Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Meccano Ltd

2014-03-10T09:45:36Z

Jrn: /* The new Meccano */

[[Image:Meccano logo.jpg|thumb|270px|right|Meccano Ltd's [[Meccano]] logo.]]

'''Meccano Ltd''' was a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[toy]] company established in 1908 by [[Frank Hornby]] in [[England]] to manufacture and distribute [[Meccano]] and other model toys and kits created by the company. During the 1920s and 1930s it became the biggest toy manufacturer in the United Kingdom and produced three of the most popular lines of toys in the twentieth century: Meccano, [[Hornby Railways|Hornby Trains]] and [[Dinky Toys]].<ref name=Hornby>{{cite web |url=http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/mol/collections/liverpoollives/frank_hornby.aspx |title=Frank Hornby (1863-1936): Inventor of the world's most famous toy |work=Museum of Liverpool |accessdate=2008-08-28}}</ref>

Financial problems beset the company in the early 1960s and Meccano Ltd was taken over by [[Lines Bros Ltd]] in 1964.<ref name=dalefield>{{cite web |url=http://dalefield.com/mwes/history/ |title=History of Meccano |first=Wes |last=Dalefield |work=Meccano Erector Page |accessdate=2008-08-28}}</ref>

==History==
:''See [[Frank Hornby]] for the events leading up to the formation of Meccano Ltd''.

In 1901 [[Frank Hornby]], a clerk from [[Liverpool]], [[England]], invented a new construction toy called "Mechanics Made Easy", which soon became known as [[Meccano]].<ref name=dalefield/><ref name=toyman>{{cite web |url=http://www.toyman.co.za/history/chronology.html |title=A Chronological History of Meccano |work=Meccanoman |first=Peter |last=Matthews |accessdate=2008-08-28}}</ref><ref name=Alan>{{cite web |url=http://www.btinternet.com/~a.esplen/mecc.htm |title=Alan's Meccano Pages |first=Alan |last=Esplen |accessdate=2008-08-28|archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20110629164545/http://www.btinternet.com/~a.esplen/mecc.htm |archivedate = 2011-06-29}}</ref> To manufacture and distribute Meccano, Hornby needed to raise [[Capital (economics)|capital]] to invest in [[factory]] and plant, and this resulted in the establishment of Meccano Ltd in 1908, with Hornby as the sole proprietor. A factory was acquired in West Derby Road in Liverpool and the company began producing Meccano sets for sale across the UK.<ref name=dalefield/>

===New lines===
In 1909 Meccano Ltd added to its range by launching the "Hornby System of Mechanical Demonstration". This was an educational set Hornby had created for use in schools which included a 44 page manual, showing all dimensions in centimetres. However, it was not a commercial success and it was discontinued after five years. This was the first use of the [[Hornby Railways|Hornby]] name, which later was to become synonymous with the company's Hornby Dublo [[00 gauge]] [[Rail transport modelling|model railway]] system.<ref name=Area51>{{cite web |url=http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/6981/TMG_files/history_files/meccano_early_years/meccano_the_early_years.htm |title=Meccano: The Early Years |work=Transvaal Meccano Guild |accessdate=2008-08-28|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20090729214035/http://geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/6981/TMG_files/history_files/meccano_early_years/meccano_the_early_years.htm|archivedate=2009-07-29}}</ref>

By 1910 Meccano was exported worldwide, and its success prompted Meccano Ltd to expand its operations. In 1912, Hornby and his son, Roland, formed Meccano (France) Ltd in [[Paris]] to manufacture Meccano, and an office was opened in [[Berlin]], [[Germany]] where [[Märklin]] began to manufacture Meccano under licence. Meccano factories were also established in [[Spain]] and [[Argentina]]. In 1912 Hornby started importing [[clockwork]] motors from Märklin, but when the supply from Germany stopped after the outbreak of [[World War I]] in 1914, he began manufacturing his own clockwork motors in Liverpool.<ref name=Jost>{{cite web |url=http://www.internationalmeccanomen.org.uk/REFERENCES/Meccano/CollandHistseries/MeccHistory1901-1981/josthist.html |title=A Brief History of English Meccano 1901-1981 |first=Graham |last=Jost |work=International Meccanomen |accessdate=2008-08-28 |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20080628041506/http://www.internationalmeccanomen.org.uk/REFERENCES/Meccano/CollandHistseries/MeccHistory1901-1981/josthist.html  |archivedate = 2008-06-28}}</ref>

Up to this point Meccano was being manufactured in England at the small factory in West Derby Road, Liverpool, but it soon became apparent that it could not meet the growing demand for Meccano, and in 1914 a new factory was built in Binns Road, Liverpool. The Binns Road factory became the company headquarters for over 60 years.<ref name=dalefield/>

[[Image:Hornby early logo.png|thumb|270px|right|Meccano Ltd's [[Hornby Trains]] branding.]]
In 1920 the company started to produce [[0 gauge]] model railways, and this production line continued into the 1960s. In 1922, Meccano Ltd opened a factory in [[Elizabeth, New Jersey]] where it produced its building sets for the North American market. In 1927 it started producing [[clockwork]] [[Lithography|lithograph]]ed tinplate 0 gauge trains there as well. However, in 1929, it sold its New Jersey factory to the [[A. C. Gilbert Company]], whose similar [[Erector Set]] toy was popular in the United States, and Meccano's trains and construction sets disappeared from the U.S. market by 1930.<ref name=Alan/>

[[Image:Dinky Toys logo.png|thumb|270px|left|Meccano Ltd's [[Dinky Toys]] logo.]]
In early 1934 Meccano Ltd introduced [[Dinky Toys]], a new line of [[Die-cast toy|die-cast]] miniature model cars and trucks under the trade mark "Meccano Dinky Toys". In the same year, they also introduced a construction toy for younger children called Dinky Builder. It comprised rectangular and triangular hinged metal plates that could be quickly and easily assembled. The parts were painted [[Jade (color)|jade green]] and [[Salmon (color)|salmon pink]] in an attempt to draw girls into the otherwise boys-only toy market.<ref name=Alan/>

In 1938 Meccano Ltd launched the [[00 gauge]] [[Hornby Railways|Hornby Dublo model railway]] system, comprising both clockwork and electric train sets. Production continued until 1964.<ref name=Alan/>

In 1942 the production of all toys ceased due to [[World War II|wartime]] legislation and the company switched to manufacturing for the [[war effort]]. Despite the heavy bombing of Liverpool during the war, the Binns Road factory was not damaged. The production of Meccano, Dinky Toys and Hornby Dublo slowly resumed after the war in 1945, but was interrupted again in 1950 by the [[Korean War]] due to a shortage of metal.<ref name=dalefield/><ref name=Alan/>

In 1960 Meccano Ltd purchased [[Bayko]], a [[Bakelite]] [[building model]] construction toy, from [[Charles Plimpton|Plimpton Engineering]] in Liverpool, and moved all its production to Meccano's factory in [[Speke]], Liverpool. The construction sets were updated and [[polystyrene]] was used for all the plastic parts instead of Bakelite. Manufacture of Bayko continued until 1967.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.melright.com/bayko/ |title=Bayko Building Site |first=Melvyn |last=Wright |accessdate=2008-08-28}}</ref> Meccano Ltd also manufactured Kemex (chemistry sets) and Elektron (electrical sets).

===Takeovers===
By the early 1960s Meccano Ltd began experiencing financial problems, in spite of exports worth over [[Pound sterling|£]]1m, and was bought out by [[Lines Bros Ltd]] (Tri-ang), Meccano's biggest competitor, in February 1964. This purchase included both the British and French Meccano factories. Sweeping changes were implemented, including the removal from office of the last members of the Hornby family and applying the Hornby name to the Tri-ang plastic trains. In 1970 Lines Brothers changed the company name to Meccano-Tri-ang.<ref name=dalefield/>

In 1971 the Lines Brothers Tri-ang group went into voluntary [[liquidation]] and Meccano-Tri-ang was eventually sold to [[Airfix]] industries in 1972, the company name reverting to Meccano Ltd. At the same time, General Mills, a [[United States]] toy manufacturer, purchased the majority of shares of Meccano France S.A., renaming the French company Miro-Meccano.<ref name=dalefield/>

===The new Meccano===
With competition from other manufacturers from around the world and the increasing popularity of [[television]], Meccano Ltd's dominance of the toy market diminished sharply. To cut their losses, Airfix closed Meccano Ltd's flagship Binns Road factory in Liverpool in November 1979, bringing to an end three-quarters of a century of British toy making. The manufacture of Meccano, however, still continued in France. Airfix were eventually [[liquidated]] two years later and in 1981 General Mills purchased Meccano Ltd UK,<ref>http://www.companieslist.co.uk/06314281-meccano-toys-uk-limited Company no. 06314281</ref> giving it complete control of the Meccano franchise. It shifted all Meccano and Airfix operations to France and completely revamped the Miro-Meccano construction sets.<ref name=dalefield/><ref name=toyman/>

In August 1985 French accountant Marc Rebibo bought Miro-Meccano from General Mills, reverted the French company name to Meccano S.A. and reintroduced some of the discontinued Meccano sets. In 1989 Rebibo was bought out by Finamec (Financière de Serbie), who continued the manufacture of Meccano in France. In 1990 Meccano France purchased the "[[Erector Set|Erector]]" trademark in the U.S.A. and started selling Meccano sets marked "Erector Meccano" in the U.S.A.<ref name=dalefield/><ref name=toyman/>

By 2000 Meccano France was faltering and was bought out in May 2000 by the Japanese toy company Nikko, who continue to manufacture Meccano sets in France and [[China]], although very different from the Meccano originally manufactured by the Binns Road factory.<ref name=dalefield/>

In 2013 Meccano was acquired by [[Spin Master]].<ref>http://www.spinmaster.com/app/website/files/download/?id=144‎</ref>

==See also==
*[[Frank Hornby]]
*[[Meccano]]
*[[Meccano Magazine]]
*[[Bayko]]
*[[Dinky Toys]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.internationalmeccanomen.org.uk/ International Society of Meccanomen]
*[http://www.cmamas.ca/ Canadian Modeling Association for Meccano & Allied Systems]
*[http://www.toyman.co.za/history/chronology.html A Chronological History of Meccano]

[[Category:Hornby Railways]]
[[Category:Toy companies of the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Model manufacturers]]
[[Category:Manufacturing companies of the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Defunct toy manufacturers]]
[[Category:Defunct manufacturing companies of the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Companies established in 1908]]

[[de:Meccano]]
[[lb:Meccano Ltd]]

User talk:Jrn

2005-10-20T23:41:47Z

Jrn: I want out

Talk:Axiom of choice

2005-02-17T05:13:29Z

Jrn: removed my no longer useful comment

A question on [[User Talk:CSTAR]] led to a long discussion of the precise meaning of the independence of the axiom of choice (among other things). By consent of the participants, it was moved here. [[User:Gadykozma|Gadykozma]] 20:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC). After dying out, it was [[/Archive|archived]]. [[User:Gadykozma|Gadykozma]] 13:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
------
Do Wikipedia articles assume the axiom of choice unless otherwise mentioned? Or should results which rely on choice be marked as such? --Matthew Woodcraft

They should be marked as such.
If they're not, fix them. --[[user:Taw|Taw]]

Pretty much anything I write assumes AC. --[[user:Zundark|Zundark]], 2001 Dec 16

I think it is polite, when writing about a central theorem like existence of prime ideals or Hahn-Banach, to mention that it depends on AC, but it is really too much to ask to do the detailed bookkeeping and mention AC for every result which depends on one of those theorems. AC is an accepted axiom in mathematics. --AxelBoldt

This last position seems to be modern practice, at least in the areas of mathematics I'm familiar with. Should we have a note to this effect on the main AC page? --Matthew Woodcraft

:Yes, we should. If you're feeling in the mood, this article really needs an overhaul. I moved some paragraphs here from the set theory article months ago, but no-one has yet attempted to merge it all into a coherent whole. --[[user:Zundark|Zundark]], 2001 Dec 16

Is there any treatment of "life without AC"? I would find this an interesting topic. --[[User:JakeVortex|Jeff]]

I agree with Jeff. It could be nice to have, say, something about "dedekind-finite" sets, etc.
--Alex, 2004 Dec.

I would really like to see at least a paragraph in this article about the current status of the controversy regarding the AC. Thanks to the specialist(s) who would add this update! [[User:Olivier|olivier]] 03:59 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)

Of course, linguistic abuses can lead to many so-called "paradoxes". For example, "This is not a true statement." seems paradoxical. Yet, the problem is the use of the pronoun "This" which makes the statement self-referential. When things reference themselves, they are no longer first order. The statement is never "within the system" if it references itself. The reference generates a copy of the system, putting the statement outside of the system. Many higher order systems have no known solutions. J. Todd Chapman
:it's true that it's not true. [[User:Lysdexia|lysdexia]] 22:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There isn't much work in this direction (as opposed to continuum hypothesis). Too much of mathematics relies on this axiom. The proofs which do not rely on it are considered to be constructive, and there is some interest in seing if there is a constructive proof in this sense, but there is no controversy about the axiom of choice—there isn't really much to say about it except that it is independent, nonconcstructive but makes life much easier. Continuum hypothesis is almost irrelevant to everyday mathematics and that is perhaps what makes a big difference.

Might help to mention that AC is provably false in Quine's NF though it holds for all the sets one would encounter in "everyday" maths. I'd do it myself but it's much too long since I studied logic. [[User:Tom Holbrook|Tom Holbrook]] 14:39 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

----

The recent edit about stating whether AC is used, and preferring not to use it, is definitely POV. Logicians, and those in [[constructive mathematics]]—and of course anyone who wants to compute anything, may agree; but it's not the mainstream approach. Post-Bourbaki, one uses Zorn's Lemma and forgets about it.

[[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 15:46, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

: It was my edit, and agreed it's tinged by my set-theorist POV. It is equally POV to state without qualification that AoC is accepted as true (since that's not the point), or that it is of no import whether it is used or not. How about something like "Despite this, a minority of mathematicians..." instead of "Despite this, it is common to..." [[User:Onebyone|Onebyone]] 16:50, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Can be made NPOV by a bit of expansion: eg anyone who wants results true in all toposes etc etc.

[[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 17:04, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

: How's that? I haven't mentioned topoi because (I don't understand them and) "system" is fine for the general reader. [[User:Onebyone|Onebyone]] 16:09, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

----

From the article: ''Jerry Bona once said: "The Axiom of Choice is obviously true...''
: Who is Jerry Bona? [[User:Kevin Saff|Kevin Saff]] 18:29, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
:: I've never heard of him either, but the joke itself is famous, and he invented it, then he deserves the credit. -- [[User:Waltpohl|Walt Pohl]] 02:48, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
::: I agree, though the statement seems phrased to imply that Jerry Bona is more famous than the joke, if that makes sense. I guess [http://www.math.uic.edu/cgi-bin/mscs/people/profile_cgi?pid=BonJ606 this] is Jerry Bona. Maybe it could read something like ''Jerry Bona, a UIC math professor, famously cracked, "The Axiom of Choice..."''

----

Something which might be worth mentioning is that at least some of these consequences of the axiom of choice have been shown to imply the axiom as well (Tychonoff's theorem, for example). I'm not sure which other ones do or don't though. [[User:Kevinatilusa|Kevinatilusa]]

Additionally, is conjectures really the right category to put this under? Calling it a conjecture seems to imply that it could be proven someday, which isn't the case here. [[User:Kevinatilusa|Kevinatilusa]]

: I agree; it should be removed from that category (or is it topoi? :)). --[[User:66.219.81.52|66.219.81.52]] 00:23, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the conjectures tag, since there are independence results making that misleading. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 07:40, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

----

This doesn't seem right to me... first the article says:

: For example, a proof could use a set S that was previously demonstrated to be non-empty and claim "because S is non-empty, let x be one of the members of S." Here, the use of x requires the axiom of choice.

This doesn't require AC, does it? X consists of one set, S, and as stated in example 1.:

: 1. Let X be any finite collection of non-empty sets.
: Then f can be stated explicitly (out of set A choose a, ...), since the number of sets is finite.

--[[User:66.219.81.52|66.219.81.52]] 00:23, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:The example ''does'' require the axiom of choice. I'm not sure what your second question is talking about, though. Little x in the example has nothing to do with the big X, which is a set, that you are talking about. Anyway, from a set theory book this is just about as classic as an example can get.

Given a set X that is nonempty, there exists x in X. This requires only predicate calculus, not the axiom of choice.

:To ''use'' the element in X requires the axiom of choice. Check out this quote from Hayden and Kennison:

::"Choose ab\in Ab [...] This fallacious argument looks reasonable because of a subtle ambiguity in the phrase 'choose ab\in Ab'. It is certainly true that given any non-empty set S, one can 'choose' an element s\in S. This follows from the fact that there exists and x such that x\in S (as S is non-empty), and from our convention about choosing an entity e for which P(e) whenever it is true that there exists an x such that P(x). Thus, for any one of the sets, Ab, we can 'choose' ab\in Ab. But there is no way we can legitimately 'choose' a dependent variable ab for all b\in B. What is needed is a 'choice function' that will enable us to make many choices simultaneously." (Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory, 1968, p. 50f)

:Note, the above quote is from a book and is not covered by FDL. [[User:Mshonle|MShonle]] 05:33, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I hope to clear this up very precisely. Given a nonempty set X1, producing an element x in X1 requires only existential instantiation. Similarly, given any finite family of disjoint nonempty sets X = {X1, X2, X3, ...XN}, it does not require the axiom of choice to construct a set that contains one element form each XJ in X. This is only finite reiteration all of which can be done in ZF. Now suppose X is an infinite family of disjoint nonempty sets. If we know of a rule by which we can choose a unique element from each set ("choose the least element" if they are so ordered or something like that) then again we do not need the axiom of choice. It is when we can not construct the set that we need the axiom of choice, which is existential rather than constructive. Thus he says we need the axiom to make many (infinitely many) choices simultaneously.

:) By the way, assuming there are only finitely many nonempty boxes, I can easily choose a single element from each using only ZF. This article is misleading.

----

If no one has a problem with this, I would like to add another equivalent formulation of the AC. Stated in its most compact form: "Given infinite sets A and B, every bijective mapping from A to B has an inverse." It's a different take on the principle. Any objections? [[User:Phyzome|Tim]] 19:54, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

: Huh?? Maybe you meant that for every ''surjective'' mapping ''f'' : ''A'' --> ''B'' there is an "inverse" ''g'' : ''B'' --> ''A'' such that ''f''(''g''(''x'')) = ''x'' for ''x'' ∈ ''B''? As you state it, it doesn't seem equivalent to AC at all. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 20:24, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:: Arrg. I always get "bijective" "surjective" and "injective" mixed up. I'll have to go back and look at it a little longer. This isn't my formulation, so I'll have to get a little for clarification before I add it... [[User:Phyzome|Tim]] 00:04, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

''Epimorphisms split''. Well, that's more compact.

Actually there are books full of equivalents.

[[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 20:25, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

== Baire's theorem ==

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Baire's theorem requires only inductive choice. That's quite different than the full axiom of choice. I suggest that it be removed from the list of dependencies. (the [[Baire category theorem]] page requires checking too). [[User:Gadykozma|Gady]] 22:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

: The page says "''Several central theorems in various branches of mathematics require the axiom of choice (or one of its weaker versions, such as the Boolean prime ideal theorem, the axiom of countable choice, or the axiom of dependent choice).''", though, so while it doesn't explicitely list inductive choice as a weaker version, it does state that full AC may not be necessary to prove the heorems listed. -- [[User:Schneelocke|Schnee]] 02:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So the page is not ''wrong'', just misleading. These things cannot be wrapped up together — maybe a logician thinks they are all of equal standing (because they are all independent of ZF), but in the rest of mathematics, the axiom of choice has a standing quite distinct from the others. [[User:Gadykozma|Gady]] 02:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Feel free to update it so it's more clear. :) -- [[User:Schneelocke|Schnee]] 16:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/Axiom_of_choice|Link suggestions]] ==

An [[User:LinkBot|automated Wikipedia link suggester]] has some possible wiki link suggestions for the [[Axiom_of_choice]] article, and they have been placed on [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/Axiom_of_choice|this page]] for your convenience. ''Tip:'' Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add <nowiki>{{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Axiom_of_choice}}</nowiki> to this page. — [[User:LinkBot|LinkBot]] 10:27, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

== Another dfn. ==

I once heard another definition of the AoC which I quite liked. I haven't researched it or checked it, but it seems to be equiv.:

: The cross product of non-empty sets is a non-empty set

Or abusing notation:

: Given sets <math>S_1, S_2, \ldots</math>, the set <math>S_1 \times S_2 \times \ldots</math> contains an element.

I guess that by using integer subscripts it looks like there are countably many sets. But you get the idea.

--[[User:Sean Kelly|Sean Kelly]] 01:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

== Law of the Excluded Middle ==

The following was recently added to the article:

:Interestingly, the axiom of choice implies the [[law of excluded middle]], another principle which is also rejected by constructive mathematicians (and, in particular, by the [[intuitionism|intuitionists]]). To see this, for any proposition <math>P\,</math>, let <math>U\,</math> be the set <math>\{x = 0 \vee P : x \in \{0, 1\}\}</math> and let <math>V\,</math> be the set <math>\{x = 1 \vee P : x \in \{0, 1\}\}</math>. By the axiom of choice, there will exist a choice function <math>f\,</math> for the set <math>\{U, V\}\,</math>. Since <math>f(U) \in U</math> and <math>f(V) \in V</math>, this implies <math>[f(U) = 0 \vee P] \wedge [f(V) = 1 \vee P]</math>, which implies <math>f(U) \neq f(V) \vee P</math>. Since <math>P\,</math> implies <math>U = V = \{0, 1\}\,</math>, it must be that <math>P\,</math> implies <math>f(U) = f(V)\,</math>, so <math>f(U) \neq f(V) \vee P</math> would imply <math>\neg P \vee P</math>. As this could be done for any proposition <math>P\,</math>, this completes the proof that the axiom of choice implies the law of the excluded middle.

I've removed this because it doesn't make sense to me. For starters, the axiom of choice is not necessary for the existence of a choice function for a finite set of finite sets. I apologize if I'm being slow here; if someone knows better, it can always be put back. [[User:Josh Cherry|Josh Cherry]] 03:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:It doesn't make sense to me either. [[User:Dbenbenn|Dbenbenn]] 03:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

::Nor to me. What in the world is the set

:::<math>\{\,x = 0 \vee P : x \in \{\,0, 1\,\}\,\}\ \mathrm{?}</math>

::By usual notation, it means the same thing as

:::<math>\{\,0 = 0 \vee P,\, 1=0 \vee P\, \}.</math>

::What does that mean? [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 20:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:::I think it's supposed to mean the set of all <math>x \in \{\,0, 1\,\}</math> such that x=0 or P, i.e., {0, 1} if P is true and {0} if P is false. But I'm not sure, and it took me a while to arrive at that. [[User:Josh Cherry|Josh Cherry]] 01:09, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:::Or perhaps the original author meant to say <math>\{x \in \{0, 1\} : (x = 0) \vee P \}</math>. --[[User:Sean Kelly|Sean Kelly]] 02:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The theorem itself is true. The argument provided ''is'' hard to follow. -- [[User:Waltpohl|Walt Pohl]] 01:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:Um, the law of excluded middle is just true.

::You miss the point. The author clearly meant ''within constructivist logic'' AC entails excluded middle. Excluded middle is not "just true" within constructivist logic. (But whoever wrote what appears there was clear as mud, even if his bottom-line conclusion turns out to be right.) [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 23:10, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:It doesn't depend on AC. It's not even a statement ''in'' mathematics, but rather a law that is used ''by'' mathematics. Of course, it's also a statement in various formalizations of logic, some of which, I expect, depend on AC. But in that sense you'd have to say precisely what formalization you're talking about. [[User:Dbenbenn|Dbenbenn]] 02:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

::[[Intuitionist]]s reject the law of excluded middle. They're apparently the ones interested in the connection with the axiom of choice. I'm not defending any of this--it seems like madness to me too--but there's a real strain of thought about this out there. The anonymous editor didn't just make this up, despite the fact that it makes no sense in the context of the article. [[User:Josh Cherry|Josh Cherry]] 03:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I originally added the above apparently controversial material, though from a different computer and without logging in. Josh Cherry and Sean Kelly are both correct about what I meant by the [[set comprehension]], though I'll admit that what I posted may have been quite unclear. I apologize for that, but I do think the material should remain, in a cleaned-up form. The purpose was to demonstrate that even those who follow constructive forms of logic which do not assume the law of the excluded middle are forced to accept this law if they accept the axiom of choice, a well-known and, I think, important theorem. I admit to writing the original proof in a hurry, but hopefully we'll eventually be able to get a much easier-to-follow version onto the page. -[[User:Chinju|Chinju]] 06:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

: I definitely think it should be included, but the argument you gave was pretty impenetrable. Care to explain the argument, and we'll go from there? -- [[User:Waltpohl|Walt Pohl]] 08:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::Also explain where the all-important choice function is given. I can see you provide the function ''f'', but I don't see how it uses the AoC, as ''U'' and ''V'' seem to be finite sets. --[[User:Sean Kelly|Sean Kelly]] 08:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The argument I gave was based off of my memory of the one found at the bottom of http://publish.uwo.ca/~jbell/Axiom%20of%20Choice%20and%20Zorn.pdf. I don't know if that makes it clearer or not; if not, perhaps you could mention which part is unclear and I could attempt to explain that more thoroughly. On a different note, Sean Kelly's objection that the choice function is only used on a finite collection of finite sets is a good one, and it took me a while to mull over. I think the resolution is something like this: the Axiom of Choice is classically unnecessary for a choice function in such a case; however, this is not the case intuitionistically.

