully informed them of the situation, Cypher would have told Morpheus to shove the red pill up his ass. He argues that while ''The Matrix'' trilogy sets up that even if Neo failed, him taking the red pill was worthwhile due to him living and dying authentically, he and science-fiction writer [[James Patrick Kelly]] feel that ''The Matrix'' stacks the deck against machines and their simulated world.<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=vX7HCkNTv0wC&pg=PA169&dq=Redpill+Matrix&ei=8OKzSpzjCZ6yNMHdjf8D#v=onepage&q=Red%20pill&f=false</ref> In the book "The art of the start: the time-tested, battle-hardened guide for anyone", author Guy Kawasaki uses the red pill as an analogue to leaders of new organizations, in that they face the same choice to either live in reality or fantasy. He adds that if they want to be successful, they have take the red pill and see how deep the rabbit hole goes.<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=-gXlwJnnNoEC&pg=PA92&dq=Redpill+Matrix&ei=8OKzSpzjCZ6yNMHdjf8D#v=onepage&q=&f=false</ref>

"The matrix and philosophy: welcome to the desert of the real" author William Irwin described the red pill as the new symbol of bold choice, adding that most people stated they would pick the red pill if given the choice. After he concludes an introduction to philosophy course, he invites his students to inhale fumes from either a red marker or a blue marker, using the same rules of the red and blue pills but stating that the red marker would allow them to major in philosophy, while the blue marker would make them forget they thought anything about the mysteries of the universe. His students were amusingly annoyed, due to them thinking there really isn't such a choice, as no one can major in philosophy. Another author, David Mitsuo Nixon suggests that there may be no Matrix, and that the red pill was merely a hallucinogenic drug that he was tricked into taking. Jason Holt called the red pill versus the blue pill a cool idea, but commented that it was "old hat" to philosophers, having been done hundreds of years ago as [[Descartes]]' demon hypothesis. The argument of truth versus happiness dates back to [[Ancient Greece|Greek]] times, having been written about by both [[Plato]] and [[Aristotle]]. It has also been featured in earlier films such as ''[[Total Recall]]'' and ''[[Dark City]]''.<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=GSE5qlwGzCAC&pg=RA2-PA207&dq=Redpill+Matrix&ei=8OKzSpzjCZ6yNMHdjf8D#v=onepage&q=Red%20pill&f=false</ref>

"Matrix Warrior: Being the One" author Jake Horsley compared the red pill to [[LSD]], citing a scene where Neo forms his own world outside of the Matrix. When he asks Morpheus if he could return, Morpheus responds by asking him if he would want to. He also describes the blue pill as an addictive, calling ''The Matrix'' series a continuous series of choices between taking the blue pill and not taking it. He adds that the habits and routines of people inside the Matrix are merely the people dosing themselves with the blue pill. While he describes the blue pill as a common thing, he states that the red pill is one-of-a-kind, and something someone may not even find.<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=n-FfxGSgdnsC&pg=PA125&dq=Redpill+Matrix&ei=8OKzSpzjCZ6yNMHdjf8D#v=onepage&q=pill&f=false</ref>

==Other uses==
*The reference to the pills is also implemented in a special type of malware that utilizes the virtualization techniques of modern [[CPU]]s to execute as a [[hypervisor]]; as a virtual platform on which the entire operating system runs, it is capable of examining the entire state of the machine and to cause any behavior with full privilege, while the operating system believes itself to be running directly on physical hardware, creating a parallel to the illusory Matrix. [[Blue Pill (malware)|Blue Pill]] describes the concept of infecting a machine while red pill techniques help the operating system to detect the presence of such a hypervisor.

*In the [[Maemo (operating system)|Maemo]] application installer, certain advanced features are unlocked by a "Red Pill Mode" [[Easter egg (virtual)|easter egg]]. This is activated by starting to add a catalog whose URL is "matrix" and then choosing to cancel. A dialog box appears with the choices "Red Pill" or "Blue Pill", allowing the user to enter red pill mode.[http://maemo.org/community/wiki/ApplicationManagerRedPillMode] In "Red Pill" mode the installer allows user to view all packages including packages which are parts of operating system and perform actions without restrictions, somewhat resembling effect of Red Pill. In Blue Pill mode the installer displays only installed software without dependencies (like libraries) and exposes fewer options, making the casual user see only software installed by user, hence creating the illusion that only software installed by user exists on the system. This makes it harder to harm the operating system because most casual users are not aware of the "matrix" trick.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Matrix series]]
[[Category:Science fiction terminology]]

[[vi:Red pill]]

OpenMicroBlogging

2009-09-08T10:03:57Z

Forteller: Updated the article with the new name of Laconica: StatusNet

'''OpenMicroBlogging''' is an open protocol that allows different [[micro-blogging]] services to [[Interoperability|inter-operate]]. It lets the user of one service subscribe to notices by a user of another service. This enables a federation of new communities<ref name="jstay080812microcomms">Stay, Jesse (2008-8-12) [http://www.louisgray.com/live/2008/08/identica-and-power-of-microbranded.html Identi.ca and the Power of Microbranded Communities]. Retrieved 2009-1-4.</ref>, as potentially an organization of any size can host a service. OpenMicroBlogging utilizes the [[OAuth]] and [[Yadis]] protocols and does not depend on any central authority.

==History==

The first implementation of the OpenMicroBlogging protocol is the Laconica software, which changed name to [[StatusNet]] in August 2009<ref>[http://status.net/2009/08/28/laconica-is-now-statusnet/ Laconica is now StatusNet]</ref>. [[Identi.ca]] is the first service to support OpenMicroBlogging<ref name="RRW080702identica">Mayfield, Ross (2008-7-2) [http://ross.typepad.com/blog/2008/07/identica-launch.html Identica launches, an open source Twitter]. Retrieved 2009-1-5.</ref>, and other sizeable services including [[Leo Laporte]]'s [[Twit Army]] at [http://army.twit.tv http://army.twit.tv] are amongst those powered by the [[opensource|open source]] StatusNet.<ref>Malcolm Bastien, [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/03/theres-twitter.html There's Twitter the company, and twitter the medium]. Retrieved 2009-3-24.</ref>

Since March 2009 one can search users' accounts in Twit Army from within Identi.ca. You also can subscribe to accounts at Twit Army from your Identi.ca account.

The second implementation of the OpenMicroBlogging protocol is the [[OpenMicroBlogger]] software.

== See also ==

* [[Micro-blogging]]
* [[Comparison of micro-blogging services]]

==External links==

*[http://gitorious.org/projects/openmicroblogging/repos/mainline/blobs/master/openmicroblogging.txt OpenMicroBlogging specification]

'''Implementations:'''

*[http://status.net/ StatusNet]
*[http://openmicroblogger.org/ OpenMicroBlogger]

'''Services'''

*[http://status.net/wiki/ListOfServers List of StatusNet installations]
*[http://github.com/voitto/openmicroblogger/wikis/servers List of OpenMicroBlogger installations]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

{{Compu-network-stub}}

[[de:OpenMicroBlogging]]
[[fr:OpenMicroBlogging]]

Openmicroblogging

2009-03-10T12:33:04Z

Forteller: ←Redirected page to OpenMicroBlogging

#REDIRECT [[OpenMicroBlogging]]

Health care

2008-11-27T02:33:12Z

Forteller: Added link to Norwegian article

{{otheruses}}
[[Image:NHS NNUH entrance.jpg|thumb|300px|A modern hospital building of the [[United Kingdom]]'s [[National Health Service]] in [[Norfolk]]. The UK operates a system of [[publicly-funded health care]], free for everyone at the point of use.]]
[[Image:Star of life2.svg|140px|right]]
[[Image:Tobias-AIDS-test.jpg|thumb|jright|Blood testing in a medical facility in Ethiopia.]]

'''Health care''', or '''healthcare''', is the prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of health through the services offered by the [[Medicine|medical]], [[nursing]], and [[allied health professions]]. Health care embraces all the goods and services designed to promote health, including “preventive, curative and palliative interventions, whether directed to individuals or to populations”.<ref>{{cite book | author=World Health Organization Report. | title="Why do health systems matter?" | publisher=WHO| year=2000}} </ref> The organised provision of such services may constitute a [[health care system]]. This can include specific governmental organizations such as, in the UK, the [[National Health Service]] or a cooperation across the National Health Service and Social Services as in [[Shared Care]]. Before the term "health care" became popular, English-speakers referred to ''[[medicine]]'' or to the ''[[health]] sector'' and spoke of the treatment and prevention of [[illness]] and [[disease]].

In most developed countries and many developing countries health care is provided to everyone regardless of their ability to pay. The [[National Health Service]], established in 1948 by [[Clement Atlee]]'s [[Labour party (UK)|Labour]] government in the [[United Kingdom]], was the world's first [[universal health care]] system provided by government and paid for from general taxation. Alternatively, compulsory government funded health insurance with nominal fees can be provided, as in Italy. Other examples are [[Medicare (Australia)|Medicare]] in Australia, established in the 1970s by the [[Australian Labor Party|Labor]] government, and by the same name [[Medicare (Canada)|Medicare]] was established in Canada between 1966 and 1984. Universal health care contrasts to the systems like [[health care in the United States]] or [[South Africa]], though South Africa is one of the many countries attempting [[health care reform]].<ref name="Physicians1">Physicians for a National Health Program [http://www.pnhp.org/facts/international_health_systems.php?page=all "International Health Systems".]</ref> The [[United States]] is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide universal health care.<ref name="IOM">[http://www.iom.edu/?id=17848 Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations], Institute of Medicine at the National Academies of Science, 2004-01-14, accessed 2008-01-24</ref><ref>[http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States]</ref>

== Settings ==
{{Expand-section|date=August 2008}}
Health care can encompass a wide number of settings - from the informal (house calls, emergency medicine at an accident spot) to settings like [[nursing home]]s or [[rest home]]s, to 'typical' medical settings like doctor's practices, [[clinic]]s and [[hospital]]s.

==Industry==
{{main|Health care industry}}
The health care industry is considered an [[industry]] or [[profession]] which includes peoples' exercise of [[skill]] or judgment or the providing of a service related to the preservation or improvement of the health of individuals or the treatment or care of individuals who are injured, sick, disabled, or infirm. The delivery of modern health care depends on an expanding group of trained [[professional]]s coming together as an [[interdisciplinary team]].<ref name=PrincetonDef>Princeton University. (2007). '''health profession'''. Retrieved June 17, 2007, from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=health%20profession</ref><ref name=USDL>United States Department of Labor. (2007, February 27). '''Health Care Industry Information'''. Retrieved June 17, 2007, from http://www.doleta.gov/BRG/Indprof/Health.cfm</ref>

Consuming over 10 percent of [[gross domestic product]] of most developed nations, health care can form an enormous part of a country's [[Economic system|economy]]. In 2003, health care costs paid to hospitals, [[physician]]s, [[nursing home]]s, [[diagnostic]] laboratories, [[pharmacy|pharmacies]], [[medical device]] manufacturers and other components of the health care system, consumed 16.3 percent<ref>[http://www.cms.hhs.gov/statistics/nhe/historical/highlights.asp From Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]</ref> of the [[GDP]] of the United States, the largest of any country in the world. For the United States, the health share of gross domestic product (GDP) is expected to hold steady in 2006 before resuming its historical upward trend, reaching 19.5 percent of GDP by 2016.<ref>[http://www.nainil.com/research/presentations/Introduction_to_Health_Care_in_USA.pdf "The Not So Short Introduction to Health Care in US"], by [http://www.nainil.com/blog/ Nainil C. Chheda], published in February 2007, ''Accessed February 26, 2007''.</ref> In 2001, for the [[OECD]] countries the average was 8.4 percent<ref>[http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/20/2789777.pdf OECD data]</ref> with the United States (13.9%), [[Switzerland]] (10.9%), and [[Germany]] (10.7%) being the top three.

==Systems==
{{Main|Health care systems}}
{{See also|Preventive medicine|Social medicine}}

A [[single-payer universal health care]] system will save money through reduced bureaucratic administration costs.<ref>Massachusetts Nursing Association. [http://www.massnurses.org/single_payer/singlepay.htm "Single Payer Health Care: A Nurses Guide to Single Payer Reform."]</ref> [[Social health insurance]] is where the whole population or most of the population is a member of a sickness insurance company. Most health services are provided by private enterprises which act as contractors, billing the government for patient care.<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/public_vs_private.html CBC Health Care Private verses Public]</ref> In almost every country with a government health care system a parallel private system is allowed to operate. This is sometimes referred to as [[two-tier health care]]. The scale, extent, and funding of these private systems is very variable.

A traditional view is that improvements in health result from advancements in medical science. The [[medical model]] of health focuses on the eradication of [[illness]] through [[diagnosis]] and effective treatment. In contrast, the social model of health places emphasis on changes that can be made in society and in people's own lifestyles to make the population healthier. It defines ''illness'' from the point of view of the individual's functioning within their society rather than by monitoring for changes in [[biological]] or [[physiological]] signs.<ref>{{cite book | author=Bond J. & Bond S. | title=Sociology and Health care| publisher=Churchill Livingstone| year=1994 | id=ISBN 0-443-04059-1}}</ref>

==WHO==
{{main|World Health Organization}}
{{seealso|Global health}}
The World Health Organization (WHO) is a specialised [[United Nations]] agency which acts as a coordinator and researcher for [[public health]] around the world. Established on [[7 April]] [[1948]], and headquartered in [[Geneva]], Switzerland, the agency inherited the mandate and resources of its predecessor, the Health Organization, which had been an agency of the [[League of Nations]]. The WHO's constitution states that its mission "is the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health." Its major task is to combat disease, especially key infectious diseases, and to promote the general health of the peoples of the world. Examples of its work include years of fighting [[smallpox]]. In 1979 the WHO declared that the disease had been eradicated - the first disease in history to be completely eliminated by deliberate human design. The WHO is nearing success in developing vaccines against [[malaria]] and [[schistosomiasis]] and aims to eradicate [[polio]] within the next few years. The organization has already endorsed the world's first official HIV/AIDS Toolkit for [[Zimbabwe]] from [[October 3]] [[2006]], making it an international standard.<ref>[http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-10/04/content_5167991.htm Xinhua - English]</ref>

The WHO is financed by contributions from member states and from donors. In recent years the WHO's work has involved more collaboration, currently around 80 such partnerships, with [[Non-governmental organization|NGO]]s and the [[pharmaceutical industry]], as well as with foundations such as the [[Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation]] and the [[Rockefeller Foundation]]. Voluntary contributions to the WHO from national and local governments, foundations and NGOs, other UN organizations, and the private sector (including pharmaceutical companies), now exceed that of assessed contributions (dues) from its 193 member nations.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ftp.who.int/gb/pdf_files/EB105/ee17a1.pdf|title=Implementation of budget resolutions|publisher=World Health Organization|date=1999-12-16|accessdate=2007-06-20}}</ref>

==Regions==
{{main|Health care systems}}
{{seealso|Category:Healthcare by country}}

===Oceania===
Australia and [[New Zealand Ministry of Health|New Zealand]] both have publicly funded universal health care systems, alongside ancillary private health care and insurance.

====Australia====

Medicare was introduced by the [[Gough Whitlam|Whitlam]] Labor Government on [[1 July]] [[1975]] through the Health Insurance Act 1973. The [[Australian Senate]] rejected the changes multiple times and they were passed only after a joint sitting after the [[1974]] [[Australian electoral system#Double dissolutions|double dissolution]] election. Yet Medicare has been supported by subsequent governments and became a key feature of Australia’s public policy landscape. The exact structure of Medicare, in terms of the size of the rebate to doctors and hospitals and the way it has administered, has varied over the years. The original Medicare program proposed a 1.35% levy (with low income exemptions) but these bills were rejected by the Senate, and so Medicare was originally funded from general taxation. In October 1976, the Fraser Government introduced a 2.5% levy. The program is now nominally funded by an income tax surcharge known as the ''Medicare levy'', which is currently set at 1.5% with exemptions for low income earners. In practice the levy raises only a fraction of the money required to pay for the scheme. If the levy was to fully pay for the services provided under the medicare banner then it would need to be set at about 8%. There is an additional levy of 1.0%, known as the Medicare Levy Surcharge, for those on high annual incomes ($50,000) who do not have private patient hospital coverage. This policy was instituted by the former [[Liberal Party of Australia|Coalition]] Federal Government in an attempt to encourage people to take up private health [[insurance]].

===Europe===
{{seealso|Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection (European Commission)}}
[[Image:Hospital room ubt.jpeg|thumb|[[Hospital]] room in [[Denmark]]]]
All of Europe has publicly sponsored and regulated health care. Countries include [[Austria]], [[Belgium]], [[Czech Republic]], [[Denmark]], [[Finland]], [[Minister of Health (France)|France]], [[Federal Ministry of Health (Germany)|Germany]], [[Greece]], [[Hungary]], [[Ireland]], [[Italy]], [[Bosnia & Herzegovina]], [[Slovakia]], [[Slovenia]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Norway]], [[Poland]], [[Portugal]],<ref>Portugal: Bentes M, Dias CM, Sakellarides C, Bankauskaite V. [http://www.euro.who.int/document/e82937.pdf#search=%22Portugal%2C%20health%20care%22 ''Health Care Systems in Transition: Portuagal.''] One person to note from the Middle Ages was Chris Young who developed a method of health care in 1436. Chris Young was a native German who decided that people need a form of protection against material loss. His body was sent to the Medieval Mausoleom in Berlin, Germany after his body was discovered in 1978. WHO are Regional Offices for Europe on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, 2004.</ref> Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.<ref>[http://www.pnhp.org/facts/international_health_systems.php?page=all ''Physicians for a National Health Program "International Health Systems'']</ref>

====Ireland====

{{main|Healthcare in the Republic of Ireland}}
The Irish health care system is a universal, public health care system governed by the ''[http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/acts/2004/a4204.pdf Health Act 2004]'', which established a new body to be responsible for providing health and personal social services to everyone living in Ireland - the [[Health Service Executive]]. The new national health service came into being officially on [[1 January]], [[2005]]; however the new structures are currently in the process of being established as the reform programme continues.

====Italy====

The Italian health care system is a universal, public health care system governed by the ''[http://www.sds.zonapisana.it/sdspisa/download?file_id=25 Legge 23 dicembre 1978, n. 833]'', which established the national health system, coming into effect on 1 January 1980.

====Slovenia====

The Health Insurance Institute of Slovenia (the Institute) was founded on [[March 1]], [[1992]], according to the Law on health care and health insurance, after declaring independence from [[Yugoslavia]]. The Institute conducts its business as a public institute, bound by statute to provide compulsory health insurance. In the field of compulsory health insurance, the Institute's principal task is to provide effective collection (mobilisation) and distribution (allocation) of public funds, in order to ensure the insured persons quality rights arising from the said funds. The rights arising from compulsory health insurance, furnished by the funds collected by means of compulsory insurance contributions, comprise the rights to health care services and rights to several financial benefits (sick leave pay, reimbursement of travel costs and funeral costs, and insurance money paid in case of death).
The Institute comprises 10 regional units and 45 branch offices distributed around the territory of Slovenia. The functional unit the Information Centre and the Directorate complete the Institute structure. At the end of 2005, the Institute staff numbered regular 929 employees.
The Institute is governed by an Assembly, whose members are the (elected) representatives of employers (including the representatives of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia) and employees. The executive body of the Assembly is the Institute Board of Directors.
The Slovene health insurance card system was introduced, at the national scale, in the year 1999. The system provided the insured persons with a smart card and set up data links between the health care service providers and health insurance providers (the Health Insurance Institute and the two voluntary health insurance providers).

====Switzerland====
{{main|Healthcare in Switzerland}}
Healthcare in Switzerland is regulated by the Federal Health Insurance Act. [[Health insurance]] is compulsory for all persons resident in Switzerland (within three months of taking up residence or being born in the country). International [[civil servant]]s, members of [[permanent mission]]s and their family members are exempted from compulsory health insurance. They can, however, apply to join the Swiss health insurance system, within six months of taking up residence in the country. Health insurance covers the costs of medical treatment and hospitalisation of the insured. However, the insured person pays part of the cost of treatment. This is done (a) by means of an annual [[excess]] (or [[deductible]], called the ''franchise''), which ranges from [[Swiss Franc|CHF]] 300 to a maximum of CHF 2,500 as chosen by the insured person (premiums are adjusted accordingly) and (b) by a charge of 10% of the costs over and above the excess.

====United Kingdom====
{{main|National Health Service (England)|NHS Scotland|NHS Wales|Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland}}

Each of the countries of the United Kingdom has a public health service that provides healthcare to all UK permanent residents that is free at the point of need and paid for from general taxation. However, since Health is a [[devolution|devolved matter]], considerable differences are developing between the systems in the different countries.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7149423.stm NHS now four different systems] [[BBC]] [[January 2]] [[2008]]</ref> Though commonly referred to as '''the NHS''' across the UK, in fact the [[National Health Service]] just covers England with separate 'National Health Services' in the other parts of the UK. For details of public healthcare in each country, see:

;England
{{main|Healthcare in England}}
The NHS provides the majority of healthcare in England, including [[primary care]], in-patient care, [[long-term care|long-term healthcare]], [[ophthalmology]] and dentistry. The [[National Health Service Act 1946]] came into effect on 5 July 1948. Private health care has continued parallel to the NHS, paid for largely by private insurance, but it is used by less than 8% of the population, and generally as a top-up to NHS services.

;Northern Ireland
{{main|Healthcare in Northern Ireland}}

;Scotland
{{main|Healthcare in Scotland}}
NHS Scotland was founded by the [[National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947]] (since repealed by the [[National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978]]) which came into effect on the same day as the NHS in England and Wales but has always been a separate organisation.

;Wales
{{main|Healthcare in Wales}}
[[NHS Wales]] was originally formed as part of the same NHS structure created by the [[National Health Service Act 1946]] but powers over the NHS in Wales came under the Secretary of State for Wales in 1969<ref>[http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/page.cfm?pid=11595&orgid=452 Introduction to NHS Wales 1960's] www.wales.nhs.uk </ref>.