To see this, consider how one creates a choice function without the axiom of choice for a finite set {X_1, X_2, ..., X_n} of nonempty sets X_1 through X_n. Using finitely many existential instantiations, one can obtain elements e_1 in X_1, e_2 in X_2, ..., through e_n in X_n. Then, naively, one might attempt to create a function f such that f(X_1) = e_1, f(X_2) = e_2, etc. However, this would not necessarily work, for if X_1 = X_2, one needs to make sure e_1 = e_2. So, really, what one might do classically is construct the function f inductively, letting f(X_1) = e_1, letting f(X_2) = e_1 if X_1 = X_2, letting f(X_2) = e_2 if X_1 != X_2, etc. With the law of the excluded middle, this could be shown to be a well-defined function, since [(X_1 = X_2) OR (X_1 != X_2)] would be provable. However, without the law of the excluded middle, such a definition wouldn't work, and so, perhaps, it would not necessarily always be possible to create a choice function for a finite set without the axiom of choice, in intuitionistic logic. That seems to me to be the answer for now, anyway, but I'll think about it some more. -[[User:Chinju|Chinju]] 18:12, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:Suppose, in the case at hand, that I define my choice function by f({0}) = 0, f({1}) = 1, and f({0, 1}) = 0. I presume that the existence of this function is uncontroversial. It does have a larger domain than the elements of {U, V}. However, 1. it is not clear to me that the usual statement of the axiom of choice requires that the domain be minimal and 2. even if it does, I imagine that a modified version that allowed for a larger domain would be equally unacceptable to intuitionists and equally useful to everybody else. [[User:Josh Cherry|Josh Cherry]] 02:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

::I only dabble in intuitionistic thinking, so I'm not sure, but I think the intuitionistic response would be that your proposed function hasn't actually been demonstrated to be a choice function for {U, V}, since you haven't demonstrated U to be {0}, {0, 1}, or {1}, even though this disjunction is, of course, classically easy to show from the fact that U is a non-empty subset of {0, 1} (and similarly for V). So your proposed choice function wouldn't have been shown to be applicable in this case. But I have to think about this some more. -[[User:Chinju|Chinju]] 03:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

== Banach-Tarski paradox nonconstructive? ==

Is the statement that the proof of the Banach Tarski paradox is nonconstructive relly true? I saw a proof (albeit a long time ago), but I had a definite idea that the proof actually constructed the a finite partition of the sphere... [[User:Schnolle|Schnolle]] 12:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:The nonconstructivity is in step 3 of [[Banach-Tarski paradox#A sketch of the proof]], where you use the axiom of choice to pick one element from every orbit of a particular action. [[User:Dbenbenn|dbenbenn]] | [[User talk:Dbenbenn|talk]] 13:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aon (company)

2005-02-17T05:10:31Z

Jrn: removed aon center link (with no target); removed "real estate" section heading

'''Aon Corporation''' {{nyse|AOC}} is a global [[risk management|risk-management]] consulting and [[insurance]] underwriting firm. Its main United States offices were in the 99th and 100th floors of the [[Two World Trade Center tenants|south tower]] of the [[World Trade Center]] at the time of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attack]].

As a result, Aon lost more than 170 employees. See the [[sep11:Aon Corporation|Memorial wiki tribute to Aon]] for a complete list of people.

== External links ==
* [http://www.aon.com Aon Corporation website]
* [http://www.legacy.com/aon/Tribute.asp Aon Remembers at Legacy.com]
* [http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=116756 Emporis - Aon Center, Chicago]

[[Category:Insurance companies of the United States]]
[[Category:Companies traded on NYSE]]
[[Category:Companies based in Illinois]]

Separated sets

2005-02-11T05:08:07Z

Jrn: /* Relation to topologically distinguishable points */ Oops, I misunderstood. Someone better than me at writing maths should fix this.

In [[topology]] and related branches of [[mathematics]], '''separated sets''' are pairs of [[subset]]s of a given [[topological space]] that are related to each other in a certain way.
The notion of when two sets are separated or not is important both to the notion of [[connected space]]s (and their connected components) as well as to the [[separation axiom]]s for topological spaces.

Separated sets should not be confused with [[separated space]]s (defined below), which are somewhat related but aren't the same thing.
And [[separable space]]s are a completely different topological concept.

== Definitions ==

There are various versions of the concept.
The terms are defined below, where X is a [[topological space]].

First, two subsets A and B of X are ''disjoint'' [[iff|if]] their [[intersection (sets)|intersection]] is the [[empty set]].
This property has nothing to do with topology as such, but only [[naive set theory|set theory]]; we include it here because it is the weakest in the sequence of different notions.
For more on disjointness in general, see [[Disjoint sets]].


A and B are ''separated'' in X [[iff|if]] each is disjoint from the other's [[closure (topology)|closure]].
The closures themselves don't have to be disjoint from each other; for example, the [[interval (mathematics)|interval]]s <nowiki>[0,1)</nowiki> and <nowiki>(1,2]</nowiki> are separated in the [[real line]] R, even though the point 1 belongs to both of their closures.
Note that any two separated sets automatically must be disjoint.

A and B are ''separated by neighbourhoods'' if there are a [[neighbourhood (topology)|neighbourhood]] U of A and a neighbourhood V of B such that U and V are disjoint.
(Sometimes you will see the requirement that U and V be ''[[open (topology)|open]]'' neighbourhoods, but this makes no difference in the end.)
For the example of A = <nowiki>[0,1)</nowiki> and B = <nowiki>(1,2]</nowiki>, you could take U = (-1,1) and V = (1,3).
Note that if any two sets are separated by neighbourhoods, then certainly they are separated.

A and B are ''separated by closed neighbourhoods'' if there are a [[closed (topology)|closed]] neighbourhood U of A and a closed neighbourhood V of B such that U and V are disjoint.
Our examples, <nowiki>[0,1)</nowiki> and <nowiki>(1,2]</nowiki>, are ''not'' separated by closed neighbourhoods.
You could make either U or V closed by including the point 1 in it, but you can't make them both closed while keeping them disjoint.
Note that if any two sets are separated by closed neighbourhoods, then certainly they are separated by neighbourhoods.

A and B are ''separated by a function'' if there exists a [[continuous function]] f from the space X to the real line R such that f(A) = {0} and f(B) = {1}.
(Sometimes you will see the [[unit interval]] [0,1] used in place of R in this definition, but it makes no difference in the end.)
In our example, <nowiki>[0,1)</nowiki> and <nowiki>(1,2]</nowiki> are not separated by a function, because there is no way to continuously define f at the point 1.
Note that if any two sets are separated by a function, then they are also separated by closed neighbourhoods; the neighbourhoods can be given in terms of the [[preimage]] of f as U := f-1[-e,e] and V := f-1[1-e,1+e], as long as e is a [[positive number|positive real number]] less than [[half|1/2]].

A and B are ''precisely separated by a function'' if there exists a continuous function f from X to R such that f-1(0) = A and f-1(1) = B.
(Again, you may also see the unit interval in place of R, and again it makes no difference.)
Note that if any two sets are precisely separated by a function, then certainly they are separated by a function.
Since {0} and {1} are closed in R, only closed sets are capable of being precisely separated by a function; but just because two sets are closed and separated by a function does not mean that they are automatically precisely separated by a function (even a different function).

== Relation to connected spaces ==

Given a topological space X, it is sometimes useful to consider whether it is possible for a subset A to be separated from its [[complement (set theory)|complement]].
This is certainly true if A is either the empty set or the entire space X, but there may be other possibilities.
A topological space X is ''connected'' if these are the only two possibilities.
Conversely, if a nonempty subset A is separated from its own complement, and if the only [[subset]] of A to share this property is the empty set, then A is an ''open-connected component'' of X.
(In the degenerate case where X is itself the [[empty set]] {}, authorities differ on whether {} is connected and whether {} is an open-connected component of itself.)

For more on connected spaces, see [[Connected space]].

== Relation to separation axioms and separated spaces ==

The ''separation axioms'' are various conditions that are sometimes imposed upon topological spaces which can be described in terms of the various types of separated sets.
As an example, we will define the T2 axiom, which is the condition imposed on separated spaces.
Specifically, a topological space is ''separated'' if, given any two [[distinct]] points x and y, the singleton sets {x} and {y} are separated by neighbourhoods.

Separated spaces are also called ''Hausdorff spaces'' or ''T2 spaces''.
Further discussion of separated spaces may be found in the article [[Hausdorff space]].
General discussion of the various separation axioms is in the article [[Separation axiom]].

== Relation to topologically distinguishable points ==

Given a topological space X, two points x and y are ''topologically distinguishable'' if there exists an [[open set]] containing one point but not the other.
If x and y are topologically distinguishable, then the [[singleton set]]s {x} and {y} must be disjoint.
On the other hand, if the singletons {x} and {y} are separated, then the points x and y must be topologically distinguishable.
Thus for singletons, topological distinguishability is a condition in between disjointness and separatedness.

For more about topologically distinguishable points, see [[Topological distinguishability]].

[[Category:Topology]]
[[Category:Separation axioms]]

Separated sets

2005-02-11T05:06:57Z

Jrn: /* Relation to topologically distinguishable points */ s/On the other hand/Conversely/ to fit intended idiom

In [[topology]] and related branches of [[mathematics]], '''separated sets''' are pairs of [[subset]]s of a given [[topological space]] that are related to each other in a certain way.
The notion of when two sets are separated or not is important both to the notion of [[connected space]]s (and their connected components) as well as to the [[separation axiom]]s for topological spaces.

Separated sets should not be confused with [[separated space]]s (defined below), which are somewhat related but aren't the same thing.
And [[separable space]]s are a completely different topological concept.

== Definitions ==

There are various versions of the concept.
The terms are defined below, where X is a [[topological space]].

First, two subsets A and B of X are ''disjoint'' [[iff|if]] their [[intersection (sets)|intersection]] is the [[empty set]].
This property has nothing to do with topology as such, but only [[naive set theory|set theory]]; we include it here because it is the weakest in the sequence of different notions.
For more on disjointness in general, see [[Disjoint sets]].


A and B are ''separated'' in X [[iff|if]] each is disjoint from the other's [[closure (topology)|closure]].
The closures themselves don't have to be disjoint from each other; for example, the [[interval (mathematics)|interval]]s <nowiki>[0,1)</nowiki> and <nowiki>(1,2]</nowiki> are separated in the [[real line]] R, even though the point 1 belongs to both of their closures.
Note that any two separated sets automatically must be disjoint.

A and B are ''separated by neighbourhoods'' if there are a [[neighbourhood (topology)|neighbourhood]] U of A and a neighbourhood V of B such that U and V are disjoint.
(Sometimes you will see the requirement that U and V be ''[[open (topology)|open]]'' neighbourhoods, but this makes no difference in the end.)
For the example of A = <nowiki>[0,1)</nowiki> and B = <nowiki>(1,2]</nowiki>, you could take U = (-1,1) and V = (1,3).
Note that if any two sets are separated by neighbourhoods, then certainly they are separated.

A and B are ''separated by closed neighbourhoods'' if there are a [[closed (topology)|closed]] neighbourhood U of A and a closed neighbourhood V of B such that U and V are disjoint.
Our examples, <nowiki>[0,1)</nowiki> and <nowiki>(1,2]</nowiki>, are ''not'' separated by closed neighbourhoods.
You could make either U or V closed by including the point 1 in it, but you can't make them both closed while keeping them disjoint.
Note that if any two sets are separated by closed neighbourhoods, then certainly they are separated by neighbourhoods.

A and B are ''separated by a function'' if there exists a [[continuous function]] f from the space X to the real line R such that f(A) = {0} and f(B) = {1}.
(Sometimes you will see the [[unit interval]] [0,1] used in place of R in this definition, but it makes no difference in the end.)
In our example, <nowiki>[0,1)</nowiki> and <nowiki>(1,2]</nowiki> are not separated by a function, because there is no way to continuously define f at the point 1.
Note that if any two sets are separated by a function, then they are also separated by closed neighbourhoods; the neighbourhoods can be given in terms of the [[preimage]] of f as U := f-1[-e,e] and V := f-1[1-e,1+e], as long as e is a [[positive number|positive real number]] less than [[half|1/2]].

A and B are ''precisely separated by a function'' if there exists a continuous function f from X to R such that f-1(0) = A and f-1(1) = B.
(Again, you may also see the unit interval in place of R, and again it makes no difference.)
Note that if any two sets are precisely separated by a function, then certainly they are separated by a function.
Since {0} and {1} are closed in R, only closed sets are capable of being precisely separated by a function; but just because two sets are closed and separated by a function does not mean that they are automatically precisely separated by a function (even a different function).

== Relation to connected spaces ==

Given a topological space X, it is sometimes useful to consider whether it is possible for a subset A to be separated from its [[complement (set theory)|complement]].
This is certainly true if A is either the empty set or the entire space X, but there may be other possibilities.
A topological space X is ''connected'' if these are the only two possibilities.
Conversely, if a nonempty subset A is separated from its own complement, and if the only [[subset]] of A to share this property is the empty set, then A is an ''open-connected component'' of X.
(In the degenerate case where X is itself the [[empty set]] {}, authorities differ on whether {} is connected and whether {} is an open-connected component of itself.)

For more on connected spaces, see [[Connected space]].

== Relation to separation axioms and separated spaces ==

The ''separation axioms'' are various conditions that are sometimes imposed upon topological spaces which can be described in terms of the various types of separated sets.
As an example, we will define the T2 axiom, which is the condition imposed on separated spaces.
Specifically, a topological space is ''separated'' if, given any two [[distinct]] points x and y, the singleton sets {x} and {y} are separated by neighbourhoods.

Separated spaces are also called ''Hausdorff spaces'' or ''T2 spaces''.
Further discussion of separated spaces may be found in the article [[Hausdorff space]].
General discussion of the various separation axioms is in the article [[Separation axiom]].

== Relation to topologically distinguishable points ==

Given a topological space X, two points x and y are ''topologically distinguishable'' if there exists an [[open set]] containing one point but not the other.
If x and y are topologically distinguishable, then the [[singleton set]]s {x} and {y} must be disjoint.
Conversely, if the singletons {x} and {y} are separated, then the points x and y must be topologically distinguishable.
Thus for singletons, topological distinguishability is a condition in between disjointness and separatedness.

For more about topologically distinguishable points, see [[Topological distinguishability]].

[[Category:Topology]]
[[Category:Separation axioms]]

Separated sets

2005-02-11T05:06:04Z

Jrn: /* Relation to topologically distinguishable points */ minor, minor rewording of end of sentence

Link

2005-02-11T04:58:41Z

Jrn: clean up, rewording - the mathy definition still needs some help

The term '''link''' can refer to:
{{Wiktionary}}
*A connection between two objects, or an element of a [[chain]].
*A '''[[sausage]]''' from a chain of connected sausages.
*A connection between two [[node (networking)|components]] of a [[network]].
**In [[transportation]], a [[road]], [[railroad]], [[cable]], or [[pipeline]] ([[List_of_transport_topics#Links|more examples]]).
**In a [[telecommunications network]], a '''[[communications channel]]''' between adjacent nodes.
***A connection by [[radio wave]]s, or a [[radio]] [[path]] between two points is called a '''[[radio link]]'''.
***Other types of communication channel are [[data link]], [[downlink]], [[duplex link]], [[fiber optic link]], [[line-of-sight link]], [[point-to-point link]], and [[satellite link]].
*A '''[[link (mathematics)|union]]''' of [[separated sets|separated]] mathematical [[Knot (mathematics)|knots]], possibly tangled together.
*The verb "'''[[linker|to link]]''', which in [[computer science]] means to assemble object files and libraries into an executable file or library.
*A '''[[symbolic link]]''' or '''[[hard link]]''' to a computer file, associating a filename with another file or a file's data.
*A [[U.S. customary unit]] of length equal to one hundredth of a [[chain (length)|chain]].
*'''[[Link (Legend of Zelda)|Link]]''', a [[video game character]] in the [[Legend of Zelda series]] by [[Nintendo]].
*'''[[Edwin Albert Link]]''', aviation pioneer.
*'''[[Liberation in North Korea]]''', a human rights advocacy group.
*'''[[The Link]]''', a short-lived [[United Kingdom|British]] organization founded in [[1937]] "to promote Anglo-German friendship".
*'''[[The Link REIT]]''', a [[real estate investment trust]] established by the [[Hong Kong]] Housing Authority to privatize shopping malls and carparks.
*'''[[Hong Kong Link]]''', a holding company for [[toll]] tunnels and bridges wholly owned by the [[Government of Hong Kong]].

== References ==
*[[Federal Standard 1037C]] 
*[[MIL-STD-188]]
*[[Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms]]

{{disambig}}

[[de:Link]]
[[nl:link]]

Talk:United States/to do

2004-12-20T23:45:57Z

Jrn: fix a little dead link

*Fix [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/Index/October_2004#United_States|unresolved objections]]

Aon (company)

2004-12-20T23:22:48Z

Jrn: removed redundant see also

Substantial equivalence

2004-12-03T09:34:57Z

Jrn: removed uses of the abbreviation "GM"

In the early-to mid [[1990s]], with the development and commercialisation of [[genetically modified food]] becoming an imminent possibility, national and international authorities began to consider a framework for the regulation of the new technologies. The "'''substantial equivalence'''" approach was eventually adopted. The exact definition of "substantial equivalence" in this context is hard to pin-down. Indeed the definition of the term proved so elusive that the approach was subjected to several conflicting interpretations.

Initially, it meant that if a genetically modified food was thought to be "substantially equivalent" to its traditional counterpart then [[risk assessment]]s were deemed unnecessary. The test compared, for example, [[protein]], [[carbohydrate]] and [[fatty acid levels]] between the novel food and its traditional counterpart. Crucially however there were no clear and universal guidelines over exactly what to test and how similar the two should be. Therefore, the amount of comparative data that was required to establish "substantial equivalence" involved "a somewhat subjective judgement" ([[Royal Society]] 2002: 5-6).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the approach proved immensely controversial. Consumer organisations, environmental groups and a few leading scientists criticised "substantial equivalence" for helping to play down the novelty of [[genetic engineering]] and thus facilitating its commercialisation. In response, over the years, the approach came to mean something very different and ultimately it was demoted as a regulatory tool - albeit implicitly.

The capability to classify a novel food as being "substantially equivalent" no longer justifies a lack of safety assessments. The regulatory process now places much more emphasis on identifying the unintended consequences of genetic modification. Moves are being made to develop better methods for testing composition, metabolic activity, [[toxicity]], [[allergen]]icity, etc. In contrast to its initial implementation, now the official consensus is that "substantial equivalence" should only be used to guide safety assessments, as a starting point in the regulatory process and not an end point.

==See also==
* [[risk management]]

==Bibliography==
* Royal Society (2002) ''[http://www.icsu.org/1_icsuinscience/GMO/PDF/RoyalSocUK2002.pdf Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use and Human Health].

[[Category:Biotechnology]]

Talk:Axiom of choice

2004-12-03T09:00:52Z

Jrn: noted that the statement I discussed has been removed

Talk:Axiom of choice

2004-12-03T08:46:44Z

Jrn: fixed spelling: intuitionist logic -> intuitionistic logic.

Aon (company)

2004-12-03T08:04:10Z

Jrn: ~115 -> 170 to reflect longer list on Aon's legacy.com tribute site.

'''Aon Corporation''' is a global [[risk management|risk-management]] consulting and [[insurance]] underwriting firm. Its main United States offices were in the 99th and 100th floors of the [[Two World Trade Center tenants|south tower]] of the [[World Trade Center]] at the time of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attack]].

As a result, Aon lost more than 170 employees, including:
* Heinz Ackermann
* Louis Aversano
* Sheila Barnes
* Paul Benedetti
* Denise Benedetto
* Jim Berger
* George John Bishop
* Susan Blair
* Harry Blanding
* Richard Blood
* Susan Bochino
* Darren Bohan
* Herman Broghammer
* Nancy Bueche
* James Cartier
* Kirsten Lail Christophe
* Eugene Clark
* Robert Colin
* Jean M. Collin
* John R. Crowe
* Lawrence Davidson
* Nereida DeJesus
* Colleen Deloughery
* Simon Dhanani
* Jennifer Dorsey (Howley-Dorsey)
* Yolanda Dowling
* Christine Egan (sister of Michael Egan)
* Michael Egan
* Lisa Caren Ehrlich
* Eric Evans
* Patricia M. Fagan
* Wendy Faulkner
* Mike Ferugio
* Lucy Fishman
* Noel Foster
* Gary Frank
* Richard Fraser
* Alan Friedlander
* Richard Gabrielle
* Pamela Gaff
* Julie Geis
* Donna Giordano
* Kim Girolamo
* Michelle Herman Goldstein
* Jenine Gonzalez
* Eileen Greenstein
* Florence Gregory
* Robert Gschaar
* Philip Guza
* Barbara Guzzardo
* Richard Hall
* Robert Halligan
* Donald G. Havlish, Jr.
* Mark Hemschoot
* Molly Herencia
* Gary Herold
* Robert Higley
* Tara Hobbs
* Thomas Hohlweck
* Milagros "Millie" Hromada
* Farah Jeudy
* Linda Jones
* Charles H. "Chuck" Karczewski
* Lucille King
* Vincent Laieta
* Venessa Langer
* Mary Lou Langley
* John Adam Larson
* Alan Lederman
* Juanita Lee
* Lorraine Lee
* Edward Lehman
* Nancy Liz
* Michael Lomax
* Richard Madden
* Brian Martineau
* Lizie Martinez-Calderon
* Nicholas "Nick" Massa
* Charles Mauro
* Colin McArthur
* Ann McGovern
* Lizette Mendoza
* Jill Metzler
* Gregory Milanowycz
* Robert Miller Jr
* Paula Morales
* Theresa Munson
* Alex Napier Jr.
* Marcus Neblett
* Laurence Nedell
* Michael Opperman
* [http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijayashanker_Paramsothy Vijayashanker Paramsothy])
* Hardai "Casey" Parbhu
* Suzanne Passaro
* Patrice Paz
* Angel R. Pena
* Marie Percoco
* Frank Pershep
* Daphne Pouletsos
* [[sep11:Stephen Poulos]]
* Carrie Progen
* David Pruim
* Edward Pullis
* Carol Rabalais
* Michele Reed
* [[John Rhodes]]
* Michell Robotham
* [[sep11:Maurita Tam|Maurita Tam]]
* Mayra Valdes-Rodriguez
* Erica Van Acker
* Daniel M. Van Laere (see also [http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/met_MISSING_1029_van.html NY Times article] )
* Leanne Marie Whiteside
* Donna Wilson
* David Wiswall
* Yin Ping (Steven) Wong
* Suzanne Youmans
* Mark Zangrilli

==See also==
* [[sep11:Aon Corporation|memorial wiki tribute to Aon]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.aon.com Aon Corporation website]
* [http://www.legacy.com/aon/Tribute.asp Aon Remembers at Legacy.com]

[[Category:Insurance companies]]

Talk:Freeware/Archive 1

2004-12-03T07:53:02Z

Jrn: Removal of disambiguation notice

There seems to be a similiar page called Free software. Those two should be merged.

''This page has enough detail that it should probably be renamed "Software Licenses." All subcategories should be given their own pages. The page for freeware should have less detailed descriptions of each type of non-freeware software. [[User:Aguydude|Aguydude]] 06:40 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)''

May I suggest adding the term "demo" under shareware/crippleware or as a separate category since that may be a more familiar term? - [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9]] 20:18 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

Also, how about starting pages to provide links by operating system to the various categories of freeware/shareware/etc. to either a Wikipedia site discussing the specific software or to the company/programmer? Although sites such as Versiontracker.com may already perform this function by designating items as freeware or shareware, I think it may be nice to subcategorize freeware further (e.g., some so-called "freeware" turns out to be really "crippleware") Having pages for specific software would also provide a forum for providing information on software not available at the company site or elsewhere. - [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9]] 20:18 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

Is there a term for software (such as bribeware?) for software which was made freeware by someone paying the programmer to make it free for everyone? [[User:Brettz9|[[User:Brettz9|Brettz9]] [[User talk:Brettz9|(talk)]]]] 19:02, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

== Splitting of the Free Software article into [[Free software]] and [[Freeware]] ==

I split [[Free software]] into two parts, [[Free software]] and [[Freeware]] and put any leftovers [[Talk:Free software/old article|here]], they should be merged into either one. --[[User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason| ]] [[User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/|Ævar]] [[User talk:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/|Arnfjörð]] [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason|action=edit&section=new}} Bjarmason] [[User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/| ]] 15:12, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
==Should we have a Freeware Archives section?==
It seems like the Freeware Archives section is just a perfect source of people putting their fav freeware site on there. [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_web_directory]], eh? [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 09:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:I agree, and have now deleted these links. [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] | [[User talk:Fredrik|talk]] 16:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Definition of Freeware? ==

In my experience, in common usage today among the masses (and, as I understand it, as it was used on BBS networks of old) freeware tends to only refer to [[freely redistributable software]] (that is also gratis) as opposed to any software that is free of charge. (Indeed it is questionable whether gratis software can be a category of ''software'' at all as not only is its price not part of the nature of the software, but because `software', by definition, refers to the intangible idea itself which is usually avaiable in multiple physical forms at different prices.)

Although, I ''am'' also aware that people have probably tried to use the word freeware to mean just about everything (from [[free software]] to any software that is in the (non-copyright) public domain); maybe its ambiguity should be made clear on the page.

-- [[User:Joeblakesley|Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley]] 18:05, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

== Removal of disambiguation notice ==

At the top of this article, there was the following disambiguation notice:

::''This article refers to software available free of charge. For "free software" as defined by the [[Free Software Foundation]], see [[Free software]].''

I removed it. I think few people will be looking for free as in speech
software here, and someone who is needs only look down to the list of
categories of software distinct from freeware.

- [[User:Jrn|Jrn]] 07:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Freeware

2004-12-03T07:52:49Z

Jrn: remove notice about "free software" article from top. see the talk page for rationale.

'''Freeware''' is computer [[software]] which is made available free of charge. Typically freeware is distributed without [[source code]]. Freeware usually carries a [[software license|license]] that permits redistribution but may have other restrictions, such as limitations on its commercial use. Sometimes the license can be as simple as saying the program may be freely copied, but never sold. Another common stipulation forbids use by governments or armed forces.

The term was coined by [[Andrew Fluegelman]] when he wanted to distribute a communications program named [[PC-Talk]] that he had created but for which he did not wish to use traditional methods of distribution because of their cost. Previously, he held a [[trademark]] on the term "freeware" but this trademark has since been abandoned. He actually distributed PC-Talk via what is now referred to as [[shareware]].

Commercial vendors often release freeware as a [[loss leader]] to attract customers to other services or products available for a fee. Others release freeware because other methods of distribution are unlikely to make a profit or because the software is outdated and is no longer worth selling.

Freeware is distinct from the following categories of software:

* [[Free software]] and [[open-source software]]. The word "free" in "free software" refers to freedom, not price; specifically, it refers to software whose license terms permit its use, modification and redistribution, with or without charge. The word "free" in "freeware" refers only to price. The word "gratisware" as a synonym for "freeware" makes this distinction clearer, but is not in common use.
* [[Crippleware]], [[Shareware]]. Shareware is distributed similarly to freeware except that it requires payment after some trial period or for more features (the "full version"), in the case of crippleware.

The following are still considered freeware. Freeware is an umbrella term which covers:
* [[Adware]]. Adware is distributed as freeware, but it requires the user to view advertisements to use the software. Many cases of [[spyware]] have been adware.
* [[Donationware]]. The authors of donationware ask that anyone using their software make a donation to the authors or to some third party such as a [[charity]]. Because the donation is optional, donationware may also be freeware or fall into some other category.
* [[Public domain]] software. Software in the public domain has no [[copyright]] and therefore may be distributed without charge. Freeware is usually copyrighted and its license may restrict certain activities.
* [[Abandonware]]. Abandonware is commercial software that has not been sold for a long time or whose copyright holder is defunct; it has been "abandoned". The licenses of most such software forbid redistribution or require payment, so distributing it violates the author's copyright (even if the author does not or cannot enforce it). "Legal abandonware" is a misnomer for commercial software that has been re-released by the copyright holder as freeware.
*[[Postcardware]]. The software is essentially freeware, however the author requests that you send him a post card expressing thanks and enabling him to provide feedback to users.

Some developers or distributors occasionally invent neologisms, such as for example "muffinware", describing the type of donation they'd like to receive in return for the product.

''See also:''
* [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/freeware List of Freeware] at [[Wikibooks]].
*[[List of freeware games]]
*[[List of shareware games]]

== External links ==
* [http://paulspicks.com/history.asp ''The History of Shareware'' by Michael E. Callahan]
* [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#freeware GNU's declaration that "freeware" is not the same as "free software"]
* [http://www.techsoup.org/howto/articlepage.cfm?articleid=40 Making Sense of Freeware, Open Source, and Shareware]
* [http://textfiles.fisher.hu/news/freeware.txt ''Andrew Fluegleman: In Memoriam'' by Kevin Strehlo]

{{software distribution}}

[[Category:Application software]]
[[Category:Freeware|*]]

[[da:Freeware]]
[[de:Freeware]]
[[fr:Graticiel]]
[[it:Freeware]]
[[nl:Freeware]]
[[ja:フリーウェア]]
[[pl:Freeware]]
[[sv:Freeware]]
[[simple:Free software]]

Aon (company)

2004-12-03T07:37:08Z

Jrn: sorry - upon rereading, reverting September 11, 2001 attacks -> September 11, 2001 terrorist attack

'''Aon Corporation''' is a global [[risk management|risk-management]] consulting and [[insurance]] underwriting firm. Its main United States offices were in the 99th and 100th floors of the [[Two World Trade Center tenants|south tower]] of the [[World Trade Center]] at the time of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attack]].

As a result, Aon lost more than 115 employees, including:
* Heinz Ackermann
* Louis Aversano
* Sheila Barnes
* Paul Benedetti
* Denise Benedetto
* Jim Berger
* George John Bishop
* Susan Blair
* Harry Blanding
* Richard Blood
* Susan Bochino
* Darren Bohan
* Herman Broghammer
* Nancy Bueche
* James Cartier
* Kirsten Lail Christophe
* Eugene Clark
* Robert Colin
* Jean M. Collin
* John R. Crowe
* Lawrence Davidson
* Nereida DeJesus
* Colleen Deloughery
* Simon Dhanani
* Jennifer Dorsey (Howley-Dorsey)
* Yolanda Dowling
* Christine Egan (sister of Michael Egan)
* Michael Egan
* Lisa Caren Ehrlich
* Eric Evans
* Patricia M. Fagan
* Wendy Faulkner
* Mike Ferugio
* Lucy Fishman
* Noel Foster
* Gary Frank
* Richard Fraser
* Alan Friedlander
* Richard Gabrielle
* Pamela Gaff
* Julie Geis
* Donna Giordano
* Kim Girolamo
* Michelle Herman Goldstein
* Jenine Gonzalez
* Eileen Greenstein
* Florence Gregory
* Robert Gschaar
* Philip Guza
* Barbara Guzzardo
* Richard Hall
* Robert Halligan
* Donald G. Havlish, Jr.
* Mark Hemschoot
* Molly Herencia
* Gary Herold
* Robert Higley
* Tara Hobbs
* Thomas Hohlweck
* Milagros "Millie" Hromada
* Farah Jeudy
* Linda Jones
* Charles H. "Chuck" Karczewski
* Lucille King
* Vincent Laieta
* Venessa Langer
* Mary Lou Langley
* John Adam Larson
* Alan Lederman
* Juanita Lee
* Lorraine Lee
* Edward Lehman
* Nancy Liz
* Michael Lomax
* Richard Madden
* Brian Martineau
* Lizie Martinez-Calderon
* Nicholas "Nick" Massa
* Charles Mauro
* Colin McArthur
* Ann McGovern
* Lizette Mendoza
* Jill Metzler
* Gregory Milanowycz
* Robert Miller Jr
* Paula Morales
* Theresa Munson
* Alex Napier Jr.
* Marcus Neblett
* Laurence Nedell
* Michael Opperman
* [http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijayashanker_Paramsothy Vijayashanker Paramsothy])
* Hardai "Casey" Parbhu
* Suzanne Passaro
* Patrice Paz
* Angel R. Pena
* Marie Percoco
* Frank Pershep
* Daphne Pouletsos
* [[sep11:Stephen Poulos]]
* Carrie Progen
* David Pruim
* Edward Pullis
* Carol Rabalais
* Michele Reed
* [[John Rhodes]]
* Michell Robotham
* [[sep11:Maurita Tam|Maurita Tam]]
* Mayra Valdes-Rodriguez
* Erica Van Acker
* Daniel M. Van Laere (see also [http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/met_MISSING_1029_van.html NY Times article] )
* Leanne Marie Whiteside
* Donna Wilson
* David Wiswall
* Yin Ping (Steven) Wong
* Suzanne Youmans
* Mark Zangrilli

==See also==
* [[sep11:Aon Corporation|memorial wiki tribute to Aon]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.aon.com Aon Corporation website]
* [http://www.legacy.com/aon/Tribute.asp Aon Remembers at Legacy.com]

[[Category:Insurance companies]]

Aon (company)

2004-12-03T07:34:10Z

Jrn: September 11, 2001 terrorist attack -> September 11, 2001 attacks

'''Aon Corporation''' is a global [[risk management|risk-management]] consulting and [[insurance]] underwriting firm. Its main United States offices were in the 99th and 100th floors of the [[Two World Trade Center tenants|south tower]] of the [[World Trade Center]] at the time of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]].

As a result, Aon lost more than 115 employees, including:
* Heinz Ackermann
* Louis Aversano
* Sheila Barnes
* Paul Benedetti
* Denise Benedetto
* Jim Berger
* George John Bishop
* Susan Blair
* Harry Blanding
* Richard Blood
* Susan Bochino
* Darren Bohan
* Herman Broghammer
* Nancy Bueche
* James Cartier
* Kirsten Lail Christophe
* Eugene Clark
* Robert Colin
* Jean M. Collin
* John R. Crowe
* Lawrence Davidson
* Nereida DeJesus
* Colleen Deloughery
* Simon Dhanani
* Jennifer Dorsey (Howley-Dorsey)
* Yolanda Dowling
* Christine Egan (sister of Michael Egan)
* Michael Egan
* Lisa Caren Ehrlich
* Eric Evans
* Patricia M. Fagan
* Wendy Faulkner
* Mike Ferugio
* Lucy Fishman
* Noel Foster
* Gary Frank
* Richard Fraser
* Alan Friedlander
* Richard Gabrielle
* Pamela Gaff
* Julie Geis
* Donna Giordano
* Kim Girolamo
* Michelle Herman Goldstein
* Jenine Gonzalez
* Eileen Greenstein
* Florence Gregory
* Robert Gschaar
* Philip Guza
* Barbara Guzzardo
* Richard Hall
* Robert Halligan
* Donald G. Havlish, Jr.
* Mark Hemschoot
* Molly Herencia
* Gary Herold
* Robert Higley
* Tara Hobbs
* Thomas Hohlweck
* Milagros "Millie" Hromada
* Farah Jeudy
* Linda Jones
* Charles H. "Chuck" Karczewski
* Lucille King
* Vincent Laieta
* Venessa Langer
* Mary Lou Langley
* John Adam Larson
* Alan Lederman
* Juanita Lee
* Lorraine Lee
* Edward Lehman
* Nancy Liz
* Michael Lomax
* Richard Madden
* Brian Martineau
* Lizie Martinez-Calderon
* Nicholas "Nick" Massa
* Charles Mauro
* Colin McArthur
* Ann McGovern
* Lizette Mendoza
* Jill Metzler
* Gregory Milanowycz
* Robert Miller Jr
* Paula Morales
* Theresa Munson
* Alex Napier Jr.
* Marcus Neblett
* Laurence Nedell
* Michael Opperman
* [http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijayashanker_Paramsothy Vijayashanker Paramsothy])
* Hardai "Casey" Parbhu
* Suzanne Passaro
* Patrice Paz
* Angel R. Pena
* Marie Percoco
* Frank Pershep
* Daphne Pouletsos
* [[sep11:Stephen Poulos]]
* Carrie Progen
* David Pruim
* Edward Pullis
* Carol Rabalais
* Michele Reed
* [[John Rhodes]]
* Michell Robotham
* [[sep11:Maurita Tam|Maurita Tam]]
* Mayra Valdes-Rodriguez
* Erica Van Acker
* Daniel M. Van Laere (see also [http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/met_MISSING_1029_van.html NY Times article] )
* Leanne Marie Whiteside
* Donna Wilson
* David Wiswall
* Yin Ping (Steven) Wong
* Suzanne Youmans
* Mark Zangrilli

==See also==
* [[sep11:Aon Corporation|memorial wiki tribute to Aon]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.aon.com Aon Corporation website]
* [http://www.legacy.com/aon/Tribute.asp Aon Remembers at Legacy.com]

[[Category:Insurance companies]]

Aon (company)

2004-12-03T07:32:51Z

Jrn: Please review: replaced "see also" link with pipelink in the text; removed one of two adjacent links, minor sentence clarification

'''Aon Corporation''' is a global [[risk management|risk-management]] consulting and [[insurance]] underwriting firm. Its main United States offices were in the 99th and 100th floors of the [[Two World Trade Center tenants|south tower]] of the [[World Trade Center]] at the time of the [[September 11, 2001 terrorist attack]].

As a result, Aon lost more than 115 employees, including:
* Heinz Ackermann
* Louis Aversano
* Sheila Barnes
* Paul Benedetti
* Denise Benedetto
* Jim Berger
* George John Bishop
* Susan Blair
* Harry Blanding
* Richard Blood
* Susan Bochino
* Darren Bohan
* Herman Broghammer
* Nancy Bueche
* James Cartier
* Kirsten Lail Christophe
* Eugene Clark
* Robert Colin
* Jean M. Collin
* John R. Crowe
* Lawrence Davidson
* Nereida DeJesus
* Colleen Deloughery
* Simon Dhanani
* Jennifer Dorsey (Howley-Dorsey)
* Yolanda Dowling
* Christine Egan (sister of Michael Egan)
* Michael Egan
* Lisa Caren Ehrlich
* Eric Evans
* Patricia M. Fagan
* Wendy Faulkner
* Mike Ferugio
* Lucy Fishman
* Noel Foster
* Gary Frank
* Richard Fraser
* Alan Friedlander
* Richard Gabrielle
* Pamela Gaff
* Julie Geis
* Donna Giordano
* Kim Girolamo
* Michelle Herman Goldstein
* Jenine Gonzalez
* Eileen Greenstein
* Florence Gregory
* Robert Gschaar
* Philip Guza
* Barbara Guzzardo
* Richard Hall
* Robert Halligan
* Donald G. Havlish, Jr.
* Mark Hemschoot
* Molly Herencia
* Gary Herold
* Robert Higley
* Tara Hobbs
* Thomas Hohlweck
* Milagros "Millie" Hromada
* Farah Jeudy
* Linda Jones
* Charles H. "Chuck" Karczewski
* Lucille King
* Vincent Laieta
* Venessa Langer
* Mary Lou Langley
* John Adam Larson
* Alan Lederman
* Juanita Lee
* Lorraine Lee
* Edward Lehman
* Nancy Liz
* Michael Lomax
* Richard Madden
* Brian Martineau
* Lizie Martinez-Calderon
* Nicholas "Nick" Massa
* Charles Mauro
* Colin McArthur
* Ann McGovern
* Lizette Mendoza
* Jill Metzler
* Gregory Milanowycz
* Robert Miller Jr
* Paula Morales
* Theresa Munson
* Alex Napier Jr.
* Marcus Neblett
* Laurence Nedell
* Michael Opperman
* [http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijayashanker_Paramsothy Vijayashanker Paramsothy])
* Hardai "Casey" Parbhu
* Suzanne Passaro
* Patrice Paz
* Angel R. Pena
* Marie Percoco
* Frank Pershep
* Daphne Pouletsos
* [[sep11:Stephen Poulos]]
* Carrie Progen
* David Pruim
* Edward Pullis
* Carol Rabalais
* Michele Reed
* [[John Rhodes]]
* Michell Robotham
* [[sep11:Maurita Tam|Maurita Tam]]
* Mayra Valdes-Rodriguez
* Erica Van Acker
* Daniel M. Van Laere (see also [http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/met_MISSING_1029_van.html NY Times article] )
* Leanne Marie Whiteside
* Donna Wilson
* David Wiswall
* Yin Ping (Steven) Wong
* Suzanne Youmans
* Mark Zangrilli

==See also==
* [[sep11:Aon Corporation|memorial wiki tribute to Aon]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.aon.com Aon Corporation website]
* [http://www.legacy.com/aon/Tribute.asp Aon Remembers at Legacy.com]

[[Category:Insurance companies]]

Aon (company)

2004-12-03T06:48:51Z

Jrn: employees were killed -> Aon lost employees. The meaning is clear, and I think this wording has more impact.

'''Aon Corporation''' is a global risk-management consulting and [[insurance]] [[underwriting]] firm. Its main United States offices were in the 99th and 100th floors of the south tower of the [[World Trade Center]] at the time of the [[September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack]]. See also: [[Two World Trade Center tenants]]

Aon lost more than 115 employees in the [[September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack]], including:
* Heinz Ackermann
* Louis Aversano
* Sheila Barnes
* Paul Benedetti
* Denise Benedetto
* Jim Berger
* George John Bishop
* Susan Blair
* Harry Blanding
* Richard Blood
* Susan Bochino
* Darren Bohan
* Herman Broghammer
* Nancy Bueche
* James Cartier
* Kirsten Lail Christophe
* Eugene Clark
* Robert Colin
* Jean M. Collin
* John R. Crowe
* Lawrence Davidson
* Nereida DeJesus
* Colleen Deloughery
* Simon Dhanani
* Jennifer Dorsey (Howley-Dorsey)
* Yolanda Dowling
* Christine Egan (sister of Michael Egan)
* Michael Egan
* Lisa Caren Ehrlich
* Eric Evans
* Patricia M. Fagan
* Wendy Faulkner
* Mike Ferugio
* Lucy Fishman
* Noel Foster
* Gary Frank
* Richard Fraser
* Alan Friedlander
* Richard Gabrielle
* Pamela Gaff
* Julie Geis
* Donna Giordano
* Kim Girolamo
* Michelle Herman Goldstein
* Jenine Gonzalez
* Eileen Greenstein
* Florence Gregory
* Robert Gschaar
* Philip Guza
* Barbara Guzzardo
* Richard Hall
* Robert Halligan
* Donald G. Havlish, Jr.
* Mark Hemschoot
* Molly Herencia
* Gary Herold
* Robert Higley
* Tara Hobbs
* Thomas Hohlweck
* Milagros "Millie" Hromada
* Farah Jeudy
* Linda Jones
* Charles H. "Chuck" Karczewski
* Lucille King
* Vincent Laieta
* Venessa Langer
* Mary Lou Langley
* John Adam Larson
* Alan Lederman
* Juanita Lee
* Lorraine Lee
* Edward Lehman
* Nancy Liz
* Michael Lomax
* Richard Madden
* Brian Martineau
* Lizie Martinez-Calderon
* Nicholas "Nick" Massa
* Charles Mauro
* Colin McArthur
* Ann McGovern
* Lizette Mendoza
* Jill Metzler
* Gregory Milanowycz
* Robert Miller Jr
* Paula Morales
* Theresa Munson
* Alex Napier Jr.
* Marcus Neblett
* Laurence Nedell
* Michael Opperman
* [http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijayashanker_Paramsothy Vijayashanker Paramsothy])
* Hardai "Casey" Parbhu
* Suzanne Passaro
* Patrice Paz
* Angel R. Pena
* Marie Percoco
* Frank Pershep
* Daphne Pouletsos
* [[sep11:Stephen Poulos]]
* Carrie Progen
* David Pruim
* Edward Pullis
* Carol Rabalais
* Michele Reed
* [[John Rhodes]]
* Michell Robotham
* [[sep11:Maurita Tam|Maurita Tam]]
* Mayra Valdes-Rodriguez
* Erica Van Acker
* Daniel M. Van Laere (see also [http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/met_MISSING_1029_van.html NY Times article] )
* Leanne Marie Whiteside
* Donna Wilson
* David Wiswall
* Yin Ping (Steven) Wong
* Suzanne Youmans
* Mark Zangrilli

==See also==
* [[sep11:Aon Corporation|memorial wiki tribute to Aon]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.aon.com Aon Corporation website]
* [http://www.legacy.com/aon/Tribute.asp Aon Remembers at Legacy.com]

[[Category:Insurance companies]]

Aon (company)

2004-12-03T06:44:27Z

Jrn: Specified a number of employees killed to highlight importance

'''Aon Corporation''' is a global risk-management consulting and [[insurance]] [[underwriting]] firm. Its main United States offices were in the 99th and 100th floors of the south tower of the [[World Trade Center]] at the time of the [[September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack]]. See also: [[Two World Trade Center tenants]]

More than 115 employees were killed in the [[September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack]], including:
* Heinz Ackermann
* Louis Aversano
* Sheila Barnes
* Paul Benedetti
* Denise Benedetto
* Jim Berger
* George John Bishop
* Susan Blair
* Harry Blanding
* Richard Blood
* Susan Bochino
* Darren Bohan
* Herman Broghammer
* Nancy Bueche
* James Cartier
* Kirsten Lail Christophe
* Eugene Clark
* Robert Colin
* Jean M. Collin
* John R. Crowe
* Lawrence Davidson
* Nereida DeJesus
* Colleen Deloughery
* Simon Dhanani
* Jennifer Dorsey (Howley-Dorsey)
* Yolanda Dowling
* Christine Egan (sister of Michael Egan)
* Michael Egan
* Lisa Caren Ehrlich
* Eric Evans
* Patricia M. Fagan
* Wendy Faulkner
* Mike Ferugio
* Lucy Fishman
* Noel Foster
* Gary Frank
* Richard Fraser
* Alan Friedlander
* Richard Gabrielle
* Pamela Gaff
* Julie Geis
* Donna Giordano
* Kim Girolamo
* Michelle Herman Goldstein
* Jenine Gonzalez
* Eileen Greenstein
* Florence Gregory
* Robert Gschaar
* Philip Guza
* Barbara Guzzardo
* Richard Hall
* Robert Halligan
* Donald G. Havlish, Jr.
* Mark Hemschoot
* Molly Herencia
* Gary Herold
* Robert Higley
* Tara Hobbs
* Thomas Hohlweck
* Milagros "Millie" Hromada
* Farah Jeudy
* Linda Jones
* Charles H. "Chuck" Karczewski
* Lucille King
* Vincent Laieta
* Venessa Langer
* Mary Lou Langley
* John Adam Larson
* Alan Lederman
* Juanita Lee
* Lorraine Lee
* Edward Lehman
* Nancy Liz
* Michael Lomax
* Richard Madden
* Brian Martineau
* Lizie Martinez-Calderon
* Nicholas "Nick" Massa
* Charles Mauro
* Colin McArthur
* Ann McGovern
* Lizette Mendoza
* Jill Metzler
* Gregory Milanowycz
* Robert Miller Jr
* Paula Morales
* Theresa Munson
* Alex Napier Jr.
* Marcus Neblett
* Laurence Nedell
* Michael Opperman
* [http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijayashanker_Paramsothy Vijayashanker Paramsothy])
* Hardai "Casey" Parbhu
* Suzanne Passaro
* Patrice Paz
* Angel R. Pena
* Marie Percoco
* Frank Pershep
* Daphne Pouletsos
* [[sep11:Stephen Poulos]]
* Carrie Progen
* David Pruim
* Edward Pullis
* Carol Rabalais
* Michele Reed
* [[John Rhodes]]
* Michell Robotham
* [[sep11:Maurita Tam|Maurita Tam]]
* Mayra Valdes-Rodriguez
* Erica Van Acker
* Daniel M. Van Laere (see also [http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/met_MISSING_1029_van.html NY Times article] )
* Leanne Marie Whiteside
* Donna Wilson
* David Wiswall
* Yin Ping (Steven) Wong
* Suzanne Youmans
* Mark Zangrilli

==See also==
* [[sep11:Aon Corporation|memorial wiki tribute to Aon]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.aon.com Aon Corporation website]
* [http://www.legacy.com/aon/Tribute.asp Aon Remembers at Legacy.com]

[[Category:Insurance companies]]

Aon (company)

2004-10-24T07:46:05Z

Jrn: Removed list of September 11 victims, which is also at sep11:Aon Corporation.

'''Aon Corporation''' is a global risk-management consulting and [[insurance]] underwriting firm. Its main United States offices were in the 99th and 100th floors of the south tower of the [[World Trade Center]] at the time of the [[September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack]]. See also: [[Two World Trade Center tenants]]

==See also==
* [[sep11:Aon Corporation|memorial wiki tribute to Aon]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.aon.com Aon Corporation website]
* [http://www.legacy.com/aon/Tribute.asp Aon Remembers at Legacy.com]

[[Category:Insurance companies]]

United States

2004-10-24T07:32:19Z

Jrn: social issues: linked ² to footnotes section; corrected weasel phrase to more precise specified believer. This section needs a rewrite, or a lopping-off.

{{otheruses}}
{{United States infobox}}
The '''United States of America''', also referred to as the '''United States''', '''U.S.A.''', '''U.S.''', '''America''',[[#Notes|¹]] or '''the States''', is a [[federal republic]] in central [[North America]], stretching from the [[Atlantic (ocean)|Atlantic]] in the east to the [[Pacific Ocean]] in the west. It shares land borders with [[Canada]] in the north and [[Mexico]] in the south, shares a marine border with [[Russia]], in the west, and has a collection of districts, territories, and possessions around the world. The country has fifty [[U.S. state|states]], which have a level of local autonomy according to the system of [[federalism]]. A United States citizen is usually identified as an ''American''.[[#Notes|¹]]

The United States traces its national origin to the [[United States Declaration of Independence|declaration]] by thirteen [[Kingdom of Great Britain|British]] [[13 colonies|colonies]] in [[1776]] that they were free and independent states. Since the mid-[[20th century]], it has surpassed all other [[nation]]s in contemporary [[economic]], [[political]], [[military]] and [[cultural]] influence.

The U.S. was founded under a tradition of having the rule come from the people under the [[representative democracy]] model. This model of government ([[presidential system|presidential]]-[[congressional system|congressional]]) has since been adopted by many other countries, mostly in [[Central America]] and [[South America]].

==History==
''Main article: [[History of the United States]]''

Following the [[European colonization of the Americas]], the United States became one of the world's first modern [[representative democracy|representative democracies]] after its [[American Revolutionary War|break with Great Britain]], with a [[United States Declaration of Independence|Declaration of Independence]] in [[1776]]. The original political structure was a confederation in [[1777]], ratified in [[1781]] as the [[Articles of Confederation]]. After long [[Federalist papers|debate]], this was supplanted by the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] of a more centralized [[federalism|federal]] government in [[1789]]. During the [[19th century]], many new [[United States state|states]] were added to the original thirteen as the nation expanded across the [[North America]]n continent and acquired a number of overseas possessions. Three major traumatic experiences for the nation were the [[American Civil War|Civil War]] ([[1861]]-[[1865|1865]]), the [[Great Depression]] ([[1929]]-[[1939]]), and [[September 11, 2001]]. Following the end of [[World War II]] and then the collapse of the [[Soviet Union]], the United States has become the world's leading economic and military superpower.

''See also: [[Military history of the United States]], [[Timeline of United States history]]''

== Politics ==
''Main article: [[Politics of the United States]]''

The United States of America consists of fifty [[states]] with limited [[autonomy]] in which [[federal law]] takes precedence over [[state law]]. In general, matters that lie entirely within state borders are the exclusive concern of state governments. These include internal communications; regulations relating to property, industry, business, and public utilities; the state [[Criminal Code|criminal code]]; and working conditions within the state.

The various state [[constitution]]s differ in some details but generally follow a pattern similar to that of the federal Constitution, including a statement of the rights of the people and a plan for organizing the government. On such matters as the operation of businesses, banks, public utilities and charitable institutions, state constitutions are often more detailed and explicit than the federal Constitution. In recent years, the federal government has assumed broader responsibility in such matters as health, education, welfare, transportation, housing and urban development.
[[Image:Uscapitolindaylight.jpg|thumb|250px|The [[United States Capitol]] in [[Washington, DC]], home of the [[United States Congress|Congress]], the [[Legislature|legislative branch]] of the government of United States.]]
The federal government itself consists of three branches: the [[executive branch]] (headed by the [[President of the United States|President]]), the [[legislative branch]] (the [[United States Congress|Congress]]), and the [[judicial branch]] (headed by the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]]). The President is elected to a four-year term by the [[United States Electoral College|Electoral College]] carried out through the process of a nation-wide [[popular vote]]. The various legislators are chosen by popular vote in the 50 states. Members of Congress are elected for terms of two years in the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] and six years in the [[United States Senate|Senate]]. Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President and Senate, for life. This tripartite model of government is generally duplicated at the state level. Local governments take various forms.