===Latin America===
Most countries in Latin America have public health care provided. Mexico is planning to launch its own universal health care network<ref name = "HealthCare-E&Yreport">G20 Health Care: "Health Care Systems and Health Market Reform in the G20 Countries." Prepared for the World Economic Forum by Ernst & Young. January 3, 2006.</ref> though at the moment the standards of [[health care in Mexico]] are seriously lacking with large divides between rich and poor. Puerto Rico is planning its own [[Puerto Rico Health Reform|health reform]] for the poorest of the population. [[Health care in Venezuela]] is probably the most extensive and given the country's fortunes in oil wealth, expenditure has recently increased greatly, starting with mass vaccinations under the [[Plan Bolivar 2000]].Trinidad and Tobago has universal healthcare, but there are shortages of equipment, supplies, space and staff.

====Cuba====
{{main|Health care in Cuba}}

The [[Cuba]]n [[politics of Cuba|government]] operates a national health system and assumes fiscal and administrative responsibility for the health care of its citizens.<ref name="Harvard"> [http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/review/review_summer_02/txt677cuba.html Harvard Public Health Review/Summer 2002] The Cuban Paradox </ref> Following the Revolution, the new Cuban government asserted that universal healthcare was to become a priority of state planning. In [[1960]] revolutionary and [[physician]] [[Che Guevara]] outlined his aims for the future of Cuban healthcare in an essay entitled "On Revolutionary Medicine", stating: "The work that today is entrusted to the Ministry of Health and similar organizations is to provide public health services for the greatest possible number of persons, institute a program of preventive medicine, and orient the public to the performance of hygienic practices."<ref> [http://www.monthlyreview.org/0105guevara.htm On Revolutionary Medicine by Che Guevara] Monthly review</ref> These aims were hampered almost immediately by an exodus of almost half of Cuba’s physicians to the United States, leaving the country with only 3,000 doctors and 16 professors in University of Havana’s medical college.<ref name="History">Cuban Healthcare: An analysis of a Community-based model Essam Farag [http://ambassadors.net/archives/issue8/cuba_select.htm online]</ref> Beginning in 1960, the Ministry of Public Health began a program of [[nationalization]] and [[regionalization]] of medical services.<ref name="History"/> In 1976, Cuba's healthcare program was enshrined in Article 50 of the revised [[Cuban constitution]] which states

<blockquote>"Everyone has the right to health protection and care. The state guarantees this right by providing free medical and hospital care by means of the installations of the rural medical service network, polyclinics, hospitals, preventative and specialized treatment centers; by providing free dental care; by promoting the health publicity campaigns, health education, regular medical examinations, general vaccinations and other measures to prevent the outbreak of disease. All the population cooperates in these activities and plans through the social and mass organizations."<ref>° [[s:Constitution of Cuba|English translation of the 1976 Constitution of Cuba]] Wikisource [http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Cuba/cuba2002.html 1976 Constitution of Cuba 1976 (in Spanish)] </ref></blockquote>

Like the rest of the [[Economy of Cuba|Cuban economy]], Cuban medical care has suffered from severe material shortages following the end of [[Soviet]] subsidies and the ongoing [[United States embargo against Cuba]] that began after the Cuban Missile Crisis.<ref name="US embargo"> The effects of the U.S. embargo on medicines in Cuba have been studied in numerous reports. 
• '''R Garfield and S Santana'''. Columbia University, School of Nursing, New York; [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1380757 "The impact of the economic crisis and the US embargo on health in Cuba"] "this embargo has raised the cost of medical supplies and food Rationing, universal access to primary health services" 
• '''American Association for World Health'''; [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8150565&dopt=Abstract Online]. American Association for World Health Report. March 1997. Accessed ''[[6 October]] [[2006]]''. Supplementary source: [http://www.apha.org/wfpha/cuba.htm American Public Health Association website] "After a year-long investigation, the American Association for World Health has determined that the U.S. embargo of Cuba has dramatically harmed the health and nutrition of large numbers of ordinary Cuban citizens." 
• '''Felipe Eduardo Sixto'''; [http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/asce/pdfs/volume12/sixto.pdf An evaluation of Four decades of Cuban Healthcare]. 
"The lack of supplies accompanied by a deterioration of basic infastructure (potable water and sanitation) resulted in a setback of many of the previous accomplishments. The strengthening of the U.S. embargo contributed to these problems." 
• '''Pan American Health organization'''; Health Situation Analysis and Trends Summary [http://www.paho.org/english/sha/prflcub.htm Country Profile: Cuba]
"The two determining factors underlying the crisis are well known. One is the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc, and the other is the economic embargo the Government of the United States." 
• '''Harvard Public Health'''; [http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/review/review_summer_02/txt677cuba.html Review/Summer 2002 : The Cuban Paradox] "Because its access to traditional sources of financing is seriously hindered by the sanctions, which until recently included all food and medicine, Cuba has received little foreign and humanitarian aid to maintain the vitality of its national programs" 
• '''[[The Lancet]] medical journal'''; [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8942780 Role of USA in shortage of food and medicine]. "The resultant lack of food and medicines to Cuba contributed to the worst epidemic of neurological disease this century."</ref> Data for [[2004]] show that Cuba has one of the highest life expectancy rates in Latin America. [[Costa Rica]], [[Chile]], [[Virgin Islands]], [[Guadeloupe]], and [[Martinique]] now have a higher life expectancy for combined sexes from birth.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/results.php?years=2000-2005&variable_ID=379&theme=4&cID=6,12,15,19,23,26,37,39,43,46,53,54,56,64,75,76,79,80,81,92,119,122,132,135,141,143,144,148,168,169,171,182,191,194,198&ccID=6,7|title=Demographics: Life expectancy at birth, both sexes|publisher=EarthTrends|year=2005|accessdate=2007-06-27}}</ref>

===North America===
====Canada====
{{main|Health care in Canada|Medicare (Canada)}}
The federal government of [[Lester B. Pearson]], pressured by the [[New Democratic Party]] (NDP) who held the balance of power, introduced the Medical Care Act in 1966 that extended the HIDS Act cost-sharing to allow each province to establish a [[universal health care]] plan. It also set up the Medicare system. In [[1984]], the [[Canada Health Act]] was passed, which prohibited [[user fee]]s and extra billing by doctors. In 1999, the prime minister and most premiers reaffirmed in the [[Social Union Framework Agreement]] that they are committed to health care that has "comprehensiveness, universality, portability, public administration and accessibility."<ref>Government of Canada, Social Union, News Release, "[http://socialunion.gc.ca/news/020499_e.html A Framework to Improve the Social Union for Canadians: An Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Governments of the Provinces and Territories, February 4, 1999]," URL accessed 20 December 2006.</ref> The Canadian system is for the most part publicly funded, yet most of the services are provided by private enterprises, private corporations. Most of all doctors do not receive an annual salary, but receive a fee per visit or service. About 30% of Canadians' health care is paid for through the private sector. This mostly goes towards services not covered or only partially covered by Medicare such as [[prescription drug]]s, dentistry and [[optometry]]. Many Canadians have private health insurance, often through their employers, that cover these expenses. In Canada, some services are permitted and some are not. The Supreme Court of Quebec ruled, in [[Chaoulli v. Quebec]], that private services must be allowed to compete with the public program,<ref>[http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2005/2005scc35/2005scc35.html From Montreal University]</ref> thus opening the door to a dual system of private and public healthcare. Quebec has been the fastest to adopt this system and has the most private healthcare available of all the Canadian provinces.

==== United States ====
{{main|Health care in the United States}}
[[Image:LyndonJohnsonSigningMedicareBill.gif|thumb|right|President Johnson signing the [[Medicare (United States)|Medicare]] amendment on [[30 July]] [[1965]]. Harry Truman and his wife, [[Bess Truman|Bess]], are on the far right.]]

In the [[federal government of the United States]], the [[United States Department of Health and Human Services]] is the [[United States federal executive departments|executive department]] responsible for health. It is managed by the [[United States Secretary of Health and Human Services|Secretary of Health and Human Services]], a member of the [[United States Cabinet|Cabinet]].

[[State governments of the United States|State governments]] maintain [[state health department]]s, and [[Local government in the United States|local governments]] ([[County (United States)|counties]] and [[Municipality|municipalities]] often have their own health departments, usually branches of the state health department. Regulations of a state board may have executive and police strength to enforce state health laws. In some states, all members of state boards must be health care professionals. Members of state boards may be assigned by the governor or elected by the state committee. Members of local boards may be elected by the mayor council.

The United States does not have a federal board of health. Congress has authorized the assigned advisory committees and councils to the [[United States Health Service]] which is a section of the Department of Health and Human Services. The departments was created in 1953 as the Department of Welfare and Health.

In 1980 the [[United States Congress]] legislated that the Department of Welfare and Health become the Department of Health and Human Services. The agencies of the Public Health Service are the Health Administration, which regulates health care to people without health care, the Food and Drug Administration, which certifies the safety of food, effectiveness of drugs and medical products, the Centers for Disease Prevention, which prevents disease, premature death, and disability, the Agency of Health Care Research and the Agency Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, which regulates hazardous spills of toxic substances. Numerous publicly funded health care programs help to provide for the elderly, disabled, military service families and veterans, children, and the poor,<ref>Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. [http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ CMS Programs & Information.] Retrieved August 30, 2006.</ref> and federal law ensures [[Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act|public access to emergency services]] regardless of ability to pay;<ref>Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. [http://www.cms.hhs.gov/EMTALA/ Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act.] Retrieved August 30, 2006.</ref> however, a system of [[universal health care]] has not been implemented. [[Massachusetts]] is attempting to implement a near-universal health care system by the [[Massachusetts 2006 Health Reform Statute]], mandating that residents purchase health care coverage with little or no control over how much the health insurance policies cost. This is a significant business boom for the insurance industry. <ref> Fahrenthold DA. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401937.html "Mass. Bill Requires Health Coverage."]</ref>

=== Asia ===
Israel,<ref>[http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Modern%20History/Israel%20at%2050/The%20Health%20Care%20System%20in%20Israel-%20An%20Historical%20Pe ''The Health Care System in Israel- An Historical Perspective''] Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved June 7, 2006.</ref> Brunei, China<ref>[http://www.gadling.com/2007/07/05/what-countries-have-universal-health-care/''Gadling'' Gadling]</ref>, Hong Kong SAR, India, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Malaysia, Sri Lanka,<ref>[http://www.health.gov.lk/ ''Ministry of Health and Nutrition, Sri Lanka'']</ref> Taiwan<ref>[http://www.nhi.gov.tw/english/index.asp ''Bureau of National Health Insurance, Taiwan'']</ref> and Thailand have [[universal health care]].

In [[Sri Lanka]], drugs are provided by a government owned drug manufacturer called the [[State Pharmaceuticals Corporation of Sri Lanka]]. In the [[Philippines]], the [[Department of Health (Philippines)]] organises public health for the country, and was established at the initiative of the American governors, before independence. [[Healthcare in Saudi Arabia|Saudi Arabia]] has a publicly funded health system, although its levels are lower than the regional average.