The federal and state governments are dominated by two political parties, the [[United States Republican Party|Republicans]] and the [[United States Democratic Party|Democrats]]. The dominant political culture in the United States is, as a whole, somewhat to the [[right-wing|right]] of the dominant political culture in European democracies, though the issues at odds are somewhat different. Given their complex support bases it is difficult to specifically categorize the two major parties' appeal. Within the United States political culture, the Republican Party is described as center-right and the Democratic Party is described as center-left. Minor party and independent candidates are very occasionally elected, usually to local or state office, but the United States political system has historically supported "catch-all parties" rather than coalition governments. The ideology and policies of the sitting President of the United States commonly play a large role in determining the direction of his political party, as well as the platform of the opposition.

Political parties in the United States do not have formal "leaders" unlike many other countries, although there are complex hierarchies within the political parties that form various executive committees. Party ideology remains very individually-driven, with a diverse spectrum of [[moderate]]s, [[centrist]]s, and [[radical]]s within each party.

The two parties exist on the federal, state, and local levels, although the parties' organization, platform, and ideologies are not necessarily uniform across all levels of government.

Both major parties draw some support from across the diverse socio-economic classes which compose the multi-ethnic capitalist society which makes up the United States. Business interests provide the bulk of financial support to both parties, generally favoring the Republican party. The Republicans generally receive more funding and support from groups promoting traditional [[Christian]] [[moral]]ity, while the Democratic party receives more support from [[labor union]]s and minority ethnic groups, while still receiving significant business donations. Because federal elections in the United States are among the most expensive in the world, access to funds is vital in the political system. Thus corporations, unions, and other organized groups that provide funds and political support to parties and politicians play a very large role in determining political agendas and government decision-making.

The immense cultural, economic, and military influence of the United States has made [[Foreign relations of the United States|foreign relations]] an especially important topic in its politics, with considerable concern about the image of the United States throughout the world.

==Political divisions==
''Main article: [[Political divisions of the United States]]''

At the time of the [[United States Declaration of Independence]], the [[13 colonies|thirteen colonies]] transformed themselves into [[U.S. state|states]], initially connected in a loose confederation, and later united as a unified country (cf. ''the United States''). In the following years, the number of states within the U.S. grew steadily, due to western expansion, the conquest and purchase of lands by the national government, and the subdivision of existing states, resulting in the current total of fifty. The states are generally divided into smaller administrative regions: [[county (United States)|counties]], [[List of cities of the United States|cities]] and [[township (United States)|township]]s.

The United States also holds several other territories, districts and possessions, notably the [[federal district]] of the [[District of Columbia]], which is the nation's capital, and several overseas [[insular area]]s, the most significant of which are [[Puerto Rico]], [[American Samoa]], [[Guam]] and the [[United States Virgin Islands]]. The United States has held a Naval Base at an occupied portion of [[Guantanamo Bay]], [[Cuba]] since 1898. The U.S. government claims a lease to this land, which only mutual agreement or United States abandonment of the area can terminate, something the current Cuban government disputes, claiming Cuba was not truly sovereign at the time of the signing.

The United States has made no territorial claim in [[Antarctica]] but has reserved the right to do so.

{{United_States}}

== Geography ==
''Main article: [[Geography of the United States]]''

[[Image:National-atlas-general-reference-map-USA.png|thumb|300px|right|Map of the United States]]

As the world's third largest country (total area), the United States landscape varies greatly: temperate forestland on the East coast, [[mangrove]] forests in [[Florida]], the [[Great Plains]] in the center of the country, the [[Mississippi River|Mississippi]]-[[Missouri River|Missouri]] river system, the [[Rocky Mountains]] west of the plains, deserts and temperate coastal zones west of the Rocky Mountains and temperate rainforests in the Pacific Northwest. The arctic regions of [[Alaska]] and the [[volcano|volcanic]] islands of [[Hawaii]] only increase the geographic and climatic diversity.

The climate varies along with the landscape, from sub-tropical in [[Florida]] to [[tundra]] in [[Alaska]]. Large parts of the country have a continental climate, with warm summers and cold winters. Some parts of the United States, particularly parts of California, have a [[Mediterranean climate]].

== Economy ==
''Main article: [[Economy of the United States]]''

The economy of the United States is organized primarily on a [[capitalism|capitalist model]], while also including some [[social welfare]] programs like [[Social Security (United States)|Social Security]], [[unemployment benefits]], and [[Medicare (United States)|Medicare]], as well as some [[government regulation]] in many industries. It should be noted, however, that all these measures are far less pronounced in the United States than in other ("first world") industrialized countries.

The U.S. economy is marked by steady growth, low [[unemployment]], low [[inflation]], a large [[trade deficit]] and rapid advances in technology. Its economy is the most influential in the world. Several countries have coupled their [[currency]] with the [[United States dollar|dollar]], or even use it as a currency, and the U.S. [[stock market]]s are globally seen as an indicator of world economy.

The country has rich [[mineral]] resources, with extensive [[gold]], [[oil]], [[coal]] and [[uranium]] deposits. [[Agriculture|Successful farm industries]] rank the country among the top producers of, among others, [[maize|corn]], [[wheat]], [[sugar]] and [[tobacco]]. The U.S. [[manufacturing|manufacturing sector]] produces [[automobile|cars]], [[airplanes]] and [[electronics]]. The biggest industry is now [[service economy|service]]; about three-quarters of U.S. residents are employed in that sector.
[[Image:US20-front.jpg|left|thumb|The [[United States dollar]], the nation's currency.]]
The largest trading partner of the United States is its northern neighbor, [[Canada]]. Other major partners are [[Mexico]], the [[European Union]] and the industrialized nations in [[Asia]], such as [[Japan]], [[India]] and [[South Korea]]. Trade with [[China]] is also significant.

In 2002, the United States was [[World Tourism Rankings|ranked]] as the third most-visited [[Tourism|tourist]] destination in the world. Its 41.9 million visits trailed only [[France]] (77 million) and [[Spain]] (51.7 million).

''See also: [[List of United States companies]]''

== Demographics ==
''Main article: [[Demographics of the United States]]''

===Ethnicity and race===
Americans, in part due to categories decided by the U.S. government, generally describe themselves as being either multiracial or one of five racial groups: [[Whites|White]], sometimes called ''[[European-American]]'' or ''[[Caucasian]]''; [[African-American]], also called ''[[black]]''; [[Hispanic]], also called ''[[Latino]]'', or specified as ''[[Chicano]]'', ''[[Puerto Rican]]'', etc.; [[Asian-American]], frequently specified as ''[[Korean-American]]'', etc.; and [[Native American]], also called ''Indian''.

These groups leave a ''great'' deal of room for ambiguity, as, for example, Middle Easterners are made to choose between Europe and Asia, neither of which is where they're from; the category Asian is popularly identified with [[East Asia]], rather than [[Southeast Asia]]; [[Pacific Islander/Hawaiian native]]s, technically Native Americans, may be assigned to Asian-American because of their geographic origins in [[Oceania]]; African-American is associated with centuries-long residents, and does not make distictions between them and, say, recent [[Afro-Caribbean]] immigrants from [[Jamaica]] or refugees from [[Somalia]], etc. Furthermore, the categories disregard the multi-ethnic heritage of many Americans.

The majority of the 290 million people currently living in the United States descend from [[Europe|European]] immigrants who have arrived since the establishment of the first colonies. Major components of the European segment of the United States population are descended from immigrants from [[Germany]] (23 percent), [[Ireland]] (16 percent), [[England]] (13 percent), [[Scotland]], [[The Netherlands]] and [[Italy]] (6 percent), with many immigrants also coming from [[Scandinavia]]n or [[Slavs|Slavic]] countries. Other significant immigrant populations came from eastern and southern Europe and French Canada; few immigrants came directly from [[France]].

Likewise, while there were few immigrants directly from [[Spain]], [[Hispanics in the United States|Hispanics]] from Mexico and South and Central America are considered the largest minority group in the country, comprising 13.4 percent of the population in [[2002]]. This has brought increasing use of the [[Spanish in the United States|Spanish language in the United States]].

About 12.9 percent ([[2000]] census) of the American people are [[African American]]s, many of whom are descendants of the [[slave trade|enslaved Africans]] brought to the U.S. between the [[1620s]] and [[1807]].

A third significant minority is the [[Asian American]] population (4.2 percent), most of whom are concentrated on the [[West Coast of the United States|West Coast]].

The aboriginal population of [[Native American]]s, such as [[American Indian]]s and [[Inuit]], make up 1.5 percent of the population.

''See also: [[Immigration to the United States]]''

===Religion===
As of [[2001]], the distribution for major religions in the United States was [[Protestant]] (52 percent), [[Roman Catholicism in the United States|Roman Catholic]] (24.5 percent), "none" (13.2 percent), [[Jew|Jewish]] (1.3 percent) and between 0.3 and 0.5 percent each for [[Muslim]], [[Buddhist]], [[Hindu]] and [[Unitarian Universalism|Unitarian Universalist]]. An additional 0.3 to 0.5 percent, each, are professed [[agnostic]]s and [[atheist]]s. The largest single religious denomination in the United States is the [[Roman Catholic Church]], followed by the [[Southern Baptist Convention]].

The United States, as a developed nation, is noteworthy for its high level of Christian religious devotion. However, the percentage of Americans calling themselves Christian has declined somewhat in recent years from 86.2 percent in [[1990]] to 76.5 percent in [[2001]].

===Class===
In terms of relative wealth, most U.S. residents enjoy a standard of personal economic wealth that is far greater than that known in most of the world. For example, 51 percent of all households have access to a [[computer]] and 67.9 percent of U.S. households owned their dwellings in [[2002]].

The [[social structure of the United States]] is somewhat stratified, with a significant class of very wealthy individuals, which are often alleged to hold disproportionate cultural and political influence. Its [[Gini coefficient]] of 40.8 percent is the highest of all developed nations (without including [[South Africa]] or [[Mexico]] in the list).

== Culture ==
''Main article: [[Culture of the United States]]''

[[Image:Elvisstamp.jpg|frame|right|[[Elvis Presley]], an American singer and star who had a large impact on music and youth culture in the world.]]
U.S. culture has a large influence on the rest of the world, especially the [[Western world]]. This influence is sometimes criticized as [[cultural imperialism]]. [[Music of the United States|U.S. music]] is heard all over the world, and it is the sire of such forms as [[blues]] and [[jazz]] and had a primary hand in the shaping of modern [[rock and roll]] and [[popular music]] culture. Many great [[Western classical music]]ians and forums find their home in the U.S. and [[New York City]] is a hub for international [[opera]]tic and [[instrumental]] music as well as the world-famed [[Broadway]] plays and musicals. [[Cinema of the United States|U.S. movies]] (primarily embodied in [[Hollywood]]) and [[Television of the United States|television]] shows can be seen almost anywhere. This is in stark contrast to the early days of the republic, when the country was viewed by Europeans as an agricultural backwater with little to offer the culturally "advanced" world centers of Asia and Europe. Nearing the mid-point of its third century of nationhood, the U.S. plays host to the gamut of human intellectual and artistic endeavor in nearly every major city, offering classical and popular music; historical, scientific and art research centers and museums; dance performances, musicals and plays; outdoor art projects and internationally significant architecture. This development is a result of both contributions by private philanthropists and government funding.

The United States is also a great center of higher education, boasting more than 4,000 [[university|universities]], [[college|colleges]] and other institutions of higher learning, the top tier of which may be considered to be among the most prestigious and advanced in the world.

''See also: [[Arts and entertainment in the United States]], [[Languages in the United States]], [[Education in the United States]]''

==Social issues==

:''See also: [[Human rights in the United States]], [[Anti-American sentiment]]''

The United States Constitution grants citizens the rights of [[freedom of speech]], the [[right to keep and bear arms]], [[freedom of religion]], [[trial by jury]], and protection from "[[cruel and unusual punishment]]". The United States accepts many [[immigration|immigrants]] and has laws against [[racial discrimination|racial]] and other forms of [[discrimination]] and other protections for [[minority group]]s.

Nevertheless, the United States has at times been criticized for violations of human rights, including racial discrimination in trials and sentences, police abuses, excessive and unwarranted incarceration, and the imposition of the [[death penalty]] [[#Notes|²]]. In 2001, [[Human Rights Watch]] issued a report stating that United States had "made little progress in embracing international human rights standards at home." [http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/usa/].

As of [[2004]], the United States has the world's largest prison population at over 2 million inmates. Human Rights Watch believes its per capita incarceration rate to be second in the world only to war-torn [[Rwanda]]. [http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/usa/#drug&race] Roughly 1 in 15 Americans will spend time in prison during his or her lifetime. [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm].

The United States' [[suicide]] rate exceeds that of its homicide rate. Male [[circumcision]] is legal and, while controversial, is more widely practiced in the United States than in any other country. [http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/]

Some resent how American culture has spread worldwide. For example, such corporations as Coca-Cola, and Disney have spread to most countries. McDonald's, a symbol of American capitalism abroad, is frequently a target of violence by groups which oppose the U.S. capitalist system and foreign policy. Many have accused Americans of being chauvinistic or crass.

Despite being only 6% of the world's population, the United States consumes 25% of the world's power. [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_ele_con] In terms of per capita usage, the U.S. ranks 9th.

In part thanks to the United States' status as one of the world's most powerful nations, the [[English language]] has also spread worldwide. In France, lawmakers have made efforts to discourage use of English words such as "e-mail" and to avoid ''[[franglais]]'', or English mixed with French. The concern that English is rapidly displacing other languages is widespread.

==Legal holidays==
''Main article: [[Holidays of the United States]]''

{| border="1" align="center" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"
|-
! style="background:#efefef;" | Date !! style="background:#efefef;" | Name !! style="background:#efefef;" | Remarks
|-
| [[January 1]] || [[New Year's Day]] || Beginning of year, marks traditional end of "holiday season"
|-
| [[January]], third Monday || [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]] Day || Honors late Dr. King, [[Civil Rights]] leader
|-
| [[February]], third Monday || [[Presidents' Day]] || Honors former U.S. Presidents, especially [[George Washington|Washington]] and [[Abraham Lincoln|Lincoln]]
|-
| [[May]], last Monday || [[Memorial Day]] || Honors servicemen and women who died in service, marks traditional beginning of summer
|-
| [[July 4]] || [[Independence Day (US)|Independence Day]] || Celebrates [[United States Declaration of Independence|Declaration of Independence]], usually called the Fourth of July
|-
| [[September]], first Monday || [[Labor Day]] || Celebrates achievements of workers, marks traditional end of summer. This holiday is held instead of the traditional worldwide Labor Day, [[May Day|May 1]], which ironically began in this country
|-
| [[October]], second Monday || [[Columbus Day]] || Honors [[Christopher Columbus]], traditional discoverer of the Americas
|-
| [[November 11]] || [[Veterans Day|Veterans' Day]] || Traditional observation of a moment of silence at 11 AM remembering those who fought for peace
|-
| [[November]], fourth Thursday || [[Thanksgiving]] || Day of thanks for autumn harvest, marks traditional beginning of "holiday season"
|-
| [[December 25]] || [[Christmas]] || Celebrates the [[nativity]] of [[Jesus Christ]], also celebrated as secular winter holiday
|}

== Related topics ==
''Main article: [[List of United States-related topics]]''

{| align="center" id="toc" cellspacing="0"
|- bgcolor="#ccccff"
| colspan="2" align="center" | '''[[List of United States-related topics | Topics in the United States]]'''
|-
! align="left" style="vertical-align: top;" | [[History of the United States | History]]
| align="left" style="vertical-align: top;" | [[Timeline of United States history | Timeline]] ([[Colonial America | Colonial Era]] | [[American Revolution]] | [[United States territorial acquisitions | Westward Expansion]] | [[American Civil War | Civil War]] | [[World War 1]] | [[Great Depression]] | [[World War 2]] | [[Cold War]] | [[Vietnam War]] | [[Civil Rights Movement | Civil Rights]]) | [[Foreign relations of the United States | Foreign relations]] | [[Military history of the United States | Military]] | [[Demographic history of the United States | Demographic]] and [[Stamps and postal history of the United States | Postal]] history
|- align="center"
! align="left" style="vertical-align: top;" | [[Politics of the United States | Politics]]
| align="left" style="vertical-align: top;" | [[Law of the United States | Law]] ([[United States Constitution | Constitution]] and [[United States Bill of Rights | Bill of Rights]] | [[Declaration of Independence]]) | [[List of political parties in the United States | Political parties]] ([[United States Democratic Party | Democrats]] & [[United States Republican Party | Republicans]]) | [[U.S. presidential election | Elections]] ([[Electoral College]]) | [[Political scandals of the United States | Political scandals]] | [[Political divisions of the United States | Political divisions]]
|- align="center"
! align="left" style="vertical-align: top;" | [[Federal Government of the United States | Government]]
| align="left" style="vertical-align: top;" | [[List of United States federal agencies | Federal agencies]] | [[Legislative branch]] ([[Congress]]: [[United States House of Representatives | House]] | [[United States Senate | Senate]]) [[Executive branch]] ([[President of the United States | President]] & [[Vice-President of the United States | Vice-President]] | [[United States Cabinet | Cabinet]] | [[United States Attorney General | Attorney-General]] | [[United States Secretary of State | Secretary of State]]) | [[:Category:Law enforcement in the United States | Law enforcement]] ( [[Federal Bureau of Investigation | FBI]] | [[Intelligence]]:[[CIA]] | [[DIA]] | [[NIMA]] | [[NRO]] | [[NSA]]) | [[Judicial branch]] ([[Supreme Court of the United States | Supreme Court]]) | [[Military of the United States | Military]] ([[United States Army | Army]] | [[United States Navy | Navy]] | [[United States Marine Corps | Marines]] | [[United States Air Force | Air Force]])
|- align="center"
! align="left" style="vertical-align: top;" | [[Geography of the United States | Geography]]
| align="left" style="vertical-align: top;" | [[Appalachian Mountains | Appalachian Mtns.]] | [[Rocky Mountains | Rocky Mtns.]] | [[Great Plains]] | [[Midwest]] | [[U.S. Southern states | The South]] | [[Mississippi River]] | [[New England]] | [[Mid-Atlantic States | Mid-Atlantic]] | [[Pacific Northwest]] | [[List of mountains of the United States | Mountains]] | [[List of valleys of the United States | Valleys]] | [[List of islands of the United States | Islands]] | [[List of rivers in the United States | Rivers]] | [[US State | States]] | [[List of cities in the United States | Cities]] | [[County | Counties]] | [[list of regions of the United States | Regions]] | [[Extreme points of the United States | Extreme points]]
|- align="center"
! align="left" | [[Economy of the United States | Economy]]
| align="left" | [[United States dollar | Dollar]] | [[Wall Street]] | [[Standard of living in the United States | Standard of living]] | [[List of United States companies | Companies]] | [[Poverty in the United States | Poverty]] 
|- align="center"
! align="left" | [[Demographics of the United States | Demographics]]
| align="left" | [[US Census Bureau]] | [[Languages in the United States | Languages]] | [[Social structure of the United States | Social structure]] | [[Standard of living in the United States | Standard of living]] | [[Religion in the United States | Religion]]
|- align="center"
! align="left" style="vertical-align: top;" | [[Arts and entertainment in the United States | Arts]] & [[Culture of the United States | Culture]]
| align="left" style="vertical-align: top;" | [[Music of the United States | Music]] ([[Hippie]]s | [[blues]] | [[jazz]] | [[rock and roll]] | [[hip hop]] | [[gospel music | gospel]] | [[country music | country]]) | [[Cinema of the United States | Film]] & [[Television of the United States | TV]] ([[Hollywood]]) | [[Literature of the United States | Literature]] ([[Poetry of the United States | Poetry]] | [[Transcendentalism]] | [[Harlem Renaissance]] | [[Beat Generation]]) | [[Visual arts of the United States | Visual arts]] ([[Abstract expressionism | Abstract expressionism]]) | [[Cuisine of the United States | Cuisine]] | [[Holidays of the United States | Holidays]] | [[American folklore | Folklore]] | [[Dance of the United States | Dance]] | [[Architecture of the United States | Architecture]] | [[Education in the United States | Education]] | [[Languages in the United States | Languages]] | [[Media in the United States | Media]] 
|- align="center"
! align="left" style="vertical-align: top;" | Other
| align="left" style="vertical-align: top;" | [[United States territory]] | [[Communications in the United States | Communications]] | [[Transportation in the United States | Transportation]] ([[United States highway | Highways]] and [[Interstate highway | Interstates]] | [[List of United States railroads | Railroads]]) | [[Uncle Sam]] | [[Flag of the United States | Flag]] | [[American Dream]] | [[Media in the United States | Media]] | [[Education in the United States | Education]] | [[Tourism in the United States | Tourism]] | [[Social issues in the United States | Social issues]] ([[Immigration to the United States | Immigration]] | [[Affirmative action]] | [[Racial profiling]] | [[Human rights in the United States | Human rights]] | [[War on Drugs]] | [[Pornography in the United States | Pornography]] | [[Same-sex marriage in the United States | same-sex marriage ]] | [[United States prison population | Prisons]] | [[Capital punishment in the United States | Capital punishment]]) | [[American Exceptionalism]] | [[Anti-Americanism]] | [[American Folklore]] | [[American English]] | [[United States Mexico barrier]]
|- align="center"
! align="left" style="vertical-align: top;" | '''[[U.S. state|States]]'''
| align="left" style="font-size: 80%;" | [[Alabama]] | [[Alaska]] | [[Arizona]] | [[Arkansas]] | [[California]] | [[Colorado]] | [[Connecticut]] | [[Delaware]] | [[Florida]] | [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]] | [[Hawaii]] | [[Idaho]] | [[Illinois]] | [[Indiana]] | [[Iowa]] | [[Kansas]] | [[Kentucky]] | [[Louisiana]] | [[Maine]] | [[Maryland]] | [[Massachusetts]] | [[Michigan]] | [[Minnesota]] | [[Mississippi]] | [[Missouri]] | [[Montana]] | [[Nebraska]] | [[Nevada]] | [[New Hampshire]] | [[New Jersey]] | [[New Mexico]] | [[New York]] | [[North Carolina]] | [[North Dakota]] | [[Ohio]] | [[Oklahoma]] | [[Oregon]] | [[Pennsylvania]] | [[Rhode Island]] | [[South Carolina]] | [[South Dakota]] | [[Tennessee]] | [[Texas]] | [[Utah]] | [[Vermont]] | [[Virginia]] | [[Washington]] | [[West Virginia]] | [[Wisconsin]] | [[Wyoming]]
|}

[[Reporters without borders]] Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2003: Rank 31 out of 166 countries (2-way tie) (2002 - 17 out of 139 countries)

==Notes==
¹ In the [[English language|English]]-speaking world, ''[[America]]'' has become synonymous with the nation of the United States while ''[[American]]'' refers to United States (U.S.) citizens; this is a standard usage in not only the U.S. itself, but also much of Europe and Australasia. The term ''Americas'', on the other hand, includes the North and South American continents as a collective unit. In Spanish-speaking countries, particularly in Central and South America, the word ''América'' is used not to denote the U.S. but what English-speakers would term the Americas. Thus, some people of the Americas find it off-putting for the U.S. to be referred to as ''America'' and inhabitants of the U.S. as ''Americans''. While, in some quarters, the accuracy and political correctness of such nomenclature is debated, current usage in English by sheer weight of occurrence inclines to ''America'' and ''American'' as linked to the nation and citizens of the United States. ²Note that the death penalty is not legal in every U.S. state and that it itself is controversial within the U.S.


== External links ==
=== United States government ===
*[http://www.firstgov.gov Official website of the United States government] - Gateway to governmental sites
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov White House] - Official site of the US President
*[http://www.senate.gov Senate.gov] - Official site of the United States Senate
*[http://www.house.gov House.gov] - Official site of the United States House of Representatives
*[http://www.supremecourtus.gov SCOTUS] - Official site of the Supreme Court of the United States
*[http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/factover/homepage.htm Portrait of the USA] - Published by the United States Information Agency, September 1997.
*[http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/ US Census Housing and Economic Statistics] Updated regularly by US Bureau of the Census.

=== Other ===
*[http://www.mediatico.com/en US Newspapers by State]
*[http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm National Motto: History and Constitutionality]
*[http://www.nationalcenter.org/HistoricalDocuments.html Historical Documents]
*[http://www.travel-directory.org/Destinations/North_America/United_States/index.html Reference: US specific web resources sorted by state]

{{North_America}}

[[Category:North American countries]]
[[Category:United States]]
[[Category:Republics]]

[[af:Verenigde State]]
[[ar:ولايات متحدة امريكية]]
[[bg:Съединени американски щати]]
[[ca:Estats Units]]
[[chr:United States]]
[[cs:Spojené státy americké]]
[[cy:Unol Daleithiau America]]
[[da:USA]]
[[de:USA]]
[[el:Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες]]
[[eo:Usono]]
[[es:Estados Unidos]]
[[fi:Yhdysvallat]]
[[fr:États-Unis d'Amérique]]
[[ga:Stáit Aontaithe Mheiriceá]]
[[gl:Estados Unidos]]
[[he:ארצות הברית]]
[[hu:Amerikai Egyesült Államok]]
[[ia:Statos Unite de America]]
[[id:Amerika Serikat]]
[[io:Usa]]
[[is:Bandaríkin]]
[[it:Stati Uniti d'America]]
[[ja:アメリカ合衆国]]
[[ko:미국]]
[[la:Civitates Americae Unitae]]
[[lt:JAV]]
[[minnan:Bí-kok]]
[[ms:Amerika Syarikat]]
[[nds:USA]]
[[nl:Verenigde Staten van Amerika]]
[[no:Amerikas Forente Stater]]
[[pl:Stany Zjednoczone]]
[[pt:Estados Unidos da América]]
[[ro:Statele Unite ale Americii]]
[[ru:Соединённые Штаты Америки]]
[[simple:United States of America]]
[[sk:Spojen%C3%A9_%C5%A1t%C3%A1ty_americk%C3%A9]]
[[sl:Združene države Amerike]]
[[sr:САД]]
[[sv:USA]]
[[tokipona:ma Mewika]]
[[tr:Amerika Birleşik Devletleri]]
[[uk:Сполучені Штати Америки]]
[[ur:امریکہ]]
[[vi:Hoa Kỳ]]
[[zh-cn:美国]]
[[zh-tw:美國]]
[[nv:W%C3%A1%C3%A1shindoon bik%C3%A9yah a%C5%82hidadiidzoo%C3%ADg%C3%AD%C3%AD]]

Minimum wage

2004-10-24T06:54:14Z

Jrn: rewording costs of minimum wage section to remove POV and clarify. Please review.