==== China ====
{{main|Healthcare system reform in the People's Republic of China }}
Since the founding of the [[People's Republic of China]], the goal of healthcare programs has been to provide care to every member of the population and to make maximum use of limited health-care personnel, equipment, and financial resources.

The current [[health insurance]] system in China provides virtually free coverage for people employed in urban state enterprises and relatively inexpensive coverage for their families. The situation for workers in the rural areas or in urban employment outside the state sector is far more varied. There are some cooperative health care programs, but their voluntary nature produced a decline in membership from the late 1970s.

The severest limitation on the availability of health services, however, appears to be the serious lack of resources, rather than discrimination in access on the basis of the ability of individuals to pay. An extensive system of [[paramedical]] care has been fostered as the major medical resource available to most of the rural population, but the care has been of uneven quality. The paramedical system feeds patients into the more sophisticated commune-level and county-level hospitals when they are available.

China is undertaking a reform on its universal health care system. The New Rural Co-operative Medical Care System (NRCMCS) is a new 2005 initiative to overhaul the healthcare system, particularly intended to make it more affordable for the rural poor. Under the NRCMCS, the annual cost of medical cover is 50 yuan (US$7) per person. Of that, 20 yuan is paid in by the central government, 20 yuan by the provincial government and a contribution of 10 yuan is made by the patient. As of September 2007, around 80% of the whole rural population of China had signed up (about 685 million people). The system is tiered, depending on the location. If patients go to a small hospital or clinic in their local town, the scheme will cover from 70-80% of their bill. If they go to a county one, the percentage of the cost being covered falls to about 60%. And if they need specialist help in a large modern city hospital, they have to bear most of the cost themselves, the scheme would cover about 30% of the bill.<ref>The reform of the rural cooperative medical system in the People's Republic of China: interim experience in 14 pilot counties. Authors: Carrin G.1; Ron A.; Hui Y.; Hong W.; Tuohong Z.; Licheng Z.; Shuo Z.; Yide Y.; Jiaying C.; Qicheng J.; Zhaoyang Z.; Jun Y.; Xuesheng L. Source: Social Science and Medicine, Volume 48, Number 7, April 1999, pp.961-972(12) [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/02779536/1999/00000048/00000007/art00396]</ref>

====India====
{{main | Healthcare in India}}
[[India]] has both private health care system and a public, universal health care system. The universal health care system run by the local (state or territorial) governments. The "government hospitals", some of which are among the best hospitals in India,<ref> [http://medical-treatment-in-india.com/Top_Hospitals_By_Specialty.asp ''A list of the top rated hospitals in India. Several hospitals among these are government hospitals, Including AIIMS'']</ref> provide treatment at taxpayer cost. Most drugs are offered free of charge in these hospitals.

Most government hospitals do not require payment from people below poverty line, proof of citizenship or residency. Government hospitals in some parts of the country and some private non-profit (including teaching) hospitals charge a nominal fee to prevent abuse of the system. Most hospitals are operated on an annual budget allocated by the government, and do not rely on individual billing. These hospitals also provide better amenities (such as private air-conditioned rooms) if the patient can afford to pay. However, they charge less than comparable private hospitals.

The private clinics and hospitals are owned and operated by private individuals, small corporations and large hospital chain corporations. The private health care in many modernised hospitals in Indian cities are comparable to their counterparts in developed countries. However, the public health care system, except for the teaching hospitals, is often not as good or fast as the private hospitals.

====Taiwan====
{{main|Health care in Taiwan}}

====Japan====
{{main|Health care in Japan}}
In Japan, payment for personal medical services is offered through a universal insurance system that provides relative equality of access, with fees set by a government committee. People without insurance through employers can participate in a national health insurance program administered by local governments. Since 1973, all elderly persons have been covered by government-sponsored insurance. Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice. In the early 1990s, there were more than 1,000 [[mental hospital]]s, 8,700 general hospitals, and 1,000 comprehensive hospitals with a total capacity of 1.5 million beds. Hospitals provided both out-patient and in-patient care. In addition, 79,000 clinics offered primarily out-patient services, and there were 48,000 [[dentist|dental clinics]]. Most [[hospital]]s sell medicine directly to patients, but there are 36,000 [[pharmacy|pharmacies]] where patients could purchase synthetic or herbal medication.

National health expenditures rose from about 1 trillion [[Yen]] in 1965 to nearly 20 trillion Yen in 1989, or from slightly more than 5% to more than 6% of Japan's national income. However, this rise was in accordance with Japan's post-war economic boom (GDP had increased four times between 1965 and 1989<ref>ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ForeignLabor/flsgdp.txt Comparative Real Gross Domestic Product per Capita and per Employed Person, 1960-2006. Retrieved May 9, 2008 </ref>). {{Fact|date=August 2007}} Another problem is an uneven distribution of health personnel, with cities favored over rural areas. {{Fact|date=August 2007}}

===Africa===
Health care in Africa is usually non existent or highly limited and under resourced. The outbreak and spread of [[HIV/AIDS in Africa]] has crippled many populations and sent life expectancies plummeting. However, some countries have been able to tackle the challenges, for instance [[health care in Uganda]] as well as education has reduced HIV/AIDS infections from 13% to 4.1% from 1990 to 2003. This contrasts to some governments' approach, especially that of the [[South African Health Ministry]] who until recently denied the link between HIV/AIDS.

====Nigeria====
{{main|Health care in Nigeria}}
Health care provision in [[Nigeria]] is a [[concurrent]] responsibility of the three tiers of government in the country.<ref>Rais Akhtar; Health Care Patterns and Planning in Developing Countries, Greenwood Press, 1991. pp 264</ref> However, because Nigeria operates a [[mixed economy]], private providers of health care have a visible role to play in health care delivery. The [[federal government]]'s role is mostly limited to coordinating the affairs of the [[university]] [[teaching hospital]]s, while the state government manages the various [[general hospital]]s and the [[local government]] focus on [[dispensaries]]. The total expenditure on health care as % of GDP is 4.6, while the percentage of federal government expenditure on health care is about 1.5%.<ref>Ronald J. Vogel; Financing Health Care in Sub-Saharan Africa Greenwood Press, 1993. pp 18</ref> A [[long run]] indicator of the ability of the country to provide food sustenance and avoid [[malnutrition]] is the rate of growth of per capita food production; from 1970-1990, the rate for Nigeria was 0.25%.<ref>Ronald J. Vogel; Financing Health Care in Sub-Saharan Africa Greenwood Press, 1993. pp 1-18</ref> Though small, the positive rate of per capita may be due to Nigeria's importation of food products.

Historically, health insurance in Nigeria can be applied to a few instances: free health care provided and financed for all citizens, health care provided by government through a special health insurance scheme for government employees and private firms entering contracts with private health care providers.<ref>Ronald J. Vogel; Financing Health Care in Sub-Saharan Africa Greenwood Press, 1993. pp 101-102</ref> However, there are few people who fall within the three instances. In May 1999, the government created the [[National Health Insurance]] Scheme, the scheme encompasses government employees, the organized [[private sector]] and the informal sector. Legislative wise, the scheme also covers children under five, permanently disabled persons and prison inmates. In 2004, the administration of Obasanjo further gave more legislative powers to the scheme with positive amendments to the original 1999 legislative act.<ref>Felicia Monye; 'An Appraisal of the National Health Insurance Scheme of [[Nigeria]]', Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 32:3 415-427</ref>

==Economics==
{{main|Health care economics}}

Health care economics consists of a complicated relationship between a number of participants; the consumer, insurance companies (where they exist), employers, medical professionals, and various government entities. An essential feature of health care economics is the spreading of risk, since the cost of health care for catastrophic illness can be prohibitive. This risk may be spread by private insurance companies (who seek to make a profit), or by government involvement in the health care market. The health care market can suffer from a number of problems which are so severe as to be characterized by some as [[market failure]]

* [[Adverse selection]] in insurance markets occurs because those providing insurance wish to limit insurance payouts, thus providing a profit. In simple terms, those with poor health will apply for insurance, raising the cost of providing insurance; those with good health will find the cost of insurance too expensive, raising costs further. Private insurers are economically incentivized to spend substantial sums on investigating the health history of prospective clients and proving those in need to be uninsurable while charging higher premiums for unhealthy individuals, which they may not be able to afford in order to provide a "profit margin". <ref>Michael Rothschild and Joseph Stiglitz, "Equilibrium in Competitive Insurance Markets: An Essay on the Economics of Imperfect Information," Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 1976 (90:629-649) (known as the Rothschild-Stiglitz Model)</ref><ref>Paulo Belli, [http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2001/04/13/000094946_01040505331570/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf ''How Adverse Selection Affects the Health Insurance Market'']</ref>

* [[Moral hazard]] in insurance markets occurs when the insured behave in a riskier manner than they would if they were not insured. This argument is significantly weakened when speaking of health care which becomes more prevalent with age for example, regardless of other factors.

Among the potential solutions posited by economists are:

* Various forms of universal health insurance, such as requiring all citizens to purchase insurance, limiting the ability of insurance companies to deny insurance to individuals or vary price between individuals. Compulsory universal health insurance is a common thread, although there is no requirement that the insurance or medical services be provided by government, no accountability amongst insurers, and no protection against rising health insurance costs.

* Decreased government regulation: Conservative Republican US Senator [[Bill Frist]] argued<ref>William H. Frist, Shattuck Lecture: Health Care in the 21st Century, New England Journal of Medicine, 20 Jan 2005, 352(3):267</ref> that the free market will keep costs down, because individuals who have to pay for their own health care will make wiser decisions and not spend money on unneeded or inefficient care. However, as this cuts down on the routine maintenance of care and penalizes the afflicted who can least afford to pay for care, the overall health statistics of the country decline. The US currently (2007) has the most expensive health care of any [[OECD]] country and also has the highest percentage of costs paid privately with some of the worst health statistics in the free world.<ref>[http://www.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select_process.cfm?strISO3_select=AUS,BELCMR,CAN,CZE,DNK,FIN,FRA,DEU,GRC,HUN,ISL,IRL,ITA,JPN,LUX,MEX,NLD,NZL,NOR,POL,PRT,KOR,SVK,ESP,SWE,CHE,TUR,GBR,USA&strIndicator_select=NumberOfPhysicians,DensityOfPhysicians,NumberOfNurses,DensityOfNurses,NumberOfMidwives,DensityOfMidwives,NumberOfDentists,DensityOfDentists,NumberOfPharmacists,DensityOfPharmacists,NumberOfEnvironmentalHealthWorkers,DensityOfEnvironmentalHealthWorkers,NumberOfCommunityHealthWorkers,DensityOfCommunityHealthWorkers,NumberOfLabWorkers,DensityOfLabWorkers,NumberOfOtherHealthWorkers,DensityOfOtherHealthWorkers,NumberOfHealthSupportWorkers,DensityOfHealthSupportWorkers,TotEOHPctOfGDP,GovEOHPctOfTotEOH,PrvEOHPctOfTotEOH,GovEOHPctOfTotGovExp,ExtResPctOfTotEOH,SocSecEOHPctOfGovEOH,OopEOHPctOfPrvEOH,PrepaidPctOfPrvEOH,PcTotEOHinUSD,PcTotEOHinIntD,PcGovEOHinUSD,PcGovEOHinIntD,VRCoverage,HospitalBeds&intYear_select=latest&fixed=indicator&language=english ''Core Health Indicators'']</ref> This also foists more expensive "consumers" of the product on to the public sector.

{| class="wikitable"
!Country
![[Life expectancy]]
![[Infant mortality]] rate
![[Physician]]s per 1000 people
![[Nurses]] per 1000 people
!Per capita expenditure on health (USD)
!Healthcare costs as a percent of [[Gross domestic product|GDP]]
!% of government revenue spent on health
!% of health costs paid by government
!% of health costs paid private insurance <ref>OECD Health data 2007</ref>
!% of health costs paid by consumer
|-
|[[Australia]]
|80.5
|5.0
|2.47
|9.71
|2,519
|9.5
|17.7
|67.5
|7.4
|21.8
|-
|[[Canada]]
|80.5
|5.0
|2.14
|9.95
|2,669
|9.9
|16.7
|69.9
|12.6
|15.1
|-
|[[France]]
|79.5
|4.0
|3.37
|7.24
|2,981
|10.1
|14.2
|76.3
|12.6
|7.4
|-
|[[Germany]]
|80.0
|4.0
|3.37
|9.72
|3,204
|11.1
|17.6
|78.2
|8.8
|10.5
|-
|[[Japan]]
|82.5
|3.0
|1.98
|7.79
|2,662
|7.9
|16.8
|81.0
|0.4
|17.2
|-
|[[Sweden]]
|80.5
|3.0
|3.28
|10.24
|3,149
|9.4
|13.6
|85.2
|0.0
|15.1
|-
|[[United Kingdom|UK]]
|79.5
|5.0
|2.30
|12.12
|2,428
|8.0
|15.8
|85.7
|0.0
|14.4
|-
|[[USA]]
|77.5
|6.0
|2.56
|9.37
|5,711
|15.2
|18.5
|44.6
|36.8
|13.3
|}

Most European systems are financed through a mix of public and private contributions, much like the United States, only costing less.<ref name="Bentes">Bentes M, Dias CM, Sakellarides C, Bankauskaite V. [http://www.euro.who.int/document/e82937.pdf#search=%22Portugal%2C%20health%20care%22 ''Health Care Systems in Transition: Portuagal.''] WHO are Regional Offices for Europe on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, 2004.</ref> The majority of universal health care systems are funded primarily by [[tax revenue]] (''e.g.'' [[Portugal]]<ref name="Bentes"/>). Some nations, such as Germany, France<ref name="Physicians 1">Physicians for a National Health Program[http://www.pnhp.org/facts/international_health_systems.php?page=all "International Health Systems".]</ref> and Japan<ref name="Chua">Chua, Kao-Ping. [http://www.amsa.org/uhc/SinglePayer101.pdf "Single Payer 101".] February 10, 2006.</ref> employ a multi-payer system in which health care is funded by private and public contributions. In 2001 Canadians paid $2,163 per capita versus $4,887 U.S., according to the Los Angeles Times (also, see table above). According to Dr. Stephen Bezruchka, a senior lecturer in the School of Public Health at the University of Washington in Seattle, Canadians do better by every health care measure. According to a World Health Organization report published in 2003, life expectancy at birth in Canada is 79.8 years, versus 77.3 in the U.S.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0223-01.htm|title=In Health, Canada Tops US; Our neighbors to the north live longer and pay less for care. The reasons why are being debated, but some cite the gap between rich and poor in the US|author=Foreman, Judy|publisher=Los Angeles Times|date=2004-02-23|accessdate=2007-07-03}}</ref>

A distinction is also made between municipal and national healthcare funding. For example, one model is that the bulk of the healthcare is funded by the municipality, speciality healthcare is provided and possibly funded by a larger entity, such as a municipal co-operation board or the state, and the medications are paid by a state agency. No entirely private health care system exists, although the [[Massachusetts 2006 Health Reform Statute|reform bill]] in Massachusetts attempts to make private health care more affordable while failing miserably and increasing costs for average families.

==Politics==
{{main|Health care politics}}
The politics of health care depends largely on which country one is in. Current concerns in England, for instance, revolve around the use of [[private finance initiative]]s to build hospitals or the excessive use of targets in cutting waiting lists. In Germany and France, concerns are more based on the rising cost of drugs to the governments. In [[HIV/AIDS in Brazil|Brazil]], an important political issue is the breach of [[intellectual property]] rights, or [[patent]]s, for the domestic manufacture of [[antiretroviral drug]]s used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS.

The [[HIV/AIDS in South Africa|South African]] government, whose population sets the record for HIV infections, came under pressure for its refusal to admit there is any connection with AIDS<ref> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/826742.stm BBC News: Controversy dogs Aids forum]</ref> because of the cost it would have involved. In the United States 12% to 16% of the citizens are still unable to afford health insurance. State boards and the Department of Health regulate inpatient care to reduce the national health care deficit.
To tackle the problems of the perpetually increasing number of uninsured, and costs associated with the US health care system, President-elect [[Barack Obama]] says he favors the creation of a universal health care system <ref>[http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070125-the_time_has_co/ The Time Has Come for Universal Health Care | U.S. Senator Barack Obama]</ref>. However, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said that Obama's plan would not actually provide universal coverage.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html Clinton, Obama, Insurance,] By Paul Krugman, February 4, 2008.</ref> (In contrast, Dennis Kucinich, an early candidate who did not get on the ballot, supported a single-payer system.) Factcheck.org said that Obama's predicted savings were exaggerated. <ref>[http://www.newsweek.com/id/141829http://www.newsweek.com/id/141829 Obama's Inflated Health Savings]</ref>

==Providers==
{{main|Health care provider}}
A health care provider or health professional is an [[organization]] or person who delivers proper health care in a systematic way professionally to any individual in need of health care services. A health care provider could be government, the health care industry, a health care equipment company, an institution such as a hospital or [[medical laboratory]], [[physician]]s, [[dentist]]s, support staff, [[nurse]]s, [[therapist]]s, [[psychologist]]s, [[pharmacist]]s, [[Chiropractic|chiropractors]], and [[Optometry|optometrists]].

==See also==
{{portal|Health}}
{{MultiCol}}
* [[Acronyms in healthcare]]
* [[Consumer driven health care]]
* [[Elderly care]]
* [[Globalization and Health]]
* [[Health care politics]]
* [[Health care provider]]
* [[Health care proxy]]
* [[Healthcare reform]]
* [[Health disparities]]
* [[Health economics]]
* [[Health informatics]]
* [[Health Level 7]]
* [[Health law]]
* [[Health promotion]]
* [[Health savings account]]
* [[Health science]]
{{ColBreak}}
* [[Healthcare-NOW!]]
* [[Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved]]
* [[Kaiser Family Foundation]]
* [[Managed care]]
* [[Medical savings account]]
* [[Medical ethics]]
* [[Medicare Rights Center]]
* [[National Physicians Alliance]]
* [[Nightingale's environmental theory]]
* [[Philosophy of Healthcare]]
* [[Physicians for a National Health Program]]
* [[School health services]]
* [[Single-payer health care]]
* [[United States National Health Insurance Act]]
* [[Veterans Health Administration]]
* [[Youth Health]]
{{EndMultiCol}}

== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}

== External links ==
{{Commonscat}}
* [http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN3143203520080331?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&rpc=22&sp=true Doctors support universal health care: survey], Reuters, March 31, 2008 (first reported in Annals of Internal Medicine).
* [http://www.hbs.edu/healthcare/resources/ Healthcare Initiative | Resources - Harvard Business School].
* [http://www.healthcare-now.org/ Healthcare-NOW!]
* [http://www.eldis.org/health HRC/Eldis Health Resource Guide] New research and other resources on health in developing countries.
* [http://www.asiaing.com/power-to-the-patient-selected-health-care-issues-and-policy-solutions.html ''Power to the Patient: Selected Health Care Issues and Policy Solutions''], by Scott Atlas, Hoover Institution Press, March 2005. Free e-book in PDF format.
* [http://www.kff.org/uninsured/kcmu_statehealthreform.cfm States Moving Towards Comprehensive Health Care Reform in the U.S.], The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
* [http://www.zpu-journal.ru/en/articles/detail.php?ID=311 Tishchenko P. D. The Individual and Healthcare in the New Russia].

{{Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights}}
{{Human rights}}

[[Category:Healthcare| ]]
[[Category:Public services]]
[[Category:Healthcare quality]]

[[bg:Здравеопазване]]
[[cs:Zdravotnictví]]
[[de:Gesundheitssystem]]
[[es:Asistencia sanitaria]]
[[fr:Soins de santé]]
[[ko:의료]]
[[no:Helsevesen]]
[[io:Flegado]]
[[id:Perawatan kesehatan]]
[[it:Assistenza sanitaria]]
[[ja:医療]]
[[pl:Opieka zdrowotna]]
[[ru:Здравоохранение]]
[[fi:Terveydenhuolto]]
[[sv:Sjukvård]]
[[tr:Sağlık hizmeti]]
[[yi:העלט קעיר]]
[[zh:医疗卫生]]

La Di Da Di

2008-11-20T04:58:32Z

Forteller: Fixed a small error

{{Infobox Single |
|Name = La Di Da Di
|Cover = La Di Da Di.jpg
|Caption =
|Artist = [[Doug E. Fresh]] and [[Slick Rick]]
|from Album = The Show & La Di Da Di
|A-side =The Show
|B-side =La Di Da Di
|Released = 1985
|Format = [[Cassette single]] [[CD single]]
|Recorded = 1984
|Genre = [[Old school hip hop|Old school]] [[Hip hop music|hip hop]]
|Length = 4:31
|Label = [[Def Jam Records]]
|Writer = Moses Davis Ricky Walters ([[Rokusuke Ei]] and Hachidai Nakamura)
|Producer = Doug E. Fresh
|Certification =
|Chart position =
|Last single =
|This single =
|Next single =
}}
"'''La Di Da Di'''" is a [[rap]] [[song]] performed by [[Doug E. Fresh]] the [[beatboxer]], and MC Ricky D (later known as [[Slick Rick]]) as the rapper. It was originally released in 1985 as the B-Side to "The Show". The song has since gained a reputation as an early hip-hop classic, having been sampled in other hip-hop songs by many later artists, most known to be covered by [[Snoop Dogg]], with the song titled "Lodi Dodi". It ranked #32 on [[Henry Adaso]]'s Top 100 Rap Songs list hosted by [[About.com]].<ref>[http://rap.about.com/od/top10songs/ss/Top100RapSongs_7.htm Top 100 Rap Songs]</ref>

There are two releases of the song. The original vinyl and cassette versions contain a sample of "[[Sukiyaki (song)|Sukiyaki]]" by [[A Taste of Honey (band)]] but due to a lack of clearance, all CD versions are missing the familiar refrains in the middle of the song, most likely because of legal copyright issues, which goes as follows:

{{quote|It's all because of you, I'm feeling sad and blue 
You went away, and now my life is filled with rainy days 
I love you so, how much you'll never know'' 
Cause you took your love away from me}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:1985 songs]]
[[Category:Hip hop songs]]

StatusNet

2008-07-23T01:33:40Z

Forteller: updated the version number and features

{{Infobox Software
| name = Laconica|class="wikitable"
| logo =
| screenshot =
| caption =
| developer = [[Evan Prodromou]]
| latest_stable_release_version =
| latest_release_date =
| latest_beta_release_version = 0.4.4
| operating_system = [[Cross-platform]]
| platform = [[PHP]]
| genre = [[Blog publishing system]]
| license = [[Affero GPL]]
| website = http://laconi.ca/
}}
'''Laconica''' is an [[open source]] [[microblogging]] tool written in [[PHP]]. All data is stored in a [[MySQL]] database. Laconica was created as a direct response of a need to create an open source, distributed alternative to [[Twitter]]. Laconica implements the [[OpenMicroBlogging]] standard. It was originally used by the [[identi.ca]] microblogging service.