The '''minimum wage''' is the minimum rate a [[worker]] can legally be paid (usually per hour). Each country sets its own minimum wage laws and regulations, and many countries have no minimum wage.

== History ==

Minimum wage laws were first introduced in New Zealand. The chronology of moves to legislate minimum wages is as follows:

* New Zealand in [[1894]]
* Australian state of Victoria in [[1896]]
* United Kingdom in [[1909]]
* United States, the state of Massachusetts in [[1912]]

In the [[United States]] and other countries, minimum wage laws were a common demand of [[labor union]]s.

== Consequences of minimum wage laws ==

If the law is successfully enforced, and if they are high enough in [[real vs. nominal in economics|real]] terms (or relative to the average wage), minimum wage laws are alleged to have various benefits and costs.

=== Hypothetical benefits and costs ===

Minimum wages may have the effect of:

* Reducing [[wage slave|low-paid work]], which may be viewed as [[exploitation|unfair and exploitative]].
* Reducing the dependency of the low-paid on [[welfare|welfare-state benefits]], which may in turn reduce [[tax]]es or allow increases of other government outlays.
* Stimulating economic growth by discouraging [[labor-intensive]] industries, thereby encouraging more investment in capital and training.
* Encouraging many of those who would normally take low-wage jobs to stay in (or return to) school and thus to accumulate [[human capital]].

On the other hand, minimum wages may have the effect of:

* Discouraging employment of low-wage earners, and generally increasing [[unemployment]].
* Raising employment barriers for people with little or no work experience or formal education: if a worker's labor is not worth the minimum, he may not find employment at all.
* Curbing economic growth by increasing the cost of labor.
* Increasing the price of goods and services, since employers pass on employment costs in the form of higher prices. (Opponents of minimum wage often see a [[negative income tax]], e.g., as a way to support the lower-waged jobs, with the money coming from those who pay taxes, not those who pay for the products including the unemployed)
* Decreasing incentive for some low-skilled workers to gain skills.
* Where implemented locally, making labor more expensive than in other areas, which may discourage [[inward investment]] and encourage local businesses to relocate their operations elsewhere.

The effects of minimum wage laws, both positive and negative, may be increased by 'knock-on effects', with increased wages for workers already earning above the minimum wage. For example, some [[labor union]] contracts are based on a fixed percentage or dollar amount above the minimum wage. Certain public grants or taxes are based on a multiple of the minimum wage. (For example, a worker may have an exemption if his earnings are below 2.5 minimum wages.)

===Debate===

The costs and benefits arising from minimum wages are subject to considerable disagreement among [[economist]]s, though the consensus among economics textbooks is that minimum wage laws should be avoided whenever possible as the costs exceed the benefits. This unified view has been disputed by empirical research done by David Card and Alan Krueger. In their 1997 book ''Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage'' (ISBN 0-691-04823-1), they found the negative employment effects of minimum-wage laws to be minimal if not non-existent (at least for the United States). For example, they look at the 1992 increase in New Jersey's minimum wage, the 1988 rise in California's minimum wage, and the 1990-91 increases in the federal minimum wage. In each case, Card and Kreuger present evidence ostensibly showing that increases in the minimum wage lead to increases in pay, but no loss in jobs. That is, it appears that the demand for low-wage workers is [[elasticity| inelastic]]. Also, these authors reexamine the existing literature on the minimum wage and argue that it, too, lacks support for the claim that a higher minimum wage cuts the availability of jobs.

Critics of this research, however, argue that their research was flawed.[http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=3896],[http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n1-8.html] For example, Card and Krueger gathered their data by telephoning employers in California and New Jersey, asking them whether they ''intended'' to increase, decrease, or or make no change in their employment. Subsequent attempts to verify the claims requested payroll cards from employers to ''verify'' employment, and ostensibly found that the minimum wage increases were followed by decreases in employment. On the other hand, data analysis by David Neumark and William Wascher, economists who are usually critical of minimum-wage increases, supported the Card/Krueger results.[http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/minimumw_bp_1996.pdf]

Some idea of the empirical problems of this debate can be seen by looking at recent trends in the United States. The minimum wage fell about 29% in [[real vs. nominal in economics| real terms]] between 1979 and 2003. This should have helped fight the problem of youth unemployment (since these workers are likely to have fewer skills than older workers). But young workers between the ages of 16 and 19 suffered from ''increased rates'' of unemployment (relative to those of workers 20 and older) than before this fall. Similarly, poverty rates in the United States ended their long-term decline after 1979. This suggests that critics of the minimum wage need to present a more complete theory of the origins of unemployment of young or poor people.

=== Theoretical arguments===

As is usual in serious social science, any empirical conclusion is subject to doubt and is simply the basis for further questions and research. One key question is the possible theoretical explanation of the different results.

The traditional view that minimum wages have significant negative effects on employment typically assumes that labor markets for low-skill workers can be characterized as fitting the model of a [[perfect competition|perfectly competitive]] market, where the only role of wages is as a cost. On the other hand, if Card and Krueger's empirical research is valid, it may be explained by the [[efficiency wage hypothesis]] which states that higher wages may "pay for themselves" by increasing worker efficiency (i.e., labor productivity). Higher wages encourage a higher willingness of low-skill workers to stay with their current employers and to gain experience and skill, while the employers are more willing to train them. Alternatively, if [[monopsony]] exists, then an increase in the minimum wage can raise employment. Alan Manning's 2003 book, ''Monopsony in Motion: Imperfect Competition in Labor Markets'' (ISBN 0691113122) suggests that this kind of market is common if not ubiquitous in labor markets.

Even if Card and Krueger's results are accurate, there may be a "[[tipping point]]" above which their conclusions do not apply and the standard economic consensus does apply. The possible validity of their research may be the result of political forces: in the United States, business political pressure on legislatures and Congress may have kept the minimum wage so low that it has little negative employment effect. Further, the Federal minimum wage has moved away from the presumed tipping point, becoming less relevant. It has fallen from about 50 percent of the average hourly wage in manufacturing during the late 1960s to less than 40 percent.

=== Wage subsidies ===

If they exist, it is clear that some of the adverse effects can only occur when minimum wages are implemented and successfully enforced by government fiat: either these effects are a consequence of the costs of regulation (the consensus) or they do not exist (Card, Krueger, and others). If, however, a floor on wages is implemented indirectly by providing ''wage subsidies'', there would not be decreased employment. However, since this program is not a "free lunch", some other economic damage may be created instead, as with an [[externality]]. On the other hand, it is possible that there are already externalities contributing to unemployment, and that subsidies at the right level would merely be [[Arthur Cecil Pigou|Pigovian]] solutions to these and would not actually cause any further harm after all. Research would need to be done to determine this.

While straightforward [[Arthur Cecil Pigou|Pigovian]] subsidies would have funding problems, particularly when introducing them for the first time, there are other approaches. One was examined by Professor [[Kim Swales]] of the [[University of Strathclyde]] (See [http://www.faxfn.org/03_jobs.htm]). This avoids funding problems by not having an actual subsidy but a virtual one — the funds flow is always from employers to the government, being netted off by the virtual subsidy before funds ever change hands. This may also be analysed by means of [[game theory]] (e.g "the [[prisoner's dilemma]]" or "the [[tragedy of the commons]]").

Alternatively, in the United States, many economists see the "earned income tax credit" (EITC, a wage subsidy) in the Federal income tax as providing the
poverty-fighting benefits of the minimum wage without the non-budgetary
costs, while being superior to most welfare state anti-poverty programs.
One problem has been that many of the working poor (the target of this
program) have a hard time with the tax forms needed to receive the EITC
payment. There may also be long delays between when the money is needed and when the EITC payments are received. That is, a person might become eligible for the EITC in April but then get laid off for the rest of the year. But this person would not get help from the credit until nearly a year later (since Americans pay their taxes in April). Further, like with the minimum wage, those people working at home taking care of children and other loved ones do not receive any benefits; only those doing paid labor are rewarded.

Finally, if these kinds of "complications" do not exist, it is possible that
the benefit of the tax credit is received by the employer: assume that for
low-skill workers the equilibrium market wage equals "X." Before the
EITC is introduced, all of this wage is paid by their employers. After the EITC is instituted, the workers receive '''Y''' + '''Z''', where '''Y''' is the
new wage paid by employers and '''Z''' is the tax credit. If the labor market returns to the same equilibrium, then '''X''' = '''Y''' + '''Z'''. This means that the low-skill workers receive exactly the same amount as before the EITC was introduced and that the employer is paying less to the employees. This
issue needs to examined further.

== Worldwide minimum wages ==

The list below gives the official minimum wage rates. Some countries are more effective than others at enforcing these laws, so that the ''effective'' minimum wage may be lower than the official one.

*'''[[Australia]]''': [[AUD]] 467.40 a week ([[Australian Council of Trade Unions|ACTU]])
*'''[[Canada]]''': set by each province; it varies from $5.90 per hour in [[Alberta]] to $8.00 per hour in [[British Columbia]].
*'''[[Chile]]''': 120,000 [[Chilean peso]]s per month (about $200 [[US dollar]]s [[as of October 2004]]) for those aged 18-65; 90,327 Chilean pesos (about $150 US dollars) for those younger than 18 and for those older than 65; and 78,050 Chilean pesos (about $130 US dollars) for honorary payments.
*'''[[Belgium]]''': 1186.00 [[euro]]s per month for private sector employees aged 21 or over (Eurostat 2004).
*'''[[Bulgaria]]''': 61.00 euros per month (Eurostat 2004).
*'''[[Denmark]]''': 11.80 euros per hour for adults and 6.80 euros per hour for minors under 18.
*'''[[Finland]]''': 5.39 euros per hour, 926.40 euros per month. Certain industries have their own minimum wages that are negotiated by the labour unions.
*'''[[France]]''': 7.61 euros per hour. 1154.18 euros per month (35h/week, 151.67 hours per month).
*'''[[Greece]]''': 605.00 euros per month (Eurostat 2004).
*'''[[Hong Kong]]''': no minimum wage.
*'''[[Hungary]]''': 209.00 euros per month (Eurostat 2004).
*'''[[Italy]]''': set by a National (or Local) Collective Work Agreement for each category of workers, by law every job must be regulated by such an agreement. Curiously a few agreements (usually those for executives) also specify a maximum wage.
*'''[[Republic of Ireland]]''': 7.00 euros per hour.
*'''[[Luxemburg]]''': 1403.00 euros per month (Eurostat 2004).
*'''[[Netherlands]]''': 1249.20 euros per month plus 8% holiday allowance, summing to 1349.14 euros (the amount is less for those 22 years old or younger).
*'''[[New Zealand]]''': $[[NZD|NZ]] 9.00 per hour for people 18 years old or older, and $NZ 7.20 per hour for those aged 16 or 17.
*'''[[Portugal]]''': 356.60 euros per month.
*'''[[Poland]]''': 180.00 euros per month (Eurostat 2004).
*'''[[Russia]]''': 300 [[ruble]]s per month (slightly over $10 US dollars).
*'''[[Romania]]''': 69.00 euros per month (Eurostat 2004).
*'''[[Spain]]''': 451.20 euros per month.
*'''[[Sweden]]''': none by law; it is instead set by an industrial collective agreement.
*'''[[Turkey]]''': 245.00 [[euro]]s per month (Eurostat 2004).
*'''[[United Kingdom]]''': £3.00 per hour for 16-to-17-year-olds who have finished compulsary education (except apprentices); £4.10 per hour for 18-to-21-year-olds; £4.85 per hour for 22-year-olds and above.
*'''[[United States]]''': the federal minimum wage is $5.15 per hour, although workers under age 20 can be paid $4.25 an hour for their first 90 days. Some states also have minimum wage laws ranging from $2.00 in [[Oklahoma]] (for some jobs not covered by the federal rate), to $7.16 an hour in [[Washington]]. Some cities and counties have [[living wage]] ordinances of up to $15.00 an hour although the groups of workers it applies to are often limited.

==Minimum wage in the United States==

During his presidency, [[Bill Clinton]] gave states the power to set minimum wages above the federal. 12 states have already done so, and the 2004 November ballot could increase that number. Floridians for All, a coalition consisting of [[ACORN]], unions, and progressive business leaders, was successful in proposing a Florida minimum wage of $6.15 an hour, adjusted yearly by inflation. This issue will be decided by voters on November 2nd, 2004.

See [[List of U.S. state minimum wages]].

==Minimum wage in the United Kingdom==

Municipal regulation of wage levels began in some towns in 1524. Later, the Trade Boards Act of 1918 made a large number of trades subject to minimum wages (which varied from trade to trade). These rules were repealed during the Thatcher era. A national minimum wage was introduced for the first time by Tony Blair's Labour government.

==See also==

* [[Maximum wage]]
* [[Social wage]]
* [[Living wage]]
* [[Wage slave]]
* [[Labor market]]
* [[Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority]]

==External links==

* [http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwage The Economic Policy Institute]
* [http://www.floridiansforall.org Floridians for All]
* [http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/minimumwage/staterates.cfm AFL-CIO Guide to State Minimum Wages]
* [http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/nmw/ UK Department of Trade and Industry]

----

'''''Minimum Wage''''' is also the name of a 42-second song by the [[alternative rock]] duo [[They Might Be Giants]].

[[es:Salario mínimo interprofesional]]
[[fr:Salaire minimum]]
[[fi:Minimipalkka]]

[[Category: Labor]]

Types of unemployment

2004-10-24T06:46:16Z

Jrn: /* Cyclical unemployment */ typo: double article "This the"

[[economics|Economists]] distinguish between five major '''kinds of [[unemployment]]''', i.e., cyclical, frictional, structural, classical, and Marxian. Real-world unemployment may combine different types, while all five might exist at one time. The magnitude of each of these is difficult to measure, partly because they overlap and are thus hard to separate from each other. All but cyclical unemployment can be seen as existing at '''full employment''', the level of employment and unemployment that represents the inflation barrier to demand-side growth.

=== Cyclical unemployment ===
This type of unemployment exists due to inadequate effective [[aggregate demand]]; it gets its name because it varies with the [[business cycle]]. [[Gross domestic product]] is not as high as [[potential output]] because of demand failure, due to (say) pessimistic business expectations which discourages private fixed investment spending. Low government spending or high taxes, [[underconsumption]], or low exports net of imports may also have this result.

In this case, the number of unemployed workers exceeds the number of job vacancies, so that if even all open jobs were filled, some workers would remain unemployed. This kind of unemployment coincides with unused industrial capacity (unemployed capital goods). [[Keynesian]] economists see it as possibly being solved by government [[deficit spending]] or by expansionary [[monetary policy]], which aims to increase non-governmental spending by lowering [[interest rates]].

===Frictional unemployment===
This unemployment involves people being temporarily between jobs, searching for new ones. (It is sometimes called '''search unemployment''' and is seen as largely voluntary.) It arises because either employers fire workers or workers quit, usually because the individual characteristics of the workers do not fit the individual characteristics of the job (including matters of the employer's personal taste or the employee's inadequate work effort). Some employers — such as fast-food restaurants and other providers of [[McJob]]s — use management strategies that rely on rapid turnover of employees, so that frictional unemployment is normal in these sectors.

This type of unemployment coincides with an equal number of vacancies and cannot be solved using aggregate demand stimulation. The best way to lower this kind of unemployment is to provide more and better information to job-seekers and employers, perhaps through job-banks in centralized computers (as in some places in Europe). In theory, an economy could also be shifted away from emphasizing jobs that have high turnover, perhaps by using tax incentives or worker-training programs.

But some frictional unemployment is beneficial, since it allows workers to get the jobs that fit their wants and skills best and the employers to find employees who promote profit goals the most. It is a small percentage of the unemployment, however, since workers can often search for new jobs while employed — and employers can seek new employees before firing current ones.

One kind of frictional unemployment is called '''wait unemployment''': it refers to the effects of the existence of some sectors where employed workers are paid more than the [[market clearing|market-clearing]] [[equilibrium]] wage. Not only does this restrict the amount of employment in the high-wage sector, but it attracts workers from other sectors who ''wait'' to try to get jobs there. The main problem with this theory is that such workers will likely "wait" while having jobs, so that they are not counted as unemployed. In Hollywood, for example, those who are waiting for acting jobs also wait on tables in restaurants for pay (while acting in "Equity Waiver" plays at night for no pay). However, these workers might be seen as [[underemployment| underemployed]] (definition 1).

=== Structural unemployment===
This involves a '''mismatch''' between the workers looking for jobs and the vacancies available. Even though the number of vacancies may be equal to the number of the unemployed, the unemployed workers lack the skills needed for the jobs — or are in the wrong part of the country or world to take the jobs offered. That is, it is very expensive to unite the workers with jobs.

Structural unemployment is a result of the dynamic changes of a capitalist economy (such as [[technology | technological change]] and [[capital flight]]) — and the fact that labor markets can never be as fluid as (say) financial markets. Workers are "left behind" due to costs of training and moving (e.g., the cost of selling one's house in a depressed local economy), plus inefficiencies in the labor markets, such as [[racial discrimination]].

Structural unemployment is hard to separate empirically from frictional unemployment, except to say that it lasts longer. It is also more painful. As with frictional unemployment, simple demand-side stimulus will not work to easily abolish this type of unemployment. Some sort of direct attack on the problems of the labor market — such as training programs, mobility subsidies, or anti-discrimination policies — seems required. These policies may be reinforced by the maintenance of high aggregate demand, so that the two types of policy are complementary.

Structural unemployment may also be encouraged to rise by persistent cyclical unemployment: if an economy suffers from long-lasting low aggregate demand, it means that many of the unemployed become disheartened, while finding their skills (including job-searching skills) become "rusty" and obsolete. Problems with debt may lead to [[homelessness]] and a fall into the vicious circle of [[poverty]]. This means that they may not fit the job vacancies that are created when the economy recovers. Some economists see this scenario as occurring under British Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] during the 1970s and 1980s. The implication is that sustained ''high'' demand may ''lower'' structural unemployment. However, it also may encourage [[inflation]], so some kind of [[incomes policies]] (wage and price controls) may be needed, along with the kind of labor-market policies mentioned in the previous paragraph. (This theory of rising structural unemployment has been referred to as an example of [[path dependence]] or "hysteresis.")

Much '''technological unemployment''' (e.g. due to the replacement of workers by robots) might be counted as structural unemployment. Alternatively, technological unemployment might refer to the way in which steady increases in labor productivity mean that fewer workers are needed to produce the same level of output every year. The fact that aggregate demand can be raised to deal with this problem suggests that this problem is one of cyclical unemployment. As indicated by [[Okun's Law]], the demand side must grow sufficiently quickly to absorb not only the growing labor force but also the workers made redundant by increased labor productivity. Otherwise, we see a '''jobless recovery''' such as those seen in the United States in both the early 1990s and the early 2000s.

'''Seasonal unemployment''' might be seen as a kind of structural unemployment, since it is a type of unemployment that is linked to certain kinds of jobs (construction work, migratory farm work). The most-cited official unemployment measures erase this kind of unemployment from the statistics using "seasonal adjustment" techniques.

===Classical unemployment===
In this case, like that of cyclical unemployment, the number of job-seekers exceeds the number of vacancies. However, the problem here is not aggregage demand failure but instead the fact that [[real vs. nominal in economics|real wages]] are too high relative to the market-equilibrium wage. In simple terms, institutions such as the minimum wage keep wages so high that employers do not want to hire all of the available workers because the cost would exceed the technologically-determined benefit of hiring them (the ''[[marginal product]] of labor'').

The cure for this type of unemployment involves increasing the flexibility of wages, for example by abolishing minimum wages, labor unions, and the like, trying to make the labor market more like a financial market. Following this tradition, Professor [[Kim Swales]] of the [[University of Strathclyde]] has considered a [[Arthur Cecil Pigou|Pigovian]] approach to helping unemployment that involves tax breaks on the [[value-added tax]] [http://www.faxfn.org/03_jobs.htm] [http://users.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#LIBRESLN].

=== Marxian unemployment===
As [[Karl Marx]] noted (and [http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/kalecki.htm Michal Kalecki] emphasized), some unemployment — the '''reserve army of the unemployed''' — is normally needed in order to maintain work discipline in jobs, keep wages down, and protect business [[rate of profit|profitability]]. If profitability suffers a sustained depression, capitalists can and will punish people by imposing a recession via their control over investment decisions (a ''[[capital strike]]''). To the [[Marxian]] school, these strikes are rare, since in normal times the government, responding to pressure from their most important constituencies, will encourage recessions before profits are hurt.

To Marxists, this kind of unemployment cannot be abolished without overthrowing capitalism as an economic system and replacing it with [[socialism |democratic socialism]] — or running capitalism using a [[fascist]] state, under which profitability is protected by the direct use of force.

As with cyclical and classical unemployment, with Marxian unemployment, the number of jobless exceeds the availability of vacancies. (It's the scarcity of jobs that gives unemployment such a motivational effect.) However, simple demand stimulus in the face of the capitalists' refusal to hire or invest simply encourages inflation: if profits are being squeezed, the only way to maintain high production is via rising prices.

===Full Employment.===
In theory, it is possible to abolish cyclical unemployment by increasing the aggregate demand for products and workers. However, eventually the economy hits an "inflation barrier" imposed by the four other (supply-side) kinds of unemployment (to the extent that they exist).

Some economists posit the existence of a [[natural rate of unemployment]] or a [[NAIRU]] at full employment, which means that if the unemployment rate gets "too low," inflation will get worse and worse (accelerate) in the absence of wage and price controls (incomes policies). Others simply see the possibility of [[inflation]] rising as the unemployment rate falls. This is the famous '''[[Phillips curve]]'''.

Another, normative, definition of full employment might be called the ''ideal'' unemployment rate. It would exclude all types of unemployment that represent forms of inefficiency. This type of "full employment" unemployment would correspond to only frictional unemployment (excluding that part encouraging the [[McJobs]] management strategy) and would thus be very low. However, it would be impossible to attain this full-employment target using only demand-side [[Keynesian]] stimulus without getting below the [[NAIRU]] and suffering from accelerating inflation (absent incomes policies). Trainings programs aimed at fighting structural unemployment would help here.

One of the major problems with the [[NAIRU]] theory is that no-one knows exactly what the NAIRU is (while it clearly changes over time). The margin of error can be quite high relative to the actual unemployment rate, making it hard to use the NAIRU in policy.

[[category:economics]]

Market power

2004-10-24T06:08:26Z

Jrn: removed duplicate "in the market"

In [[economics]], '''market power''' (sometimes called '''monopoly power''') is a [[market failure]] which occurs when one or more of the participants has the ability to influence the [[price]] or other outcomes in some general or specialized [[market]]. The most commonly discussed form of market power is that of a [[monopoly]], but other forms such as [[monopsony]], and more moderate versions of these two extremes, exist. Market participants that have market power are sometimes referred to as "price makers", while those without are sometimes called "price takers".

In [[Perfect competition|perfectly competitive]] markets, market participants have no market power. A [[firm]] with market power has the ability to individually affect either the total quantity or the prevailing price in the market. If the [[demand curve]] is downward sloping (that is, the most common situation where price increases lead to a lower quantity demanded), then the decrease in supply as a result of the exercise of market power creates an economic [[deadweight loss]] in comparison with a situation of [[perfect competition]]. This is often viewed as socially undesirable, and as a result, many countries have [[anti-trust]] or other legislation with the aim of limiting the ability of firms to accrue market power. Such legislation often regulates [[merger]]s and sometimes introduces a judicial power to compel [[divestiture]].

A firm usually has market power by virtue of it controlling a large portion of the market. In extreme cases - monopoly and monopsony - the firm controls the entire market. However, market size alone is not a good indicator of market power. Highly concentrated markets may be [[contestable market|contestable]] if there are no [[barriers to entry]] or exit, limiting the incumbent firm's ability to raise its price above competitive levels.

Market power gives firms the ability to engage in unilateral [[anti-competitive behaviour]]. Such behaviour may include [[predatory pricing]], product [[tying]], and creation of [[overcapacity]] or other barriers to entry. If no individual participant in the market has significant market power, then anti-competitive behavior can take place only through ''[[collusion]]'', or the exercise of a group of participants' collective market power.

When several firms each have significant market power, the resulting market structure is called an [[oligopoly]] or [[oligopsony]]. The behavior of firms in perfect competition or monopoly can be treated as a simple [[optimization]], but an oligopoly requires [[game theory|game theoretic]] analysis.

A well known example of monopoly market power is [[Microsoft|Microsoft's]] market share in [[PC]] [[operating system]]s. The [[Microsoft antitrust case]] concerned the allegation that Microsoft illegally exercised its market power by bundling its [[web browser]] with its operating system.  Some have suggested that [[Wal Mart]] exercises monopsonistic market power; its size allows it to extract extremely low prices from its suppliers.

==See also==
*[[Bargaining power]]
*[[Imperfect competition]]

==External links==
* [http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html Wal Mart's market power]

[[Category:Economics]]

Market power

2004-10-24T06:05:15Z

Jrn: minor word fixes; took out most "see also" links (e.g., price discrimination - it doesn't seem to relate closely)

In [[economics]], '''market power''' (sometimes called '''monopoly power''') is a [[market failure]] which occurs when one or more of the participants in a [[market]] has the ability to influence the [[price]] or other outcomes in some general or specialized [[market]]. The most commonly discussed form of market power is that of a [[monopoly]], but other forms such as [[monopsony]], and more moderate versions of these two extremes, exist. Market participants that have market power are sometimes referred to as "price makers", while those without are sometimes called "price takers".

In [[Perfect competition|perfectly competitive]] markets, market participants have no market power. A [[firm]] with market power has the ability to individually affect either the total quantity or the prevailing price in the market. If the [[demand curve]] is downward sloping (that is, the most common situation where price increases lead to a lower quantity demanded), then the decrease in supply as a result of the exercise of market power creates an economic [[deadweight loss]] in comparison with a situation of [[perfect competition]]. This is often viewed as socially undesirable, and as a result, many countries have [[anti-trust]] or other legislation with the aim of limiting the ability of firms to accrue market power. Such legislation often regulates [[merger]]s and sometimes introduces a judicial power to compel [[divestiture]].

A firm usually has market power by virtue of it controlling a large portion of the market. In extreme cases - monopoly and monopsony - the firm controls the entire market. However, market size alone is not a good indicator of market power. Highly concentrated markets may be [[contestable market|contestable]] if there are no [[barriers to entry]] or exit, limiting the incumbent firm's ability to raise its price above competitive levels.

Market power gives firms the ability to engage in unilateral [[anti-competitive behaviour]]. Such behaviour may include [[predatory pricing]], product [[tying]], and creation of [[overcapacity]] or other barriers to entry. If no individual participant in the market has significant market power, then anti-competitive behavior can take place only through ''[[collusion]]'', or the exercise of a group of participants' collective market power.

When several firms each have significant market power, the resulting market structure is called an [[oligopoly]] or [[oligopsony]]. The behavior of firms in perfect competition or monopoly can be treated as a simple [[optimization]], but an oligopoly requires [[game theory|game theoretic]] analysis.

A well known example of monopoly market power is [[Microsoft|Microsoft's]] market share in [[PC]] [[operating system]]s. The [[Microsoft antitrust case]] concerned the allegation that Microsoft illegally exercised its market power by bundling its [[web browser]] with its operating system.  Some have suggested that [[Wal Mart]] exercises monopsonistic market power; its size allows it to extract extremely low prices from its suppliers.

==See also==
*[[Bargaining power]]
*[[Imperfect competition]]

==External links==
* [http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html Wal Mart's market power]

[[Category:Economics]]

Market power

2004-10-24T05:00:59Z

Jrn: removed awkward sentence - its meaning is still at perfect competition and in the subtext of the paragraph.

In [[economics]], '''market power''' (sometimes called '''monopoly power''') is a [[market failure]] which occurs when one or more of the participants in a [[market]] has the ability to influence the [[price]] or other outcomes in some general or specialized [[market]]. The most commonly discussed form of market power is that of a [[monopoly]], but other forms such as [[monopsony]], and more moderate versions of these two extremes, exist. Market participants that have market power are sometimes referred to as "price makers", while those without are sometimes called "price takers".

In [[Perfect competition|perfectly competitive]] markets, market participants have no market power. A [[firm]] with market power has the ability to individually affect either the total quantity or the prevailing price in the market. If the [[demand curve]] is downward sloping (that is, the most common situation where price increases lead to a lower quantity demanded), then the decrease in supply as a result of the exercise of market power creates an economic [[deadweight loss]] in comparison with a situation of [[perfect competition]]. This is often viewed as socially undesirable, and as a result, many countries have [[anti-trust]] or other legislation with the aim of limiting the ability of firms to accrue market power. Such legislation often regulates [[merger]]s and sometimes introduces a judicial power to compel [[divestiture]].

A firm usually has market power by virtue of it controlling a large portion of the market. In extreme cases - monopoly and monopsony - the firm controls the entire market. However, market size alone is not a good indicator of market power. Highly concentrated markets may be [[contestable market|contestable]] if there are no [[barriers to entry]] or exit, limiting the incumbent firm's ability to raise its price above competitive levels.

Market power gives firms the ability to engage in unilateral [[anti-competitive behaviour]]. Such behaviour may include [[predatory pricing]], product [[tying]], and creation of [[overcapacity]] or other barriers to entry. If no individual participant in the market has significant market power, then anti-competitive behavior can take place only through ''[[collusion]]'', or the exercise of a group of participants' collective market power.

When several firms each have significant market power, the resulting market structure is called an [[oligopoly]] or [[oligopsony]]. The behavior of firms in perfect competition or monopoly can be treated as a simple [[optimization]], but an oligopoly requires [[game theory|game theoretic]] analysis.

A well known example of monopoly market power is [[Microsoft|Microsoft's]] market share in [[PC]] [[operating system]]s. The [[Microsoft antitrust case]] concerned the allegation that Microsoft illegally exercised its market power by bundling their [[web browser]] with their operating system.  Some have suggested that [[Wal Mart]] exercises monopsonic market power; its size allows it to extract extremely low prices from its suppliers.

==See also==
*[[Bargaining power]]
*[[Imperfect competition]]
*[[Oligopoly]]
*[[Oligopsony]]
*[[Natural monopoly]]
*[[Predatory pricing]]
*[[Price discrimination]]

==External links==
* [http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html Wal Mart's market power]

[[Category:Economics]]

Free software

2004-10-17T18:10:07Z

Jrn: Cleaned up introduction, hopefully softening the POV

The term '''free software''' is used in two essentially different ways:
#[[Software]] which, once obtained, can be  used, copied, studied, modified and redistributed;
#Software which can be used and copied without payment.

Free software of the first type is often
made available online without charge or offline for the cost of distribution; however, this is not required, and software can
be "free as in free speech" and sold for profit. Similarly, free software of the second type is sometimes
published with source code; however, the software is not free in the first sense unless the rights to modify and redistribute
modified versions of the program are guaranteed.

The distinction between these two senses, as defined by [[Richard Stallman]], an advocate of free software in the first
sense, is between "free as in [[free speech]]" and "free as in [[free lunch|free beer]]". In many languages the these two
terms are translated differently. In the [[French language]], free software in the first sense is translated as ''logiciel libre''
and the second is ''logiciel gratuit''. Similarly, in [[Spanish language|Spanish]], the first sense is ''software libre'' and the
second is ''software gratis''. In English, the terms "software libre" and "gratis software" are sometimes used to distinguish
the two meanings of "free".

== Free software as in "Free Speech" ==
Developers in the [[1970s]] frequently shared their software in a manner similar to the principles of free software. In the late 1970s, companies started routinely imposing restrictions on users with the use of license agreements. In [[1984]], [[Richard Stallman]] started working on the [[GNU]] project, founding the [[Free Software Foundation]] (FSF) one year later [http://www.gnu.org/fsf/fsf.html].

Stallman introduced the concepts of "free software" and "[[copyleft]]", which he specifically devised to give users freedom and to restrain the possibilities for proprietisation [http://cisn.metu.edu.tr/2002-6/free.php].

The FSF has produced a specific free software definition, by which software is "free" in this sense if it grants:

* the freedom to run the program for any purpose (freedom 0)
* the freedom to study and modify the program (freedom 1, which they state requires access to the program's [[source code]])
* the freedom to copy the program so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2)
* the freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3)

A list of compliant licenses is available from FSF's web site (see below). The term "[[proprietary software]]" is used for software distributed under more restrictive [[software license|license]]s which do not grant these freedoms. [[Copyright]] law reserves most rights of modification, duplication and redistribution for the copyright owner; software released under a free software license specifically rescinds most of these reserved rights.

The FSF definition of free software does not touch on the issue of price; a commonly used slogan is "free as in speech, not as in beer", and it is common to see [[Compact disc|CDs]] of free software such as [[Linux distribution]]s for sale. However, in this situation the buyer of the CD would have the right to copy and redistribute it.
''Free beer'' software can include restrictions that do not conform to the FSF definition — for example, gratis software may not include source code, may actively prohibit redistributors from charging a fee, ''etc.''

To avoid confusion, some people use the words "libre" and "gratis" to avoid the ambiguity of the English word "free". However, these alternative terms are still used mostly within the [[free software movement]] and are only slowly spreading to the outside world. Others advocate the term [[open source software]], but the relationship between "open source" and "free software" is complex.

There are several variations on free software in the FSF sense, for example:

* The freedoms defined by the FSF are protected through [[copyleft]] licenses, the most prominent of which is the [[GNU General Public License]]. The author retains copyright, and permits redistribution and modification under terms designed to ensure that all modified versions of the software remain under copyleft terms.
* [[Public domain]] software, in which the author has abandoned the copyright. Public-domain software, since it is not protected by copyright at all, may be freely incorporated into closed, proprietary works as well as free ones.
* [[BSD License|BSD-style license]]s, so called because they are applied to much of the software distributed with the [[Berkeley Software Distribution|BSD]] operating systems. The author under such licenses retains copyright protection solely to disclaim warranty and to require proper attribution of modified works, but permits redistribution and modification, even in proprietary works.

Note that the original copyright owner of copyleft-licensed software can also make a modified version under their original copyright, and sell it under any license they like, in addition to distributing the original version as free software. This technique has been used as a business model by a number of free software companies; this does ''not'' restrict any of the rights granted to the users of the copyleft version.

===Examples and evolution===
A large and increasing amount of software is made available under free software licenses; observers of this trend (and adherents) often refer to this phenomenon as the [[free software movement]]. Notable free software projects include the [[Linux]] and [[Berkeley Software Distribution|BSD]] operating system kernels, the [[GNU Compiler Collection|GCC]] compilers, [[GDB]] debugger and [[C programming language|C]] libraries, the [[BIND]] name server, the [[Sendmail]] mail transport server, the [[Apache HTTP Server|Apache web server]], the [[MySQL]] and [[PostgreSQL]] [[relational database]] systems, the [[Perl]], [[Python programming language|Python]], [[Tcl]] and [[PHP programming language|PHP]] programming languages, the [[X Window System]], the [[GNOME]] and [[KDE]] desktop environments, the [[OpenOffice.org]] office suite, the [[Mozilla]] web browser, the [[Samba]] file server system, and the [[GIMP]] graphics editor.

Like all free software, these projects distribute their programs under licenses that grant users all the freedoms discussed above, but because of technicalities in the licenses, combining programs by mixing source code or directly linking binaries may be problematic unless both applications are under mutually compatible licenses. When programs are not directly linked together into a single program, these problems do not exist. Much free software can run on non-free platforms such as [[Microsoft Windows]], and non-free software can be run on free platforms, although purists prefer to use all-free software running on a free platform such as Linux.

Free software packages constitute a [[software ecosystem]] where different pieces of software can provide services to one another, leading to co-evolution of features: in one simple example, the Python programming language provides support for the [[HTTP]] protocol, and the Apache web server that provides the HTTP protocol can call the Python programming language to serve dynamic content.

The [[Debian]] Project, which produces an [[operating system]] entirely composed of free software, created a set of guidelines that are used to evaluate the compatibility of a license with Debian's free-ness goal. The [[Debian Free Software Guidelines]] are used to delineate the ''free'' from ''non-free'' software. Debian had by [[2003]] collected over seven and a half thousand [[software package]]s compliant with the above guidelines.

Debian developers also argue that the same principles should apply not only to programs, but to [[software documentation]] as well.  Many documents written by the [[Linux Documentation Project]], and many documents licensed under the [[GNU Free Documentation License]] (the documents with invariant sections), do not comply with all of the above guidelines.

=== Comparison with Open Source software ===
The [[Open Source]] movement is philosophically distinct from the free software movement. It began in 1998 with a group of people, notably [[Eric S. Raymond]] and [[Bruce Perens]], who formed the [[Open Source Initiative]] (OSI). They sought (1) to bring a higher profile to the practical benefits of sharing software source code, and (2) to interest major software houses and other high-tech industry companies in the concept. These advocates see the term ''open source'' as avoiding the ambiguity of the English word "free" in ''free software''. The term "open source" was coined by Christine Peterson of the [[Foresight Institute]] think tank. It was registered to act as a [[trade mark]] for free software products.

Many people recognise a qualitative benefit to the software development process when a program's source code can be used, modified and redistributed by developers. (''See also'' [[The Cathedral and the Bazaar]].) The free software movement places primary emphasis on the moral or ethical aspects of software, seeing technical excellence as a desirable by-product of its ethical standard. The Open Source movement sees technical excellence as the primary goal, regarding source code sharing as a means to an end. As such, the FSF distances itself both from the Open Source movement and from the term "Open Source".


Since the OSI only approves free software licenses as complying with the OSD, most people interpret it as a distribution scheme, and freely interchange "open source" with "free software". Even though there are important philosophical differences between the two terms, particularly in terms of the motivations for developing and using such software, they seldom make any impact in the collaboration process.

Whilst the term "Open Source" removes the ambiguity of Freedom versus Price, it introduces another: between programs that meet the Open Source Definition, giving users the freedom to improve upon them, and programs that simply have source available, possibly with heavy restrictions on the use of that source. Many people believe that any software that has source available is open source because they can tinker with it themselves. However, much of this software does not give its users the freedom to distribute their modifications, restricts commercial usage, or otherwise restricts users' rights.

===Political significance===
Once a free software product has started to circulate, it soon becomes available at little or no cost. At the same time, its utility does not decrease. This means that free software can be characterized as a [[pure public good]] rather than a [[private good]].

Since free software allows free use, modification, and distribution, it often finds a home in [[third world]] countries for whom the cost of proprietary software is sometimes prohibitive. It is also easily modified locally, so translation efforts into languages which are not necessarily commercially profitable are also feasible. See also [[internationalization]].

Most free software is produced by international teams cooperating through free association. Teams typically are composed of individuals with a wide variety of motivations. There are many stances about the relation of free software to the current, [[capitalism|capitalist]] economic system:
* Some consider free software to be a competitor to [[capitalism]].
* Some consider free software to be another form of competition within [[free market|free markets]], and that [[copyright]] is a governmental restriction on the market.
* Groups like [[Oekonux]] and [[Hipatia]] consider that everything could be produced in this manner and that this model of production isn't limited to superseding the proprietary model of software development. Cooperation based on free association can be and is used for other purposes (such as writing encyclopedias and [[give-away shop]]s).

== Free software as in "no charge" ==
Various types of free software in this sense exists:
* [[Freeware]], software that can be distributed and used without cost. Few strings are attached; sometimes only private, non-commercial use is allowed. The software may not be modified, and sometimes may also not be redistributed.
* [[Adware]], software which displays advertisements during use. Legit adware is often a kind of [[shareware]] which may be used for free with ads, other adware is a kind of [[spyware]] which comes with advertising. This second kind is often installed without the consent of the installee.
* [[Spyware]], collects [[market research]] data and/or [[credit card]] numbers from the host computer. Also often (if not always) installed without consent.
* [[Crippleware]], software which can be used in a limited form for free; the enhanced version typically requires payment (see [[shareware]]).

The following are freely available to a greater or lesser degree, but are not properly "free software" in this sense:
*[[Shareware]]'s license requires payment for use beyond a specified trial period. The payment typically has to be made by the user on an "honor system".
*[[Warez]] is current proprietary software which is distributed for free by a third party in violation of its copyright license.
*[[Abandonware]] is software which is used and distributed in violation of copyright license, like warez, but is no longer sold or developed by its owner. Often distributers justify this violation of copyright by claiming to be offering a service to those who have previously bought a program that has been corrupted (for example by an expired floppy disk). Copyright of the software may or may not be enforced by the owner depending on their views of this arrangement. As an extra aside several developers have voluntarily made some of their older software available as abandonware (e.g. [[Impressions Software]] and [[Rockstar Games]]) either for customer ''good will'' or publicity purposes.

==See also==
* [[Free software license]]s
* [[GNU|GNU Project]]
* [[Free Software Foundation]]
* [[GNU General Public Licence]]
* [[Free/Libre Open Source Software]]
* [[Free audio software]]
* [[Free game software]]
* [[Open source]]

== External links and references ==
* [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The Free Software Definition] - published by FSF
* [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html FSF's list of free software licenses], including clarifications on often confused non-free licenses
* [http://www.gnu.org/directory FSF/UNESCO directory of known free software packages]
* [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ The GNU philosophy pages]
* [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html FSF's comparison of "Open Source" and "Free Software"]
* [http://www.antipope.org/charlie/linux/wibble/freesoft.html An argument for free software] (Charlie Stross)
* [http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS)? Look at the Numbers!] — David Wheeler's analysis of the advantages of OSS/FS by an exhaustive review of published studies, analyses, and news reports.
* [http://www.framasoft.net/rubrique259.html Directory of free software and open source softwares at Framasoft's site]
* [http://maestro.broken-inside.net/blog/2004/08/free-essential-programs.html Freeware and open-source windows software list]

[[ar:برامج حرة]]
[[ca:Programari Lliure]]
[[cs:Svobodný software]]
[[da:Fri software]]
[[de:Freie Software]]
[[eo:Libera programaro]]
[[es:Software libre]]
[[fi:Vapaa ohjelmisto]]
[[fr:Logiciel libre]]
[[he:תוכנה חופשית]]
[[hr:Slobodan softver]]
[[hu:Szabad szoftver]]
[[ia:Software libere]]
[[id:Perangkat lunak bebas]]
[[it:Software libero]]
[[ja:フリーソフトウェア]]
[[ko:자유 소프트웨어]]
[[ku:Nivîsbariya azad]]
[[nl:Vrije software]]
[[no:Fri programvare]]
[[pl:Wolne oprogramowanie]]
[[pt:Software livre]]
[[ro:Software liber]]
[[ru:Свободное программное обеспечение]]
[[sk:Slobodný softvér]]
[[sl:prosto programje]]
[[sv:Fri programvara]]
[[tr:Özgür yazılım]]
[[zh:自由软件]]
[[Category:Free software]]

Talk:List of integrals of rational functions

2004-10-17T17:02:23Z

Jrn: Mysteriously, the Italian version displays better than this one

Using Safari 1.2.3 (v125.9) on Mac OS X, the HTML-based math formatting is much less clear than the TeX-based images. The integral signs are too small, the fractions are too widely spaced, and so forth.

I do not know by what rule Wikipedia chooses to render using images or HTML, but the Italian version, with only images, displays much more clearly on this setup than this English version.

I hope that someone who knows more than I do about the workings of Wikipedia can correct this.

- [[User:Jrn|Jrn]] 17:02, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jennifer 8. Lee

2004-10-17T16:27:04Z

Jrn: changed Jennifer Lee's to people named Jennifer Lee

'''Jennifer 8. Lee''', born [[March 15]], [[1976]] in [[New York|New York City]], is a ''[[New York Times]]'' [[reporter]] for the Circuits section. Her [[middle name]] was given by her parents in her teens because there are just too many people named Jennifer Lee. She spells her middle name "8." on paper, but on her [[driver's license]], it spells a much less [[dramatic]] "Eight." Even though her [[parent]]s were from [[Taiwan]], they were influenced by this interesting typically-[[Cantonese]] custom that sees [[Eight#In_other_fields|number 8]] as a [[symbol]] of prosperity.

Ms. Lee graduated from [[Harvard University]]. She interned at ''[[The Washington Post]]'', ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', ''[[The Boston Globe]]'', ''[[Newsday]]'' and ''[[The New York Times]]'' while working on her [[applied mathematics]] and [[economics]] degree.

==References==
*Jennifer 8. Lee. "Yes, 8 is my middle name." ''The [[Boston Globe]].'' [[August 8]], [[1996]]. E1.

==See also==
* [[5 (Peanuts)|555 95472]] - An imaginary person whose name is nothing but a number.

==External links==
*[http://www.nytimes.com/learning/students/ask_reporters/Jennifer_Lee.html Ask a Reporter: Jennifer 8. Lee]
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/19/technology/circuits/19MESS.html I Think, Therefore IM]

{{msg:stub}}
[[Category:Journalists|Lee, Jennifer 8.]]
[[Category:1976 births|Lee, Jennifer 8.]]

Indent (Unix)

2004-10-17T05:45:15Z

Jrn: fixed Allman style link

In [[computing]], '''Indent''' is a [[programming tool|utility]] that reformats C and C++ code to a user defined [[coding style]].

== Examples of usage ==

indent some-file.c -st -bad --blank-lines-after-procedures -bli0 -i4 -l79 -ncs -npcs -nut -npsl -fca -lc79 -fc1

Indents some-file.c to a style resembling [[Indent_style#BSD/Allman_style|Allman style]] and writes the result to [[standard output]].

== GNU Indent ==

GNU Indent is the [[GNU]] version of indent. A different indent style, the [[Indent_style#GNU_style|GNU style]], is used by default.

==External links==
[http://www.gnu.org/software/indent/ GNU Indent Homepage]

{{compu-stub}}

[[Category:GNU project software]]

GNU Indent

2004-10-17T05:43:31Z

Jrn: Finished merging - here's the redirect.

#REDIRECT [[indent (unix)]]

Indent (Unix)

2004-10-17T05:40:01Z

Jrn: relabeled external link to GNU indent homepage

In [[computing]], '''Indent''' is a [[programming tool|utility]] that reformats C and C++ code to a user defined [[coding style]].

== Examples of usage ==

indent some-file.c -st -bad --blank-lines-after-procedures -bli0 -i4 -l79 -ncs -npcs -nut -npsl -fca -lc79 -fc1

Indents some-file.c to a style resembling [[Allman style]] and writes the result to [[standard output]].

== GNU Indent ==

GNU Indent is the [[GNU]] version of indent. A different indent style, the [[Indent_style#GNU_style|GNU style]], is used by default.

==External links==
[http://www.gnu.org/software/indent/ GNU Indent Homepage]

{{compu-stub}}

[[Category:GNU project software]]

Indent (Unix)

2004-10-17T05:39:31Z

Jrn: Attempted to merge with GNU Indent. I'm a novice here - so please fix anything I've overlooked

In [[computing]], '''Indent''' is a [[programming tool|utility]] that reformats C and C++ code to a user defined [[coding style]].

== Examples of usage ==

indent some-file.c -st -bad --blank-lines-after-procedures -bli0 -i4 -l79 -ncs -npcs -nut -npsl -fca -lc79 -fc1

Indents some-file.c to a style resembling [[Allman style]] and writes the result to [[standard output]].

== GNU Indent ==

GNU Indent is the [[GNU]] version of indent. A different indent style, the [[Indent_style#GNU_style|GNU style]], is used by default.

==External links==
[http://www.gnu.org/software/indent/ Homepage]

{{compu-stub}}

[[Category:GNU project software]]

GNU Indent

2004-10-17T05:33:10Z

Jrn: I'm merging this with indent (unix) - there is not much to say about GNU indent in particular (unless you describe the algorithms by which it works)

{{merging | target=indent (unix)}}

[[Category:GNU project software]]

== GNU Indent ==

GNU Indent is the [[GNU]] version of [[indent (unix)|Indent]], a program that is used to beautify C code to make it more readable or change between [[indent_style]]s.

==Differences between GNU and other versions==

A different indent style, the [[Indent_style#GNU_style|GNU style]], is used by default.

==External links==
[http://www.gnu.org/software/indent/ Homepage]

{{compu-stub}}

Talk:Node (networking)

2004-10-17T05:24:22Z

Jrn: minor revision of comment - cut off beginning and end

The [[node|disambiguation]] page tell us, "Node, in information technology, a device connected to a network, such as a computer or router." Indeed. What more is there to say? Not much more than a paragraph-worth. But the same could also be said about nodes in linked lists: we define them, describe them, perhaps give some history, and we're done. What is essential and important is that [[Node (graph theory)|node]] is a synonym for vertex, with its origins in its [[node (botany)|botanical sense]], and that when we call something a node we are saying that we would like to deal with it abstractly as a point with arcs to other points. What is confusing is that this structure of nodes and links, often called a graph, is also often called a network, so Node (networking) suggests to me that what I will read is a discussion of applied graph theory.

Why must each sense have its own page? We can isolate the graph theoretic node, or just link to Graph (mathematics) after a cursory discussion of it. But nodes in botany, programming, and telecommunications would be better treated in one article than many, at least at first. Once they outgrow the page, they could split off, but as is this structure sprawling from the disambiguation page is overkill. - [[User:Jrn|Jrn]] 23:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC), revised 05:23, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Market power

2004-10-17T05:14:57Z

Jrn: minor rewording; removed "list of economics links" under see also because the category link takes you there.

In [[economics]], '''market power''' (sometimes called '''monopoly power''') is a [[market failure]] which occurs when one or more of the participants in a [[market]] have the ability to to influence the [[price]] or other outcomes in some general or specialized [[market]]. The most commonly discussed form of market power is that of a [[monopoly]], but other forms such as [[monopsony]], and more moderate versions of these two extremes, exist. Market participants that have market power are sometimes referred to as "price makers", while those without are sometimes called "price takers".

In [[Perfect competition|perfectly competitive]] markets, market participants have no market power. This is significant because the microeconomic theory of [[supply and demand]] is usually developed from the assumption that markets are perfectly competitive. A [[firm]] with market power has the ability to individually affect either the total quantity or the prevailing price in the market. If the [[demand curve]] is downward sloping (that is, if price increases lead to lower demand), then the decrease in supply as a result of the excercise of market power creates an economic [[deadweight loss]] in comparison with a situation of perfect competition. This is often viewed as socially undesirable, and as a result, many countries have [[anti-trust]] or other legislation with the aim of limiting the ability of firms to accrue market power. Such legislation often regulates [[merger]]s and sometimes introduces a judicial power to compel [[divestiture]].

A firm usually has market power by virtue of it controlling a large portion of the market. In extreme cases - monopoly and monopsony - the firm controls the entire market. However, market size alone is not a good indicator of market power. Highly concentrated markets may be [[contestable market|contestable]] if there are no [[barriers to entry]] or exit, limiting the incumbent firm's ability to raise its price above competitive levels.

Market power gives firms the ability to engage in unilateral [[anti-competitive behaviour]]. Such behaviour may include [[predatory pricing]], product [[tying]], and creation of [[overcapacity]] or other barriers to entry. If no individual participant in the market has significant market power, then anti-competitive behavior can take place only through ''[[collusion]]'', or the exercise of a group of participants' collective market power.