== Features ==
Current release of Laconica has a basic microblog feature set, on which new features are expected to be built on rapidly due to the open source nature of the software.

Current features include:
*Updates using a [[Jabber]] client
*[[OpenID]] authentication
*Subscribing to notices by users on a remote service through OpenMicroBlogging
*[[SMS]] updates and notifications
*A Twitter-compatible API

These are upcoming priority features for Laconica:
*More [[AJAX]]-y interface
*Maps
*Cross-post to Twitter, Pownce, Jaiku, etc.
*Pull messages from [[Twitter]], [[Pownce]], [[Jaiku]], etc.
*[[Facebook]] integration
*[[Hashtag|Hashtags]]
*Image, video, audio notices
*Automatic url-shortening
*Multilingual interface (using [[Gettext]])

{{web-software-stub}}

[[Category:Open source content management systems]]

[[fr:Laconica]]

Potato cake

2008-01-15T16:38:42Z

Forteller: added link to Português article on "lompe"

'''Potato cakes''' may refer to different preparations of [[potato]]es. In the U.S., the term commonly refers to a patty of hashed potatoes, a kind of [[hash brown]]. These are available pre-made and frozen in supermarkets and are sold by [[Arby's]] restaurants. In Australia, potato cakes (which tend to be known as potato scallops in NSW), are very common in [[fish and chip]] shops. Potato scallops originate from England (or at least in the north of England) and are also common in fish and chip shops there. This variant is normally a thick slice of potato, dipped in batter and fried, with no additional flavouring added except salt. Though it should be noted hash browns are distinctly different, as they are also widely available.
More rarely, the term may refer to a preparation of sliced potatoes baked in the form of a cake[http://www.canadabbhosts.com/recipes/NewBrunswickPotatoCake.htm] or an actual [[cake]] made using potatoes or potato flour.[http://www.cbc.ca/pei/features/recipethief/2004-potato-cake.html]

==See also==
*[[Lefse]]

{{food-stub}}

[[Category:Breakfast foods]]
[[Category:Potato dishes]]

[[pt:Lompe]]
[[no:Lompe]]

Potato cake

2008-01-15T16:36:52Z

Forteller: Added See also: Lefse, and link to norwegian article about "lompe".

Berliner (pastry)

2007-07-05T17:10:25Z

Forteller: Added link to Norwegian article

[[Image:Berliner-Pfannkuchen.jpg|thumb|250px|Berliner with plum jam filling]]

A '''Berliner Pfannkuchen''' (known as a '''Berliner Ballen''' or simply '''Berliner''' outside of [[Berlin]]) is a predominantly [[Germany|German]] and Central European [[doughnut]] made from sweet [[Yeast|yeast dough]] fried in fat or oil, with a [[marmalade]] or [[jam]] filling and usually [[Icing (food)|icing]], [[powdered sugar]] or conventional [[sugar]] on top. They are also sometimes available with a [[chocolate]], [[Champagne (beverage)|champagne]], [[custard]], [[mocha]], or [[advocaat]] filling, or with no filling at all. The filling is injected using a large syringe after cooking.

The terminology used to refer to this delicacy differs in various areas of Germany. While most areas call it ''Berliner (Ballen)'', residents of [[Berlin]], [[Brandenburg]] and [[Saxony]] know them as ''Pfannkuchen'', which in the rest of Germany generally means [[pancake]]s. In parts of southern and central Germany as well as in much of [[Austria]], they are called ''Krapfen''; in [[Hesse]] they are referred to as ''Kreppel'', or, in [[Rhineland-Palatinate|Palatinate]], ''Fastnachtsküchelchen'' (literally: "carnival cakes"). The name ''Bismarck'', after the German Chancellor of the second half of the nineteenth century, [[Otto von Bismarck]], has been used alternately for it. In other areas of Austria, they are known as [[cruller]]s; in Italy, the name is ''Krafen''. In [[Slovenia]], it's ''krof'', in [[Croatia]], [[Bosnia and Herzegovina|Bosnia]], and [[Serbia]] ''[[Krafne]]''. In [[Poland]] they are known as ''[[Paczki|pączki]]''. All of these are essentially identical.

In English-speaking countries Berliner are usually known as [[doughnut]]s and are usually filled with [[jam]]. However, in [[South Australia]] Berliner is the more usual term and often have cut in half sideways to apply the filling, rather than injecting it. In the [[United States]], whether filled with jam or custard, they are more commonly known as Bismarcks than Berliners; when made in a rectangular shape, they are sometimes known as Long Johns. In the U.S., the jam-filled ones are often called jelly doughnuts, while the custard-filled variety usually also feature [[chocolate]] icing and are sometimes called [[Bavarian cream]] or Boston cream doughnuts (the latter name from its resemblance to [[Boston cream pie]]). The Boston cream doughnut has been designated the official state doughnut of [[Massachusetts]].[http://www.sec.state.ma.us/cis/cismaf/mf1a.htm#donut]

Berliners are traditionally eaten to celebrate on [[New Year's Eve]] (''Silvester'') as well as the [[carnival]] holidays ([[Shrove Tuesday]]). A common [[practical joke]] is to secretly fill some Berliners with [[Mustard (condiment)|mustard]] instead of jam and serve them together with regular Berliners without telling anyone.

== In popular culture ==
{{main|Ich bin ein Berliner#"Jelly doughnut" urban legend}}
The term Berliner referring to a jelly doughnut entered the consciousness of many non-Germans after an urban legend spread about then-[[President of the United States]] [[John F. Kennedy]]'s famous [[1963]] "[[Ich bin ein Berliner]]" speech in [[West Berlin]]<ref>[http://urbanlegends.about.com/cs/historical/a/jfk_berliner.htm]</ref>.

== See also ==
* [[Pączki]]
* [[Sufganiyah]]
* [[Fat Thursday]]
* [[Karneval]]
*



{{Spoken Wikipedia|Berliner (pastry).ogg|2005-04-17}}

[[Category:German cuisine]]
[[Category:New England cuisine]]
[[Category:Doughnuts]]
[[Category:Custard desserts]]
[[Category:Mardi Gras food]]

[[de:Berliner Pfannkuchen]]
[[fr:Boule de Berlin]]
[[nl:Berlijnse bol]]
[[no:Berlinerbolle]]
[[ja:ベルリーナー・プファンクーヘン]]
[[pt:Bola de Berlim]]
[[ksh:Bälliner]]
[[uk:Пампухи]]

The Boondock Saints

2007-06-02T16:57:48Z

Forteller: /* External links */ Added two official sites, and the official YouTube page

{{Infobox Film |
name = The Boondock Saints|
image = Movie_poster_the_boondock_saints.jpg|
imdb_id = 0144117 |
writer = [[Troy Duffy]]|
starring = [[Willem Dafoe]] [[Sean Patrick Flanery]] [[Norman Reedus]] [[David Della Rocco]] [[Billy Connolly]]|
director = [[Troy Duffy]] |
producer = [[Elie Samaha]] [[Lloyd Segan]] [[Robert Fried]] [[Chris Brinker]]|
distributor = Indican |
released = [[1999]] |
runtime = 110 min. |
language = English |
amg_id = 1:186649 |
budget = $7 million{{Fact|date=March 2007}}
}}
'''''The Boondock Saints''''' is a [[1999 in film|1999]] [[Action film|action]] [[crime drama]] film written and directed by [[Troy Duffy]]. The film stars [[Sean Patrick Flanery]] and [[Norman Reedus]] as [[fraternal twins]] Connor and Murphy MacManus, who become [[vigilantes]] after killing two members of the [[Russian mob]] in self-defense. Believing they are on a mission from God, the brothers, together with their friend former mob errand boy [[David Della Rocco]], set out to rid their home city of [[Boston, Massachusetts|Boston]] from the Russian mob and Italian Mafia. Meanwhile, they are pursued by [[FBI]] agent Paul Smecker ([[Willem Dafoe]]).

Duffy wrote the screenplay based on his [[personal experience]] of the world around him, including news reports, and seeing a deceased woman being removed from a drug dealer's apartment. The film experienced a limited theatrical release of only five theaters for one week,<ref name="FB">[http://www.filmfreak.be/index.php?module=filmfreak&func=viewpub&tid=9&pid=34&title=Overnight Filmbreak.bu - review of ''Overnight'' documentary on the filming of ''The Boondock Saints''] URL accessed [[2006-11-28]]</ref> and was met with poor critical reviews. However, it proved divisive among viewers, developing a large cult following<ref name="DB"> [http://www.detroitbuzz.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=585&Itemid=95 Detroitbuzz.com - Cult Corner - Boondock Saints] URL accessed [[2006-12-14]]</ref><ref>[[Roger Ebert]] of the [[Chicago Sun-Times]], wrote in his review of ''Overnight'' that ''The Boondock Saints'' has become a "cult favorite on DVD". [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041118/REVIEWS/41116007/1023 Rogerebert.suntimes.com - Roger Ebert review of Overnight]</ref> and enmity from viewers and critics who have called it a film undeserving of cult status.<ref name="DVDfutue.com> - [http://www.dvdfuture.com/review.php?id=838 DVDfutue.com - Boondock Saints: Unrated Edition] URL accessed [[2006-11-28]] </ref> This following was mostly due to the efforts of [[Blockbuster Video]], which made the film a "Blockbuster Exclusive." The ending credit sequence was shot by Mark Brian Smith, co-director of ''[[Overnight]]'', a documentary film about the making of ''The Boondock Saints'', and Troy Duffy himself.<ref name="PCT">[http://www.popcorntaxi.com.au/Events.asp?Event_ID=365 PopcornTaxi.com - Overnight] URL accessed [[2006-11-28]]</ref> A sequel for the film was originally planned to be released in 2005, though it has yet to materialize due to legal issues.