A well known example of monopoly market power is the Microsoft's market share in [[PC]] [[operating system]]s. The [[Microsoft antitrust case]] concerned the allegation that Microsoft illegally exercised its market power by bundling their [[web browser]] with their operating system.  Some have suggested that [[Wal Mart]] exercises monopsonic market power; its size allows it to extract extremely low prices from its suppliers.

==See also==
*[[Bargaining power]]
*[[Imperfect competition]]
*[[Oligopoly]]
*[[Oligopsony]]
*[[Natural monopoly]]
*[[Predatory pricing]]
*[[Price discrimination]]

==External links==
* [http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html Wal Mart's market power]

[[Category:Economics]]

Perfect competition

2004-10-17T04:21:43Z

Jrn: Removed lists-of-topics box, replacing it with a link to Category:Economics, which links to the economics list. Made other minor changes.

In [[economics | economic theory]], '''perfect competition''' is a [[market form]] in which no producer or consumer has the [[market power|power]] to influence prices in the market. This leads to an outcome which is efficient, according to the economic definition of [[Pareto efficiency]]. The analysis of perfectly competitive markets provides the foundation of the theory of [[supply and demand]]. One example of perfect competition in the real world is the agricultural industry, whose large amount of suppliers, relatively inelastic [[supply and demand|demand]], and almost perfectly substitutable product make it closely approximate the perfect competition model.

A market is said to be one with '''perfect competition''' if:
#There are a large number of small producers and consumers on a given market
#None of the producers or consumers can influence the price on their own -- they are '''price takers'''
#Goods and services are [[perfect substitute]]s -- they are '''homogeneous'''
#All resources (including [[information]]) are perfectly mobile
#[[Transaction cost]]s are zero
#The price is determined at the level that equates [[supply and demand]], and moves instantaneously to equilibrium

This model is often criticised, especially by those economists who belong to the [[Austrian School]], as being unrealistic, as in many markets larger producers are more efficient than perfectly competitive smaller producers while transaction costs and information costs can never be zero (as they will involve using resources with alternative uses).

See also: [[Imperfect competition]], [[microeconomics]], other [[market form]]s

[[Category:Economics]]

[[de:Vollkommener Markt]]

Category:Economics

2004-10-17T04:14:58Z

Jrn: "See the list of economics topics for a far more comprehensive list of economics topics." - following category:mathematics

'''Economics''' is a [[Social sciences|social science]] that studies [[human behavior]] and welfare as a relationship between ends socially required and scarce means which have alternative uses ([[Lionel Robbins]], [[1935]]). (This is not the only definition of economics; instead it is the dominant one.) Many of the arguments and techniques of modern economics involve mathematics, ranging from simple school-level mathematics to highly advanced mathematical techniques.

''See the [[list of economics topics]] for a far more comprehensive list of economics topics.''

{{catmore}}

[[Category:Social sciences]]
[[Category:Mathematics]]

[[cs:Kategorie:Ekonomie]]
[[de:Kategorie:Wirtschaft]]
[[es:Categoría:Economía]]
[[fr:Catégorie:Économie]]
[[it:Categoria:Economia]]
[[ja:Category:経済学]]
[[nl:Categorie:Economie]]
[[no:Kategori:Økonomi]]
[[pl:Kategoria:Ekonomia]]
[[pt:Categoria:Economia]]
[[ru:Category:Экономика]]
[[sv:Kategori:Ekonomi]]

Market power

2004-10-17T04:00:21Z

Jrn: Tried to clarify; guessed about intended meanings so please review.

In [[economics]], '''market power''' (sometimes called '''monopoly power''') is a [[market failure]] which occurs when one or more of the participants in a [[market]] have the ability to to influence the [[price]] or other outcomes in some general or specialized [[market]]. The most commonly discussed form of market power is that of a [[monopoly]], but other forms such as [[monopsony]], and more moderate versions of these two extremes, exist. Market participants that have market power are sometimes referred to as "price makers", while those without are sometimes called "price takers".

In [[Perfect competition|perfectly competitive]] markets, market participants have no market power. This is significant because the microeconomic theory of [[supply and demand]] is usually developed from the assumption that markets are perfectly competitive. A [[firm]] with market power has the ability to individually affect either the total quantity or the prevailing price in the market. If the [[demand curve]] is downward sloping (that is, if price increases lead to lower demand), then the decrease in supply as a result of the excercise of market power creates an economic [[deadweight loss]] in comparison with a situation of perfect competition. This is often viewed as socially undesirable, and as a result, many countries have [[anti-trust]] or other legislation with the aim of limiting the ability of firms to accrue market power. Such legislation often regulates [[merger]]s and sometimes introduces a judicial power to compel [[divestiture]].

A firm usually has market power by virtue of it controlling a large portion of the market. In extreme cases - monopoly and monopsony - the firm controls the entire market. However, market size alone is not a good indicator of market power. Highly concentrated markets may be [[contestable market|contestable]] if there are no [[barriers to entry]] or exit, limiting the incumbent firm's ability to raise its price above competitive levels.

Market power gives firms the ability to engage in unilateral [[anti-competitive behaviour]]. Such behaviour may include [[predatory pricing]], product [[tying]], and creation of [[overcapacity]] or other barriers to entry. If no individual participant in the market has significant market power, then anti-competitive behavior can take place only through ''[[collusion]]'', or the exercise of a group of participants' collective market power.

A well known example of monopoly market power is the Microsoft's market share in [[PC]] [[operating system]]s. The [[Microsoft antitrust case]] concerned the allegation that Microsoft illegally exercised its market power by bundling Internet Explorer with Windows.  Some have suggested that [[Wal Mart]] exercises monopsonic market power; its size allows it to extract extremely low prices from its suppliers.

==See also==
*[[Bargaining power]]
*[[Imperfect competition]]
*[[Oligopoly]]
*[[Oligopsony]]
*[[Natural monopoly]]
*[[Predatory pricing]]
*[[Price discrimination]]
*[[List of economics topics]]

==External links==
* [http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html Wal Mart's market power]

[[Category:Economics]]

Talk:Axiom of choice

2004-10-17T01:34:51Z

Jrn: corrected a mislink (intuitionism instead of intuitionist logic)

Talk:Axiom of choice

2004-10-17T01:31:12Z

Jrn: Skolemization on a, not use of a in general, requires the axiom of choice.

User talk:Ruhrjung

2004-10-16T10:29:24Z

Jrn: Reversed history (deleted question & answer to free up space)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Keep up the good work. -- [[User:Mic|Mic]]

:Thanks! (We'll see. I think I'm rather stubborn, when it comes to continuing on projects. Expect to see me here regularly as in several times a month, not regularly as in every day or even every week.) -- [[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 08:30 May 1, 2003 (UTC)
----
== Finland's and the Baltic States' independence ==
Interesting on the Baltic dimension at [[Väinö I of Finland]]. I've been away for the most of June and I haven't been able to follow developments, but I'm sure you've done alot of good contributions. -- [[User:Mic|Mic]] 13:07 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

----
== Ireland and WWII neutrality ==
Many people presume Irish neutrality was not being willing to take sides in the war. It was much more complicated. In fact recent scholarship has questioned whether Ireland was neutral at all. In many areas, it was a figleaf to avoid destabilising the Irish state through triggering off an IRA campaign (The IRA would have reacted badly to any open support for Britain); the IRA had links with the nazis and any destablisation would have made it easier for Germany to invade, at a time when no-one else could have protected Ireland because Britain was fighting for its survival, France was gone, the US wasn't involved at the time, etc. But it was a fiction. Ireland supplied tens of thousands of soldiers to the British army from the island, and vast numbers from the Irish community in Britain. IRA men were executed. British pilots that crashed in Ireland were chased ''very very slowly'', ie pretending to catch them while giving them plenty of time to get to Northern Ireland (sometimes police gave them directions!). But German airmen were interned immediately. Ireland facilitated the bugging of the German embassy by the British, the Irish Intelligence services secretly briefed the British with information. Weather reports which both sides needed were denied offically to both, then secretly supplied to the Allies, as was every scrap of information Irish diplomats could get their hands on in Berlin and Rome.

Put simply, Ireland's neutrality was a practical solution aimed at making Ireland as difficult as possible for Germany to invade. It was in a different category to the neutrality practiced in many other neutral states. The mention I added in is a factual amendment to point out that the often believed impression that Ireland ''refused'' to aid the Allies against Germany is nonsense. Ireland could offer them little militarily but if invaded by Germany it could be used against Britain in a way that would make Britain's defence of itself almost impossible. Irish neutrality in effect gave the Allies far more than open support could have; maximum strength to reduce the threat of naxi invasion and crucial covert information, some of it (such as in effect spying on nazis under the cover of neutrality and weather forecasts about incoming Atlantic weather patterns ''crucial'' during the Battle of Britain and in planning D-Day, information denied to Germany which gave the Allies the edge at crucial turning points. [[User:Jtdirl|FearÉIREANN]] 01:19 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:Yes, yes and yes. :-)) My thought is however, that it might be suitable to make an article ''of its own'' on the different deviations from strict neutrality and the impartial attitude toward the belligerents according to the conventions of the Second Hague Conference. If I as a reader had a choise, I would prefer to see Éire's, Sweden's and Switzerland's sensitive manoevres in the same context/on the same www-page.
:What do you think? -- [[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 09:28 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
----
== The comma-convention and German cities ==
AFAIK The format of disambiguation of place names outside of the USA is still under discussion at [[Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(city_names)]]. I think you should enter the discussion before unilaterally deciding to move German place names. [[User:Mintguy|Mintguy]] 22:21, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

:Germany is no state of USA. That is established, even in [[Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(city_names)]], where virtually no arguments for the comma-notion are presented, although the debate there seems to have fallen asleep (about [[July 22]]nd). --[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]]

::I understand and indeed agree with your position. However, such bold moves are usually made after some discussion and agreement or consensus and not unilaterally, and I don't recall seening you participating this particular one. [[User:Mintguy|Mintguy]] 22:41, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

:::I most certainly did. Among other things asking for reasons why [[Frankfurt am Main]] should [http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Frankfurt redirect] to [[Frankfurt]], and not the other way around (no-one found that question interesting, though I repeated it), ...but also in the common whine choir. And what are we supposed to do when the proponents of a questioned habit don't defend their position (at least not by arguments), but leave walk-over? I'm not in knowledgable enough to discuss conventions extending the few countries I know (France, Benelux, Germany, the so called "Old Europe", and maybe Scandinavia), let alone '''propose''' any general convention, which seemingly is the feeling of more than myself. If we are lucky, my boldness might lead to a revival of the discussion, or something.--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 23:21, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

:::I agree with Mintguy, that you should not make further page moves. Now we have the situation of some cities in this format and some cities in the other format, which is the worst solution at all. Before your change ALL German cities were in the comma notion. I don't prefer one of these formats, but I am strongly in favour of uniformity. Maybe I will later revert your changes.

:::Moreover, why is Brunswick placed under [[Brunswick (Lower Saxony)]] and not [[Brunswick (Germany)]]. We should prefer the name of the country, because in other countries it is more widely known than the federal state. Only if there were two cities of that name in Germany, I would agree with this change. Cheers -- [[User:Cordyph|Cordyph]] 10:08, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

::::Well, the most true reason is (I believe) that I made that change first, and at that time was, beside heavily intoxicated, having the (finally) <strike>ducal</strike> grand-ducal dynasty ''von Braunschweig'' in my mind. For me, the city and the rulers residing there are connected to ''Saxony,'' not to Germany. You are of course free to do whatever changes and revertions you like. If you '''think''' the wikipedia-project is more served by "uniformity" treating Germany as an entity comparable with the ''states'' of USA and Australia, well... please, have your ways. But don't complain if the credibility of the project is harmed outside of USA.--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 11:40, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

:::::When I said uniformity, I meant, that at least all entries '''within''' Germany should be in the same format. That may be different from the format used for U.S. states, but changing some random articles from comma notion to parantheses and leave the rest as is, that is for sure a bad idea. If at all, we should have discussed this first on the mailing list or another place, and then we might go ahead and change '''all''' articles. What this has to do with the credibility of project - well, I don't know. And if we state a geographical entity where a city belongs to, it should of course be the current country and not a medieval duchy. Excuse me, but your explanation about the page move to [[Brunswick (Lower Saxony)]] is rather odd. -- [[User:Cordyph|Cordyph]] 14:13, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

::::::I never said I had any good explanation, did I? :-) However, also you, my friend, seem to need a brief repetition of our history. "Medieval" ... tsk, tsk. :-)) Anyway, I was under the belief that I tracked down all (six-or-something) German towns with the comma-disambiguation in the page-name. Don't tell me I left some behind? ;-> --[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 06:21, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
----

==Continuation War==
What do you think we should do with this? It seems that Graculus ans 172 are not going to defend their version. I don't want to revert the article if it just gets reverted back. Should we wait a couple of days and then revert the article to one of the versions we see as NPOV?
I also wanted you know that I found Graculus behaviour very offending. -- [[User:Jniemenmaa|Jniemenmaa]] 09:19, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)

:I've noticed the debate at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] which, to express it mildly, did nothing to improved my impression. To some degree, more than I actually would like to admit, do [[User:Eloquence]]'s, [[User:Cimon avaro|cimon's]] and [[User:172]]'s (see also: [http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=1360165&oldid=1360162 the talk page]) arguments make me disappointed. It ought not to be the slightest relevant if someone participates in an edit war, or not, but '''the ways of war''': the propagandist slant (or as they say so much these days, the [[spin (politics)|spin]]) and the disrespect for other contributors - and for Truth, for heaven's sake!

::Sorry to butt in when you were going at such free flow ;-) But, But but...
::Everything you say about Graculus'es style above, is in my view justified (I am not saying it is right, but it certainly is justified). What we may disagree upon (but perhaps agree to disagree upon), is the question of what is appropriate to the case of sysophood approval. I hope Truth will not take offence, if I claim that she has no say in the matter of how people pursue her. And the Wikipedia should not do so either; to the point that Wikipedia should not discriminate by style, but by hard and deliberate demonstrable acts. -- [[User:Cimon avaro|Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick]]

:::Exactly. We agree to disagree. And I expect people, who agree with you, will be more likely to remain active within this project than people who have a view related to mine. Nothing thereby said about numbers.--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 13:46, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

::::That is quite ambiguously put. Are you saying that there may be good numbers of those who do not wish to participate in this site if we require more than an isolated incident before stopping people from joining the group of sysops. If that is indeed true in large numbers, I haven't heard many who have expressed that view, before you seem to be suggesting it here now. Maybe I have misunderstood something, in which case, please elucidate. -- [[User:Cimon avaro|Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick]] 17:19, Aug 30, 2003 (UTC)

:::::No. I am specifically avoiding to say anything about numbers. For two reasons: 1/ I have not the faintest knowledge. 2/ I believe numbers being less important than '''whom''' is repulsed and attracted by a wikipedia where your opinion rules. Don't forget that the nominee in question is pretty fresh around here. By saying "his demonstrated bias and his ways to pursue his POV is 'an isolated incident' limited to only few articles" I think one in practice, although not expressively, endorses his and similar techniques. This might turn the wikipedia project a bit more in direction of a battle ground where the law of the jungle rules, and it might in the long run repulse factually competent contributors. Such a process is possibly self-amplifying.

:::::I had been less surpriced if Eloquence had argued: ''"this incident motivates a/ some waiting time, so that we can see that it's not a habit and b/ a somewhat closer look on the nominee's other actions,"'' which would have sent a signal to both the nominee in question but also to other confrontative users, that their methods are not generally considered optimal.

:::::I would also like to point out that when people propose and support nominees at that page, then their arguments '''for''' nominees are very much about qualities which this nominee in this particular case demonstrated deficient. So I do not feel detached from the rethoric in general, only by your stance which I incisivedly read as: ''Let's give him authority and powers, and boost his standing. First thereafter we can determine if he'll abuse it or not. ...or, errr, if the negative aspects weigh heavier than his valuable work as a sysop.'' But I think there are many reasons why it's easier not to grant honors and privileges than to revoke them. --[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 09:28, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

::Ruhrjung, I totally agree with you. Actually this whole thing bothered me more than it should have. Wonder who has been doing all the "pointless bickering and politicking"? Not you or Tuomas at least. -- [[User:Jniemenmaa|Jniemenmaa]]

:::I don't really understand how my one edit and one reversion (nor Tuomas' repeated reversion and single rewrite) can have produced the strong feelings expressed at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Graculus]] and [[User Talk:Graculus#Continuation War]].--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 13:46, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

:Honestly - I do care, but I don't know what to say or to propose. In my own personal self-view, my role has been to balance you Finns and your natural and understandable tendency to stress a Finnish POV (not that I believe there to be '''only one''' Finnish POV, of course not! ;->>). Now, User:Graculus has done his best to "balance" it, and hence outshone my role, but alas not being willing to discuss the issue. I thought I offered one attempt to work in ''some'' of his contributions in the text, while filtering away what I feared would trigger drastic Finish work-ups (sooner or later). User:Tuomas rewrote the introduction, improved it and addressed some of the "controversial" issues in a factual way. User:Graculus remained mute but stubborn.

::I have a huge respect for Truth. - just for the record - What I have found out, though, is that Truth is a shy lady, she only comes out to play, if the players try to give each other much leeway in expressing themselves. It likes a stubborn viewpoint almost as much as a volatile one. -- [[User:Cimon avaro|Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick]] 18:45, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)

:::Your lines look nice. Beautifully poetic prose! My only problem is that I have no idea what you actually are aiming at.--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 13:46, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

::::It's good that '''I''' do know then! Just doing my best to get a hand under her skirts, and cop a good feel up her source. What I am saying (in plain) is that if restrictions are designed purely by '''either''' rhetoric/linguistic ability or (and I honestly think many people miss this, without consciously wanting to) their people skills. There is a good line about this in both the [[Hagakure]] and in [[Confucius]]' [[Analects]], but I can't be bothered to dig either up right now. Maybe after I save this... -- [[User:Cimon avaro|Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick]] 17:19, Aug 30, 2003 (UTC)

:::::No offence, but... ''"if restrictions are designed purely by either language ability or their people skills."'' ...then? It's not the quotation I ask for, it's the meaning. :-) --[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 09:28, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

::::Hokay, how about a quote from [[User:Cimon avaro|Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick]]: "If you elect only politicians to power, then the politicians will have power." Personally I dislike rule by elite in every form, and sysophood becoming a political office is to my view a much worse prospect than letting a few broken vessels squeak through. And I disagree with the contention that Graculus' actions were quite as severely deficient as you and Tuomas seem to think; which is quite understandable, since you two were emotionally committed to oppose him. -- [[User:Cimon avaro|Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick]] 10:29, Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)

::Ha! I've been itching to NPOV (or should I say Finn-POV) your stuff on Finnish history for a while... :) I know that I have an Finnish POV for the war, but it is a lot closer to "your version" that Graculus'. But since I am more of an wargaming buff, so I'd rather do articles on the individual battles of the war. -- [[User:Jniemenmaa|Jniemenmaa]]

:The way my personality normally works is: 
:''I've made my attempts now. They weren't approved. Well. That's OK. Let someone else try.''

:I'm currently reading up on Swedish Social Democrats (memoirs and biographies). Much more interesting than engaging in "wars" with people who refuse to communicate. There are two aspects of "Swedishness" which I slowly begin to get some sort of a grip of: ''Folkrörelserna'' and the hegemony of Social Democracy. It's been intriguing but strange to me - it still is - but I begin to understand one thing or another.

:...Swedish [[collectivism]] for instance. A few days ago I met a 70-ish man at a ''skördefest'' in a village just outside of Malmö and Lund, who argued that the ''statarsystem'' and the ''bruksorter'' had been over-all good for many of the employees. He had himself grown up as a ''statarunge'' until 1944, when the system was abolished and his father was given the choice between becoming a leaseholder or season-employee. He, the son I met, ment that for many/most of the ''statare'' that system ment stability, community and security which they missed in their new roles as urbanized industrial workers or tenant-farmers. Compared to Finnish mentality and Finnish national myths, this is definitely something else. The Swedes as the archetypic village dwellers, much similar to how my great-aunt remembers her childhood in East-Prussia. --[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 17:41, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

::I must confess I have an hole in my knowledge of Swedish history approximately between 1809 and 1980. I'll be waiting for your article(s) on the subject.. :) For the moment I'am interested about Finnish pre-history and medieval history, so I won't be interested in an "edit war" either. Ok, I've never been interested in edit wars anyway. I am more happy with writing new articles (and seeing them improved by others!). -- [[User:Jniemenmaa|Jniemenmaa]] 08:55, Aug 30, 2003 (UTC)

:::Don't expect too much. I must say that although over a million immigrants live in Sweden, and must have made similar experiences as I (and you), I can't consider the issue sufficiently interesting for any broader international forum. I was rather intending to give the impression that I read things which are unrelated to [[Wikipedia]]. ;->> --[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 13:46, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
----
== illustration on divisions of Christianity ==
I actually know very little about christianity. I just converted the ascii-art to a jpg. I'm not even christian. [[User:LittleDan|LDan]] 00:33, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
:That's OK. I don't think you need to ''know'' anything in order to make an illustration... ;-))) Think of the ''denominations'' as the results of the forkings, and that which is not results, that must then be the causes of the forkings (as the Reformation, for instance).--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 01:08, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
----
== Sysop nomination ==
I was just looking over your contributions, and you're a great contributor. Would you like to be a [[Wikipedia:Administrators | sysop]]? I haven't filed any of the official requests yet, but if you want to be a sysop, you'd probably be accepted. [[User:LittleDan|LDan]] 00:45, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thankyou, but no thanks. :-) 
I am sufficiently much of an [[wikiholic]] without such a bold move. 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 01:08, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---
== Holy Roman Empire, sovereignty and suzeranity ==
sovereignty as we meen it now and sovereignty 'independence' as meant the are not the same thing. Suzeranity on the one hand, landeshoheit on the other.
Much of Prussia wasnt part of the empire - habsburg lands in the the empire werent subject to any will of the emperor (usually a hapsburg unless for reasons of the specific feudal obligations of the land in question except when regarding the emperor's most basic funftions - which wasnt to be absolute lord and master. The Holy Roman Empire should be thought of as an internetional treaty organisation or corporation in which the emperor was the chairman of the board, not divine right monarchy. In other words, i mean that those territorities did ahve unabhangigkeit, landeshoheit and landesherrlicheit - independence even part in the Empire. 
[[User:Tridesch]]

Nope, they '''achieved''' this during the course of the history, at the same time as the development in other important international powers was the opposite. 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 06:14, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No, sorry - youre wrong for the era you were referring to. By the Napoleonic Era, these states were perfectly free to do whatever they wished and the larger ones - did. Every state was technically independent under the suzeranity of the emperor. These concepts dont correspond w how modern states work. This was my concentration in college. 
[[User:Tridesch]]

For the Napoleonic Era you are perfectly right, but please direct me to which article we are currently discussing. 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 07:07, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
----
== Pronounciation guides ==
Why are you trying to get pronounciation guides added to some pages? Most people I know outside academia run a mile from them because the vast majority of people find them gobbledigook. Wikipedia lacks a universal standard of experience of their usage because of the varying expertise in english among users, and is potentially read by people in international locations who have never seen them, do not understand them and do not have the sort of grasp of subtities of pronounciation to make head or tail of them. Please just use simple linguistic guides that everyone can follow, rather than guides that are of use to only a small minority of linguists. 
[[User:Jtdirl|FearÉIREANN]] 19:48, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

My wish would be to get rid of the gobbledigook of transcriptions to English, except of course for the cases when these are regularly used. I made a comment on [[Wikipedia:Pages needing attention]] 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 06:55, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

----
== Lists of queers vs racist lists (VfD) ==
Hi, I'm curious to know a bit more about your votes on VfD. Under "queer composers" you said "Keep", but under "caucasians" you said "Racism warning! Delete". You seem to be saying that listing people by race is automatically a bad thing, but listing people by sex is not. Why is that? Have I just misunderstood you?

For the record, I've now formed the opinion that all these lists are a waste of time, and what we actually need is searchability. I won't bother voting to delete them, though, just wait for them to become obsolete. [[User:Onebyone|Onebyone]] 17:06, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Let me start by asserting that I dislike, personally, the wiki-habit of lots of lists of this and that. But I can, imho, not make this my dislike a reason to vote for deletion. However, if I try to presure myself on honesty, it's probably so that I watch request for deletions of lists more closely and benevolently than other requests for deletions. Hence my notice that I to my own surprise found me being voting in ''favor'' of a list.

Yes, I say that (on wikipedia) listing people by race is a dangerous road (i.e. a bad thing). Listing people by sex is not the issue here, but by acknoledged or believed ''unconventional sexual preferences.'' I might have my doubts on some of the posts on these lists, but that's totally irrelevant for VfD.

I consider [[racism]] a danger, in particular for the wikipedia. But I do not consider prejudices and selective data compilations on sexual preferences harmful for wikipedia, at least not for the moment; furthermore: I hold for relevant and interesing the debate on a possible relation between extraordinary contributions to science, arts, etc, and attitudes of exclusiveness among many of these extraordinary contributors, which might explain why many of them seemingly are less bound by conventional moral norms. 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 17:36, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Oops, my original question wasn't quite right. I meant to say "by sexual preference" rather than "by sex". It doesn't seem to have confused you, though.