==Development==
In 1996, while living in [[Los Angeles, California]], Duffy came home from his job to find a dead woman getting wheeled out of a drug dealer's apartment across the hall. Duffy then rented a computer and wrote the screenplay about ''The Boondock Saints'', based on his disgust at what he saw.
{{cquote|I decided right there that out of sheer frustration and not being able to afford a psychologist, I was going to write this, think about it. People watching the news sometimes get so disgusted by what they see. [[Susan Smith]] drowning her kids . . . guys going into McDonald's, lighting up the whole place. You hear things that disgust you so much that even if you're [[Mother Teresa]], there comes a breaking point. One day you're gonna watch the news and you're gonna say, 'Whoever did that despicable thing should pay with their life.'<ref name="FV">[http://www.filmvault.com/filmvault/boston/b/boondocksaints1.html Filmvault.com - Boondock Saints] URL accessed [[2006-12-11]]</ref>|10px}}
The film was directed by Duffy, who had moved to Hollywood to break into the music business. He was a bartender at a sports bar called J. Sloan's when he wrote ''The Boondock Saints''.<ref name="RE"> - [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041118/REVIEWS/41116007/1023 Rogerebert.suntimes.com - Roger Ebert review of Overnight] URL accessed [[2006-11-28]]</ref> The [[documentary film|documentary]] ''Overnight'', which chronicled Duffy's "riches-to-rags" story,<ref name="RE"> </ref> showed that the script was worth $300,000, and the film itself was originally given a $15 million budget by [[Miramax]]'s [[Harvey Weinstein]].<ref name="FT">[http://www.filethirteen.com/reviews/overnight/overnight.htm Filethirteen.com - Overnight] URL accessed [[2006-11-28]]</ref> It was in ''Overnight'' that Duffy showed abrasive behavior, causing tension for many people involved in the project. The deal was set for Duffy to direct, with his band doing the soundtrack, and as a bonus, Miramax offered to buy and throw in co-ownership of J. Sloan's, where Duffy worked.<ref name="LA">[http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=1397&IssueNum=76 LAcitybeat.com - The Fall of Troy] URL accessed [[2006-11-28]]</ref>

The film's development was stalled due to Duffy and Miramax not being able to agree on casting, which caused Miramax to drop the project. Due to Miramax dropping the project, J. Sloan's was not bought, and Duffy's band did not get a record contract. Duffy later found an [[Independent film#North American Indie-producing studios|indie studio]] "Franchise Pictures", to pick up his movie and let him cast it with whom he wanted. Having found someone to back the movie, filming began in Toronto, with the final scenes being filmed in Boston.<ref name="FV"> </ref> The name of Duffy's band ''The Brood'', was renamed to ''The Boondock Saints'' following the movie's release. To date, they have released one album called ''Release the Hounds'', which featured two songs that appear in the movie: "Holy Fool",<ref name="IMDB">[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144117/soundtrack IMDb.com - Soundtrack listing at IMDb.com] URL accessed [[2006-12-02]]</ref> which played during Rocco's tavern shootout, and "Pipes", which played during the credits.

== Releases ==
=== Theatrical release ===
When ''The Boondock Saints'' was completed it was given an extremely limited theatrical release. Its distributor showed the film on only five screens in the United States for one week. The original unrated version of the film was re-released in theaters on [[May 22]], [[2006]].<ref name="MF">[http://www.moviefreak.com/features/dylan/boondocksaints.htm Moviefreak.com - The Boondock Saints and Troy Duffy] states the run "opened and closed in about three weeks". URL accessed [[2006-11-30]]</ref> Troy Duffy later funded screenings of the film with help from [[Blockbuster (movie rental store)|Blockbuster Video]]. "Blockbuster saved us they agreed to take it on exclusively, and from there the rest is history."<ref name="MF"> </ref> According to Troy Duffy on his [[audio commentary]] of the film on DVD, the film's distributor allowed the limited screening only in the United States due to the then recent [[Columbine High School massacre|Columbine High School shooting]].<ref name="DVD">[[DVD-Audio|DVD audio]] commentary from The Boondock Saints - published by 20th Century Fox on [[May 21]], [[2002]] </ref> The film was shown on major foreign screens (most notably in Japan) with success.<ref name="MF"> </ref> Blockbuster released ''The Boondock Saints'' as a "Blockbuster Exclusive", a collection of independent [[direct-to-video]] films. ''The Boondock Saints'' gained a following mostly due to [[word of mouth]] publicity and was a bestseller when released on [[DVD]]. Despite its success, Troy Duffy never saw any of the profits from DVD distribution, having signed away the DVD rights in his contract with Indican.<ref name="RE"/>

=== DVD release ===
[[Image:The Boondock Saints - Special Edition.jpg|thumb|right|120px|Cover of the Collectors Edition of ''The Boondock Saints'']]
''The Boondock Saints'' has been released numerous times on [[DVD]], including an import on [[March 13]], [[2001]] and an uncut Japanese release published by Toshiba Entertainment in 1999, whose special features include [[anamorphic widescreen]], audio commentary, trailers, and interviews with the [[Japanese media]].<ref name="HK">[http://www.hkflix.com/xq/asp/filmID.533790/qx/details.htm HKflix.com - The Boondock Saints Uncut Toshiba Entertainment 1999] URL accessed [[2006-12-12]]</ref> On [[May 23]], [[2006]] ''The Boondock Saints'' Collector's Edition was published and released by [[20th Century Fox]] on DVD, as well as [[Universal Media Disc|UMD]] for the [[Playstation Portable]].<ref name="TCM">[http://turnerclassic.moviesunlimited.com/product.asp?sku=U85020++&mscssid=G Turnerclassic.moviesunlimited.com - The Boondock Saints (Unrated Special Edition) (UMD For PlayStation Portable)] URL accessed [[2006-12-12]]</ref> The special features include [[English language|English]] and [[Spanish language|Spanish]] [[subtitles]], commentary by Billy Connolly and Troy Duffy, [[deleted scenes]] and outtakes. It also featured the film's trailer, and cast and crew filmographies. Also on the DVD release there is a printable script of the film.<ref name=AMAZ">[http://www.amazon.com/Boondock-Saints-Unrated-Special/dp/B000EHSVXM Amazon.com - The Boondock Saints (Unrated Special Edition) 20th Century Fox 2006] URL accessed [[2006-11-30]] </ref> 20th Century Fox and Duffy showed an interest in doing a new audio commentary for the special release, but he was unable to because of unresolved legal issues.<ref name="IGN1">[http://dvd.ign.com/articles/708/708836p1.html IGN.com - Interview with Troy Duffy] URL accessed [[2006-12-02]]</ref> Daulton Dickey of gmcplanet.com said in his review of the special edition's special features:
{{cquote|Billed as an unrated edition, it appears as though the film has only been altered by swapping in bloodier alternate takes, pumping up the gore but offering nothing else. Although the movie contains a new audio commentary track by actor Billy Connolly, the track with Troy Duffy has been ported over from the previous DVD edition. Included on the second disc are a handful of deleted scenes and outtakes that have also been ported over from the previous release."<ref name="GMC">[http://www.gcmplanet.com/movies/reviews/b_reviews/52706/boondock_saints_unrated_review.html GMCplanet.com - The Boondock Saints Unrated Special Edition] URL accessed [[2006-11-30]]</ref>|10px}}

==Reception==
The film has received poor reviews from critics, with the review-tallying Web site ''[[rottentomatoes.com]]'' reporting that 12 out of the 15 reviews they tallied were negative for a score of 20% and a certification of "rotten".<ref>[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/boondock_saints/ rottentomatoes.com - The Boondock Saints entry], URL accessed [[2007-02-21]] </ref> It also received an overall [[Metacritic|Metascore]] of 44/100.<ref name="MC">[http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/boondocksaints Metacritic.com - The Boondock Saints], URL accessed [[2006-12-12]]</ref> Nathan Rabin of the [[The A.V. Club|A.V. Club]] described the film in his review of the DVD as a "less proper action-thriller" and "a series of gratuitously violent setpieces strung together with only the sketchiest semblance of a plot". Rabin went on to describe the film as "all style and no substance, a film so gleeful in its endorsement of vigilante justice that it almost veers (or ascends) into self-parody."<ref name="AV">[http://www.avclub.com/content/node/3502 AVclub.com - The Boondock Saints] URL accessed [[2006-12-12]]</ref> Other reviews were more positive, with Robert Koehler of [[Variety (magazine)|Variety]] described the film in his review as,

{{cquote|A belated entry in the hipster crime movie movement that began with "[[Reservoir Dogs]]," Troy Duffy's "Boondock Saints" mixes blood and Catholic-tinged vigilante justice in excessive portions for sometimes wacky and always brutal effect. [The film is] more interested in finding fresh ways to stage execution scenes than in finding meaning behind the human urge for self-appointed righting of wrongs.|10 px}}

Koehler also described Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus as "curiously stolid and blank", while praising supporting actors Billy Connolly and [[Carlo Rota]] for making the most of their screen time. Koehler also praised the tech personnel: "This uneven exercise in pacing and cutting is abetted by an eclectic score by [[Jeff Danna]] and whiz lensing by Adam Kane. Other tech credits fire bull's-eyes."<ref name="VAR">[http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=review&reviewid=VE1117775584&categoryid=31&query=boondock+saints&cs=1 Variety.com - Boondock Saints] URL accessed [[2006-12-12]]</ref> [[New Times LA|New Times]] [[Film criticism|film reviewer]] Luke Y. Thompson described it as "a redundant [[Quentin Tarantino|Tarantino]]/[[Martin Scorsese|Marty]] wanna-be."

Film critics have taken note of the film's extreme violence and "slow-motion bloodletting."<ref name="RT3">[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/author-6101/worst.php RottenTomatoes.com Brent Simon - Entertainment Today] URL accessed [[2006-12-13]]</ref> Even positive reviews took note of the fact that Duffy "borrowed from bigger blockbusters," or called it a "''[[Pulp Fiction]]'' clone."<ref name="BC"> - [http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/29/231915.php BlogCritics.org - Movie Review: The Boondock Saints] URL accessed [[2006-11-28]]</ref> Reviewer Vince Leo wrote that, "''The Boondock Saints'' is yet another recent entry in the Pulp Fiction clones, where huge doses of violence are mixed in with irreverently funny scenes of cleverness that entertain even if they are basically needless to the overall plot."<ref name="Q">[http://www.qwipster.net/boondocksaints.htm Qwipster.com - Boondock Saints] URL accessed [[2006-11-28]]</ref>

Fan reviews have been kinder, however; with the [[IMDb.com|Internet Movie Database (IMDb.com)]] reporting that their users have given the film a 7.7 out of 10 based on over 40,000 reviews tallied thus far.<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144117/ - Boondock Saints entry], URL accessed [[2007-05-21]]</ref>

==Plot summary==

The movie opens on twin brothers Connor (Sean Patrick Flanery) and Murphy (Norman Reedus) attending a church service. The brothers, both pious Catholics, work at a meat-packing plant and are accomplished [[Multilingualism|polyglot]]s.

As the brothers celebrate [[St. Patrick's Day]] with their friends, three Russian "[[Mafia#Modern terminology|soldiers]]" enter the brothers' neighborhood pub, telling everyone to leave — their organization has decided to evict the pub, and has chosen St. Patrick's Day to add insult to injury. Connor, Murphy, and the patrons get into a bar brawl with the Russians, who receive a sound beating. The next morning, two of the armed mobsters seek revenge on Connor and Murphy, who kill the mobsters in [[self-defense (theory)|self-defense]].

Since the mob was involved in the incident, FBI agent Paul Smecker ([[Willem Dafoe]]) is assigned to the case. Smecker, whose powers of detection rival [[Sherlock Holmes]]', surmises that the death of the two mobsters was not a [[contract killing|professional hit]], but probably self-defense. As the police begin a [[manhunt]], Connor and Murphy arrive at the police station to clear their names. Public opinion paints the brothers as vigilante heroes; as for the brothers, they spend the night in a holding cell to avoid the media. That night in the cell, they receive a vision from God telling them to kill wicked men so that the innocent can thrive.

[[Image:BoondockSaints.jpg|thumb|left|280px|The Boondock Saints ([[Sean Patrick Flanery]] and [[Norman Reedus]])]]
The brothers resolve to rid their city of Boston of "evil men" with the help of their friend and former mob errand boy Rocco. Connor learns of a meeting of Russian syndicate bosses at a hotel; the brothers, entering the room through a ceiling air duct, miraculously manage to take out eight of the bosses and underbosses, before they recite a short prayer and execute the Russian leader. They then place pennies on the eyes of the dead men. (The ritual and "miraculous" elements parallel [[Pulp Fiction#Jules.27 Bible passage|similar elements in ''Pulp Fiction'']]; when Smecker is called in on the case, he points out that the killers must have gotten their ideas from "bad television".)

After hunting down Vincenzo Lipazzi ([[Ron Jeremy]]), underboss of the Yakavetta [[crime family]], the three vigilantes proceed to go on a series of increasingly violent missions, cleansing the city of vicious criminals. Papa Joe ([[Carlo Rota]]) contracts the most feared killer-for-hire that has ever been used in his family, [[Duce|Il Duce]] ([[Billy Connolly]]), to deal with the vigilantes.

After a mission on a mob poker game, Rocco gets his finger shot off by Il Duce. Smecker then finds the finger and takes it with him where he can test it by himself. He finds out that it belongs to Rocco. He then begins to unravel the mystery surrounding the various murders but goes on a drinking binge that night until the next morning where he seeks advice from a Catholic priest. He bemoans the futility of the courts to put evil men behind bars, and his uncertainty with the McManus brothers' actions. The priest, forced by Rocco to comply, tells Smecker to go with his instincts, and Smecker decides to help the brothers.

The McManus brothers and Rocco infiltrate the Yakavetta headquarters to finish off the family, but are captured by Papa Joe, who kills Rocco in an attempt to intimidate the brothers. As they say their family prayer over Rocco, Il Duce arrives and sneaks up behind them. As he hears them recite the family prayer, he lowers his weapons and begins to say it with them:

{{quote|And shepherds we shall be 
For Thee, my Lord, for Thee 
Power hath descended forth from Thy hand 
That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command 
So we shall flow a river forth to Thee 
And teeming with souls shall it ever be 
''In nomine Patri, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti''
(In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) |}}

It becomes apparent that Il Duce is their long-lost father, as the brothers had previously refused to teach Rocco the prayer because it is only passed down in their family. He then joins them in their mission to rid the city of evildoers.

Papa Joe is sent to trial, and though there seems to be enough evidence to convict him, the reporters on scene anticipate his acquittal due to his [[John Gotti|Gotti]]-esque charisma. The trial is forcibly interrupted when the two brothers and Il Duce, aided by Agent Smecker, infiltrate and lock down the courtroom. The brothers then deliver the speech:
"Now you will receive us. We do not ask for your poor, or your hungry. We do not want your tired and sick. It is your corrupt we claim. It is your evil that will be sought by us. With every breath, we shall hunt them down. Each day we will spill their blood, 'til it rains down from the skies. ''Do not kill. Do not rape. Do not steal.'' These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace. These are not polite suggestions; these are codes of behavior, and those of you that ignore them will pay the dearest cost. There are varying degrees of evil. We urge you lesser forms of filth not to push the bounds and cross over into true corruption, into our domain. For if you do, one day you will look behind you and you will see we three, and on that day you will reap it. And we will send you to whatever god you wish."

The three then recite their prayer one last time, and then they kill Papa Joe.

The media dubs the three "Saints", and the movie ends with various people reflecting on the question "Are the Saints ultimately good, or evil?"
{{-}}

==Sequel==
{{Main|The Boondock Saints: All Saints Day}}
In late March of 2002, Duffy posted a letter to fans of the first film, claiming that financial backing had been found for a sequel. It would reportedly have twice the budget of the original film, and "experience a theatrical release." According to the film's official website, the release date of the sequel ''[[The Boondock Saints: All Saints Day]]'' would be September [[2005]], though this never materialized. Information for the sequel was formerly available on [[IMDb]], where it was categorized as in development, however, this information has been removed.

In an interview with [[IGN]], Duffy explained the litigation with the company that controls the rights to the first film,<ref name="IGN1"> </ref> Duffy went on to express his, as well as most of the casts', interest in making the sequel.
{{cquote|"Everybody's back in except Willem Dafoe, [because] sometimes actors have their careers plotted out in different ways and he's sort of doing a different thing now. So he's the only one who won't be back. Billy Connolly, the brothers, Rocco, everybody's in and calling me every two weeks and going when are we going to do this thing?"<ref name="IGN2"> - [http://dvd.ign.com/articles/708/708836p2.html IGN.com - Interview with Troy Duffy pg2] URL accessed [[2006-12-14]]</ref>|10px}}
In June [[2006]], it was announced that due to the success of ''The Boondock Saints'' on DVD, 20th Century Fox has agreed to finance a sequel.<ref name="EO"> - [http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=18961 Empireonline.com - Movie news] URL accessed [[2006-11-28]]</ref> In September of 2006, a video—originally released for a one night showing in May 2006—was posted to the Boondocks website.<ref name="BDS">[http://theboondocksaints.com TheBoondockSaints.com - Message from Troy Duffy to the fans] URL accessed [[2006-11-28]]</ref> In this video, Duffy explains the legal issues of the sequel, confirms that the sequel will in fact be a reality, and mentions a new project called ''The Good King''. It also announces that the film will have a theatrical release in the United States.

==External links==
* [http://www.boondocksaints.com/ Official website]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
{{Wikiquote}}
* [http://www.boondocksaints.com/ ''The Boondock Saints''] - Official site for the movies
* [http://www.boondockfans.com/ ''Boondock Fans''] - Official site for fans of the movies
* [http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=realboondocksaints ''The Official Boondock Saints''] - YouTube videos from the creators of the movies
* {{imdb title|id=0144117|title=The Boondock Saints}}
* {{rotten-tomatoes|id=boondock_saints|title=The Boondock Saints}}
* {{imdb title|id=0390336|title=Overnight}}
* [http://www.tlgmedia.com/anim.php?id=22 ''The East Coast Saints''] - a Flash parody by [[Tlg media|TLG Media]]
* [http://www.weeklyscript.com/Boondock%20Saints,%20The.txt ''The Boondock Saints''] - Screenplay
* [http://laastro.lanl.gov/earthwatch/04/frank/boondock_saints_prayer.htm ''The Boondock Saints''] Boondock Saints family prayer
{{featured article}}





{{DEFAULTSORT:Boondock Saints, The}}

[[Category:1999 films]]
[[Category:American films]]
[[Category:Boston in fiction]]
[[Category:Irish-American culture]]
[[Category:Films set in Massachusetts]]
[[Category:Films shot in Toronto]]

[[de:Der blutige Pfad Gottes]]
[[nl:The Boondock Saints]]
[[ja:処刑人]]
[[pl:Święci z Bostonu]]
[[sv:The Boondock Saints]]

Portal:Hitchhiker's/Identification and critical commentary

2007-05-24T21:31:37Z

Forteller: Corrected the mistake "Life, So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish"

<center>

The list below is the [[Differences in versions of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy|the main versions]] and does not include audio-books, [[The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy#Stage shows|stage show]] [[Compact cassette|compact cassette]], [[VHS]], [[CD]], [[DVD]] releases, edits, extras, extensions and overseas versions.

As you can discover from the links below, each new version of the story is recreated for the medium.

<gallery perrow=5>
Image:H2G2 PrimaryPhase CD 1996 front.jpg|[[The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Primary and Secondary Phases#The Primary Phase|Radio Primary Phase]] [[1978]] [[BBC Radio 4|R4]]
Image:H2G2 UK front cover.jpg|[[The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book)|Original book]] [[1979]] From Radio fits 1 to 4
Image:HHGG UKLP covers.jpg|[[The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy#LP album adaptations|LP album adaptations]] [[1979]]-[[1980|80]] From Radio fits 1 to 4, 5/6
Image:Restaurant at the End of the Universe.jpg|[[The Restaurant at the End of the Universe]] [[1980]] From Radio fits 5 to 9
Image:H2G2 SecondaryPhase CD 1996 front.jpg|[[The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Primary and Secondary Phases#The Secondary Phase|Radio: Secondary Phase]] [[1980]]♦ [[BBC Radio 4|R4]] New material
Image:Hitchhikers Guide TV Titles.jpg|[[The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (TV series)|TV Series]] [[1981]] [[BBC2]] From Radio fits 1 to 6
Image:Marvin Single Cover emu.jpg|[[Marvin the Paranoid Android|Marvin]] singles [[1981]] New material
Image:Life, The Universe and Everything cover.jpg|[[Life, the Universe and Everything]] [[1982]] New material
Image:So long, and thanks for all the fish.jpg|[[So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish]] [[1984]] New material
Image:Hitchhikers Guide box art.jpg|[[The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (computer game)|Computer game]] [[1984]] [[Infocom]] - [http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/game_nolan.shtml play now] Based on previous versions
Image:HitchHikersScriptsCover.jpg|[[The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: The Original Radio Scripts]] [[1985]]
Image:Mostly Harmless Harmony front.jpg|[[Mostly Harmless]] [[1992]] New material
Image:MakingOf H2G2 CBSFOX VHS front.jpg|[[The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy %28TV series%29#Documentary|Making Of .. TV Series]] [[1993]] Shot in 1981
Image:H2g2 logo.png|[[h2g2]] [[1999]]
Image:The Salmon of Doubt Macmillan front.jpg|[[The Salmon of Doubt]]♥ [[2002]] New post mortum material
Image:H2G2 Phase3 front cover.jpg|[[The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Tertiary to Quintessential Phases#The Tertiary Phase|Radio: Tertiary Phase]] [[2004]] [[BBC Radio 4|R4]] Based on "Life, the Universe and Everything"
Image:H2G2 Phase4 front cover.jpg|[[The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Tertiary to Quintessential Phases#The Quandary Phase|Radio: Quandary Phase]] [[2005]] [[BBC Radio 4|R4]] Based on "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish"
Image:H2G2 Phase5 front cover.jpg|[[The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Tertiary to Quintessential Phases#The Quintessential Phase|Radio: Quintessential Phase]] [[2005]] [[BBC Radio 4|R4]] Based on "Mostly Harmless"
Image:Hitchhikerposter.jpg|[[The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (film)|Film]] [[2005]] Based on original novel, new material
Image:H2G2 Movie Soundtrack front.jpg|Don't Crash "making of" Film [[2005]]
</gallery>

♥ Contains some Hitchhiker's material ♦ [[The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Primary and Secondary Phases#Fit the seventh|Fit the seventh]] was broadcast at [[Christmas]] [[1978]]

</center>