I don't agree that listing by race necessarily poses any danger of racism, or that racism is more dangerous (in this context) than prejudice based on sexuality. But your votes certainly make sense to me now, so thanks for taking the time to answer. 
[[User:Onebyone|Onebyone]] 09:44, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

==Protection==

Hi Ruhrjung. I looked at all the pages listed in that section of the disputes page. Posnan was already protected before I got your message. I have now protected Teschen as well. Silesia's been protected for a while. I haven't protected the others as they are not currently in an edit war and I don't like to portect pages just in case they are attacked. Wroclaw has only had 1 edit in the last 30 hours. Prussia's only had 1 edit in 2 days. Szczecin and Pomerania haven't been edited since the 22nd. Gdansk hasn't been edited since the 20th and Polish Corridor hasn't been edited for 35 hours. So these seem comparatively stable for now. [[User:Angela|Angela]] 06:49, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 06:52, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

== Mäntsälä Rebellion ==

Hi! You changed some of the links pointing to the [[Mäntsälä rebellion]] article to [[Mäntsälä Rebellion]]. Were you going to move the article there? I made it into a redirect for now. -- [[User:Jniemenmaa|Jniemenmaa]] 20:17, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You managed to write the article before I found that out. I saw it as a red link. But anyhow. I believe the capital character is correct. But I agree that English rules for capitalization are tricky. Maybe better ask someone who knows? 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 20:33, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
----
Please be careful with your "English for runaways". You should have learned from your "marionette regime". "Balticum" is likewise not used in English. --[[User:Wik|Wik]] 08:00, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

== Welcome back ==

Hi Ruhrjung, I am glad to see that you apparently returned after your long time-out. [[User:Wik|Wik]] was temporarily banned last night, and I hope that a permanent ban will follow. I hope to see you around soon. (I will now delete your name from [[Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians|Missing Wikipedians]] ;-) ) -- [[User:Baldhur|Baldhur]] 07:30, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! ;-) 
I don't know about the future. 
There were a few too many encounters of wikipedians who were more keen on hasty revertions than on checking facts or considering their view of reality possibly being incomplete. Schlesien/Danzig disputes were adding up. Some users and some topics would be easy to avoid, but others seem omnipresent.
:-( 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 08:22, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

-----

Ruhrjung. Yikes! I had no idea such a straightforward statement was so contentious. As the sentence was phrased when I came across it, it was barely comprehensible. I tried to make it as standard as possible without changing the meaning (so far as I can tell). I have no interest in getting involved in a political debate, and I have no future plans to edit the Åland article.

:That's the problem. People with Swedish mother tongue try to agree with people with Finnish mother tongue on compromise wordings in English. The result is often barely comprehensible. Please, why don't you make one more attempt to get the first paragraphs readable?--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 16:53, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

::Fair enough. I don't want to get into a controversy, but we work collaboratively here. I just tried to improve the readabilty of the first paragraphs of the history section. They're now much closer to standard English; I'll let you make sure the facts are presented accurately. -- [[User:Seth Ilys|Seth Ilys]]

Just so you, someone with more knowledge of the subject, can improve it... the current sentence: " The issue was important not only for Sweden but for Great Britain, whose trade in the Baltic was threatened, why the islands were demilitarized following the Crimean War." makes absolutely no sense in standard English. I can't make out what it means at all (and therefore, I have no suggestions as to how to improve it... -- [[User:Seth Ilys|Seth Ilys]] 16:30, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

*The control of Åland, situated at the mouth of Gulf of Finland and Gulf of Bothnia, was important for sea trade. For Britain, for Russia and for Sweden (Prussia and the Dutch were not really in this game at this time).
*Britain's improved situation after the successful Crimean War made it possible to roll back Russia's strength in the Baltic Sea. The demilitarization of Åland was a means. That was of course also valuable for Sweden - both for admirals and for commerce.
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 16:53, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

== On Communists in the Winter War ==

I've moved your comments to the [[Talk:Winter War]] page [[User:Lefty|Lefty]] 19:37, 2004 Feb 25 (UTC)

==OOPS!==

In an unpardonable oversight, I forgot to welcome you back. Allow me to correct my faux pas. I welcome you back most heartily. BTW what do you think about the job [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan Derksen]] did on [[Continuation War]]? -- [[User:Cimon avaro|Cimon Avaro on a pogostick]] 11:39, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

:Thank you. The Continuation War article seems to be, basically, restored to a pre-Graculus version. The addition of weasel-expressions is not really to my fancy, but... You can see what I might have wished to do with the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Ruhrjung/Continuation_War&action=history
:--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 07:43, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

==Baltic ports==

The table is already in one place. What I wanted to ensure, is that it has separated chapter. #1 it is importants #2 because I added some links that point to this specific chapter. 1 000 000 number for [[Tricity]] is explained on the Polish Tricity page. You will find exactly what was calculated. [[User:Cautious|Cautious]] 14:20, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

: You could have brought the issue to the talk page. This and similar incidents are unfortunately good at curbing wikipedia contributors' interest - not only mine. -- [[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 14:26, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== germany ==

You wrote: "Between 1953 and 1991 the government was the West German government"

Not correct. There was never a state called "West Germany". The Federal Republic of Germany was and is the Federal Republic of Germany. The only thing that happened in 1990, was that the previously Soviet-occupied territory of DDR was ''annexed'' by Germany. It is the same state. 
[[User:Nico|Nico]] 09:03, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dear Nico (and I'm not ironic!),
(what's your first language, by the way? Although I hold on to the principle that communication on en.wikipedia.org ought to be in English, one can sometimes know better how to express oneself, and sometimes understand better how one might be perceived, if one knows what language the other part associates in.)

We might differ slightly on this point. (My opinion is that ''neither'' of the Germanys were fully souvereign before 1991.) But that is of lesser relevance, since we have to keep in mind that the ordinary English language reader (of the BdV article) is not knowing or interested or receptive of this issue. For an ordinary reader, there did exist two Germanys during the Cold War.

Remember that google ranks wikipedia high. Hence the article must be written with the unknowing www-surfer in mind. The purpose of the BdV-article is not to dispute the status of East Germany, but to inform about BdV. That work is done in vain if the prose of the first sentences is not comparably inviting, or if the article gives an anyhow unreliable impression. And here we come to your wording "the federal German government". The reader has seen the years 194x-1991, and might expect to find a reference to either West- or East-Germany. When the reader instead finds the word federal there, which rather would belong in a US or Australian context, ''resistance'' is introduced in the reader's taking in of the message, and the reader is less prone to believe the text to be "correct", "authoritative" and "in accordance with what is right and what 'we all know'". This is totally unneccessary. And in this very case also easy to avoid.

The discussion on the status of BRD and DDR belongs in an article whose subject is exactly that, but in the context of the BdV article, it is of peripherial interest, unless it's needed to explain the actual meaning of a quotation.

regards! 
[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 09:46, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== population transfer ==

Can you understand how your preference for the therm ''[[population transfer]]'' instead of ''[[ethnic cleansing]]'' may be considered offensive by the persons affected (and, secondarily, by their younger relatives)?

Is your ambition to provoke people into supporting Nico? 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 17:22, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No I don't understand. My own mother and her whole family were victims of your "ethnic cleansing" and to me or my mom the term ''[[population transfer]]'' MAY NOT be considered offensive. Ethnic cleansing took place during WW II. Population transfer was a best way they could think of, after the war, to avoid another ethnic cleansing in the future.

My ambition is to use common sense, follow my conscience and be very self critical. 
Regards 
[[User:Space Cadet|Space Cadet]] 17:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

May I ask if you consider ''ethnic cleansing'' to be synonymous with ''population transfer?'' If not, what's the difference? From what you write above, one could get the impression that ''transfer'' was done by you and ''cleansing'' by your adversaries. Then it would boil down to the question whether "you" or "your adversaries" were to be granted right of expression on wikipedia.

Anyway, I got an answer on my question. You do not understand that you might be perceived as offensive. I'll have to think over that.

(BTW, you're obviously my elder. My mother was born after the war. My great-aunt, however, worked in Wroclaw (as we know, then called Breslau) til the end. She basically refuses to speak of the last years of the war, and the rest of the 1940s, but I believe her view to be that ethnic Germans, particularly on the countryside, were subjects of [[terror]] aimed at forcing them to leave "volountarily", and that this in most cases had nothing with the individuals' prior actions to do, but solely with their ethnicity.) 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 18:08, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Again: "Ethnic cleansing took place during WW II. Population transfer was a best way they could think of, after the war, to avoid another ethnic cleansing in the future".

Responsible for ethnic cleansing: Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia.
Responsible for population transfer: Allied Powers at Potsdam Conference.
Me - I did not transfer anybody.
My adversaries - biased people.

:You don't neccessarily have to be that individualistic. I ment ''your'' as in ''wasi,'' not ''twoi.''
:...and it doesn't answer my question.--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 19:39, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do understand that I can be perceived as a lot of different things by "my adversaries", no matter what I say.
:How do you think you would be perceived if you let the term [[ethnic cleansing]] remain?--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 19:39, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

About Your grandma - with all respect to suffering of others, ask her if she would have rather been Polish during Nazi occupation, and then for forty five years of communist terror.

[[User:Space Cadet|Space Cadet]] 18:33, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Regarding my grand-aunt (her sister, my grand-mother, is dead), I know that she had rather been Polish after the Nazi-occupation. I also know that her Polish was quite fluent, although accented, still 50 years after the war, which showed when I had a Polish lover. They clearly enjoyed chatting together in Polish. I also know, that she most definitely did not feel to have suffered more than anyone else, nor that Germans suffered anyhow "more" than others, only that ''mentioning'' the German suffers have/had been supressed – to some degree maybe comparable with how the industrial killing of the whole Jewry overshadowed the considerable suffereings inflicted on Slavonics everywhere the Nazis were in charge. (Don't now interpret this as an attempt to villify only the Nazis for German bullying of Poles.)

And, No, I'm not going to question her. The answer is obvious, and it would only be disrespectful and inconsiderate. 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 19:39, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

----
I am not necessary your elder. I was a late child, kind of a surprise to everybody. [[User:Space Cadet|Cadet]]

:-)
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 19:39, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
: I oppose using ethnic cleansing of ethnics Germans on the basis of the story you just told us. Your relative was transfered, despite the fact, that she was, at least partly, Polish origins. You are right, there were no fair treatment of Germans, Polish-Germans, German-Polish. There were also no fair treatment of Poles. I think if Poland retained her government, dealing with Germans would have been more fair. If there were Polish police in place, they would not become victims of criminals. However, PKWN found "milicja" recruited out of criminals and formed administration out of criminals. Poles voted mostly against the governmnet. In referendum 1946, most of Poles from "Recovered land" voted even against the new borders ( they prefered old one). Using ethnic clensing cliche makes wrong impressions on reader. He should rather refer to comumism, Polish betrayal and so on. By the way, I like Germans from Poland. I believe they are more inteligent thanks to Polish roots. [[User:Cautious|Cautious]] 15:19, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-----------------
I get it! When I wrote <your "ethnic cleansing">, you thought I meant "yours and your people's". No! I meant that my mother fell victim to, WHAT YOU LIKE TO REFER TO AS "ethnic cleansing". In other words she got expelled from Lwow when she was 7.
If I let the term remain I would be perceived as someone who either doesn't care or has no idea what's being discussed. [[User:Space Cadet|Cadet]]

-----------------
The ethnic cleansing of the Germans is listed as an example of ethnic cleansing in the article dealing with the [[ethnic cleansing|issue]]. Anyway, as for West/"East" Germany, your arguments makes sense, Ruhrjung. (jeg ville iøvrigt formode, at du taler dansk? Svenska går ochså, även om det inte är mitt modersmål) -- [[User:Nico|Nico]] 09:34, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
----
Thank you for your support on the Weimar Republic issue. [[User:PMelvilleAustin|PMA]] 14:19, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

----

== Freedom of sock-puppets ==

Hi Ruhrjung, long time no see - but it feels good to have you around :) On [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship]] you wrote: ''I think institutionalizing sock-puppets is a particularly bad idea. Although... quite another thing would have been if all sysop-accounts and bureaucrat-accounts as a rule were separate from the officer's ordinary account. I could see a meaning in the distinction between a Angela account and the Angela (admin) account.'' I believe that this is an interesting thought experiment. One must assume that many Wikipedians, and quite probably several sysops have not disclosed their sock puppet accounts (see for a possible example [[User:Louis_Kyu_Won_Ryu]] who was quite probably an experienced Wikipedian), but it remains unknown how many actually split their identity into sysop and ordinary accounts. It would be interesting to explore whether identity splitting could be put to any beneficial use. I have (although rarely) edited articles anonymously just to get rid of the self-imposed ideas and ideals of my Wikipedia persona, and that gave me a pleasant, newbie-ish feeling of freedom, and perhaps even a greater freedom of thought or expression. Which leads me to believe that editing under a different identity may be helpful in some cases. I have no idea what others think about this - the idea of encouraging personality splits might very well be seen as a kind of slippery slope. What do you think? Cheers, [[User:Kosebamse|Kosebamse]] 00:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I, quite honestly, don't know for sure!

But one of my ideas is that the impressive value of a sysop action would increase if it was obvious when a sysop acted in that capacity ''("ex cathedra") :-)''

...and also that it would be easier for both other administrators and for the common people to differentiate between controversial edits done in the role as common wikipedian and (maybe) controversial actions carried out as sysop or buraucrat.

Regarding freedom, I think the issue is double-edged, at least! 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 00:20, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

----

I don't remember what I said about Austria or where I said it.

You ask
*''What is, for instance, the established view on the "Germans" in South Tyrol? Are they "ethnic Austrians" maybe? ''
:I think the most common usage is to call them ethnic Germans, or the German-speaking minority. I have never seen them referred to as "ethnic Austrians." I think the common view is that "Austrian" referes to a nationality not an ethnicity. German-speaking minorities in other countries will generally be called ethnic Germans ''unless'' they specifically call themselves something else - the German-speakers in Romania call themselves Saxons for example.
*''And the Danes in Schleswig-Holstein, are they Danish nationals or are they ethnic Danes? ''
:They would be called ethnic Danes or the Danish-speaking minority.
*''I'm afraid my mindset is too much coloured by French and German discourse. I hold Bavarians to be of Bavarian nationality, like Austrians are of Austrian nationality, but all of them being of German ethnicity. ''
:There hasn't been a Bavarian nationality in a legal sense since 1871, but I don't know what Bavarians now consider themselves to be. I agree that all German-speakers should generally be describes as being of German ethnicity unless they obviously are not. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 08:33, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

::Actually, there probably was a Bavarian nationality up to 1918 - the constituent states of the 2nd Reich maintained a certain degree of sovereignty, especially the big ones like Bavaria. My point in coming here, though, was to ask Ruhrjung why he edited the [[Prussia]] article in such a manner as to decrease comprehensibility in English. I certainly mean no disrespect to editors for whom English is not a first language, but if that is the case, why make significant changes that largely serve to make articles more poorly written? [[User:John Kenney|john]] 08:51, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have already tidied up at [[Prussia]], it's no big deal. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 09:04, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I thank both of you! 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 09:51, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

==Free state==
probably. Shall do. [[User:Morwen|Morwen]] 18:28, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

== 24 hour bans for edit wars ==

Hi Ruhrjung,

I've amended the proposal on 24 hour bans for edit wars. In short, the amendment calls for a [[Wikipedia:Quickpoll|quickpoll]] to take place before any such ban can be implemented. If you support this, I'd like you to add your vote in favor to
[[Wikipedia_talk:How_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earlier_version/Policy_vote:_24_hour_bans_for_revert_wars#Proposed_amendment_by_Eloquence,_added_on_March_14|the 24 hour ban vote]], with the comment "with quickpolls".

I know that you'd like to see longer bans, but it is important for us to get a system in place first. I also believe longer bans should be handled by the arbitration commission.[[User:Eloquence|—Eloquence]] 22:13, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

==Mediation==

I didn't mind you being there, but I have now set the room to invite only as I think it should be up to Tim and Perl who they want there. Please can you ask them if you want to be there for the next mediation. If there's anything you think could have been done differently, I would be interested in your feedback. Thanks. [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 19:19, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

: I won't ask them. Most probably I won't be around, and in any case I do not believe it would make the situation any more safe for any of them.--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 19:54, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
----
Imperial Germany was just a redirect to German Empire - that was my motivation for changing it. [[User:PMelvilleAustin|PMA]] 10:29, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

----

Common Ruhrjung: I have German grandmother, my nanny said the Willy times were the best, I like some aspects of German culture and I hope will soon speak the fluent German. Yet, factual forgery in the common history makes me mad. Especially, that Polish side made a lot of effort to clean legends and myths, but there are people on German side that want to preserve their biased version of history. Nico and Helga should be banned! [[User:Cautious|Cautious]] 16:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

==Mediation==
You have been invited to join in mediation regarding placenames in Central Europe. Please accept or decline this request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation# English/Polish/German/Nazi names of the Polish cities ]]. You may also indicate who, if anybody, you would like to act as your representative if you do not want to participate personally, as well as your preferences regarding the choice of mediator. [[User:TUF-KAT|Tuf-Kat]] 23:18, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

==[[Expulsion of Germans after World War II]]==

See talk page! My impression was, that we were just discussing more and more issues with the current version, when you restored one of the ancient one, that is full of factual errors. Please answer the issues I raised on the talk page in the chapter: real dispute! [[User:Cautious|Cautious]] 12:53, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Of course issues are discussed, but the version I restored had been unquestioned for several months. The issues discussed is according to my judgement mostly [[NPOV dispute]]s rather than factual. They can, according to my view, become factual if one party insist on suppressing other parties' points of view instead of presenting them beside eachother. I think you harm wikipedia by extensive use warnings for inaccuracy.--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 13:16, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, I remind you. This is list of factual problems.
*8.1 Header
*8.2 Ethnic Germans versus citziens of Germany.
*8.3 Volksdeutsche
*8.4 Some of Volksdeutsche were not ethnic Germans.
*8.5 Siberia deportations
*8.6 Evacuation, transfer, emigration
*8.7 Numbers involved
*8.8 Evacuation is included?

If somebody states, that 15 milions of Germans were expelled this is factual problem. If some states, that ethnic Germans were expelled, it is factual problem, since the basis for expulsion was having German citizenship.
Factual dispute is the most apropriate description of what is wrong here. The fact, there we had had the factually wrong version of article for month without warning, it is question of wiki credibility. [[User:Cautious|Cautious]] 13:43, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But if you make additions to the article instead of suppressing the point of view that you dislike, you'll isolate the extremists and gain support by the broad majority of wikipedians if and when they glance at the article. Instead of making hidden changes, like <nowiki>[[Volksdeutsche]] --> [[Volksdeutsche|German citizens]] you could write "Germans" with quotation marks in initial and compressed sentences as long as why quotation marks are used is made clear some sentences further down, for instance along the line [[BdV|expellee representatives]] assert not only [[citizen]]s of [[Nazi Germany]] to have been affected be these forced transfers, although [[your authority of choise]] argue that no [[ethnic Germans]] except for [[Third Reich]] citizens fell viktim the harsh fate.</nowiki> 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 14:08, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I found very interesting source page to my article:
[[User:Cautious/Fall of German populations in Eastern Europe]]

http://www.nachkriegsdeutschland.de/demographische_verschiebungen.htm

Tell me what you think about it? [[User:Cautious|Cautious]] 00:18, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think it's fairly good. (Well, Americans from the West coast would have shouted ''splendid'' and ''extremely good'' and so on... :-) Its major advantage is that it lacks the monomanic focusing on the worst atrocities, typical for a BdV context. The relation of incidents in the east is also free of the ideological charge (anti-Communist and anti-Slavic) I'm so tired of. Not that I am particularly fond of Communists myself, but it's more important to keep in mind that German policies on and behind the East Front had been exceptionally barbaric, and that Russian and Polish ill-doings don't need to be explained by Communism or Slavicism. — There was nothing in the article which I believe to be in conflict with Truth or what I knew before. As far as I'm concerned, I think you rely on a reasonably credible source if you refer to that article for figures and numbers. To its advantage, it's available on www. 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 01:39, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

==[[Anti-American sentiment]]==

Thanks for the hint. I have moved the paragraph to the foreign policy section. I hope to add some detail to the section eventually. In my youth the US seemed to regard the Caribbean as its possession. I'd also like to add Mexico as an example to balance Canada. It just occurred to me that the US has invaded both its neighbours, but they have never invaded it (I think). And then there's Vietnam, which is not mentioned in the article, or wasn't when I first edited it. [[User:Trontonian|Trontonian]] 13:05, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

==[[Gdynia]]==

Ruhrjung, I don't understand your reverts. Current version gives German name and German re name from WW2. Why you need long discussion in the header, about which German name comes from where?? In addition, Gdynia is slavic name, and Gdingen is merely translation of it. This applied to fishing village of 900 inhabitants. I would understand you, if Gdingen was German city that went to Poland and so on. Can we argue over something, that makes more sense? [[User:Cautious|Cautious]] 09:13, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I believe to have written it elsewhere, but I don't find it now. Anyway: The way it was expressed opened for the interpretation that the Gdingen name should have been a recent invention, which in the current inflamed state of affairs is less suitable, as it invites people who feel strongly for emphasizeing the long and proud German history to make edits ("corrections") which people who feel strongly for eradicating any sign and trace of pre-Nazi presence of Germans in turn would feel provoced to "counter-correct". 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 13:05, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The version you have proposed is OK. [[User:Cautious|Cautious]] 14:54, 31 Mar
2004 (UTC)

[[Talk:Gdynia]] proposed changes in the history section. [[User:Cautious|Cautious]] 07:56, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

== [[Valaam Monastery]] ==

My apologies if any of my changes introduced errors or obscurities; such was not my intent. I meant to clarify some unusual idioms and fix some minor grammatical mistakes; if I removed relevant material, changed the meaning substantially, or damaged the overall presentation of the article, then feel free to change or undo my edits. (But please keep the disambiguated [[East-West Schism|Great Schism]] link; that was the reason I started editing the article in the first place.) --[[User:67.71.78.53|67.71.78.53]] 02:37, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, of course I will.

But do you consider "neighbourhood" and "East-Rome"/"West-Rome" unusual idioms? Then that has to be worded differently, for instance like "what would later become Finland" and similar clumsy constructs, which I am not too fond of (but who am I to have opinions on a foreign language?). 
Thank you for your answer! 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 02:43, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

:"East-Rome" and "West-Rome" are rather unusual idioms, and I was concerned that the average English reader might not appreciate the meaning of ''East-Rome'' or the [[metonymy]] of both terms. (My solution wasn't much of an improvement, I now see.) Perhaps "Eastern Orthodoxy" and "Western Catholicism" would be the best terms, with links as necessary.
:''Neighbourhood'' is a bit colloquial for my (pedantic) tastes; "region", "land", and "area" all retain the same meaning, but have a slightly more formal tone. HTH --[[User:67.71.78.53|67.71.78.53]] 02:58, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

== [[Hans Rudel]] ==
Thanks for the note. Not a particular interest of mine either. Yes, I get most of my edit candidates from Recent Changes, and VfD (like making [[Max Baer]] a reasonable stub), then Random Page, or sometimes Cleanup. Occasionally I'll write something I know about, like [[SAM-e]] or [[Subaru]] (Loyale, Brat, Outback). Other times I just stumble across something I know little about, but think it should be covered, and do a little research, like for [[ticker tape]]. [[User:Niteowlneils|Niteowlneils]] 01:37, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What I meant by "Old Europe" has nothing to do with current Europe versus US controversies. I meant that the belief that a piece of soil can eternally belong to someone or is eternally anything, so that half of Poland is "eternally" Prussia even though it has been inhabited by Poles for nearly 60 years and even though Prussia has been legally abolished, is an Old Europe, old nationalist, idea. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 09:27, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

==völkisch==
Thanks but that was me using a different computer (my usual computer automatically logs me in). [[User:Andylehrer|Andylehrer]] 20:35, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why did you rv völkisch to collectivist? The Nazis weren't collectivist in any economic sense (which is how the word is usually understood). What had been termed "collectivism" is actually a reference to the [[volk]] myth. [[User:Andylehrer|Andylehrer]] 23:42, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To be honest, which you won't like, since I perceived the edits as borderline vandalism. In particular, changing ''Volk'' to ''Völk,'' spelling ''völkisch'' as ''Völkish,'' and then the change at [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection]], gave me a less-than-serious impression of a sockpuppet on viking raid.

Further, I do not favor filling up the English wikipedia with too many German language articles and loanwords, and my non-native understanding of the English language usage of [[collectivism]] was not the same as your.

I am wary overfor Neo-Nazi tendencies to revive old words which has had limited use in post-war German. When inserted in English, one doesn't really know how to handle all their deadweight.

Finally, the [[Völkish]] redirect seemed relatively obscure to me. I didn't say much, and my wiki-experience is that such an article, with such a foreign title, is likely not to grow very fast. That is not to say that I found the collectivism article much better, but I guessed it being less of a fringe topic and hence more watched over by the wikipedia community. 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 00:23, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

==Message on Quickpoll ==

As someone who beleives in empiricism I suggest you help protect scientific skepticism with a vote against Reddi. [[User:GrazingshipIV|GrazingshipIV]] 03:56, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

----
== [[User:Jor]], Request for adminship ==
Might I ask if you have any real opposition to me getting admin status, or is your vote simply because I was commenting out a vandal's I was tracking? [[User:Jor|— Jor ]][[User talk:Jor|(Talk)]] 18:01, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not in the meaning of "something else than I say" or "hidden agenda" or so, but in the meaning I wrote there. I wouldn't have written it if I hadn't made that observation also elsewhere, i.e. before. Yes, my vote was prompted by your action. I hadn't voted so if you hadn't acted so in this very instance. I perceived it, so to say, too demonstrative from your side to act that much self-sufficient and prestige-sensitive at that very time at that very page.
Basically, I agree with [[User:Alex S]] (or whatever he now is better known as) and [[User:Moncrief]]. 
— I do not believe in (trying to) advancing people with my own POVs to more influential positions, so it has nothing with your or my POVs to do. 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 22:19, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:Thanks for your reply. [[User:Jor|— Jor ]][[User talk:Jor|(Talk)]] 11:03, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

== Wikipedia:Requests for comment ==

As a matter of fact I was looking for someone that would have enough authority to make our problematic friend listen. I'm afraid I have no influence on his behaviour since he simply ignores all my comments and requests for explanation. However, your case seems to be a little different since he seems to actually esteem you in some way. So, perhaps this is the way to go? Good luck![[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:02, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and I would be very happy if I could accomplish this, but at the moment I fear the situation is too heated. That's not to say that I've given up. Only that I see it as more of a long-term project. Compare also with our newly banned colleague. He is, in my opinion, in '''dire''' need of guidance. My chief concern is not his (or Nico's) POVs, but their bad impact on the social setting, i.e. this part of the wikipedia community that contributes to articles on Central European matters. If they were calmed down, also others (best not to mention too many names) might become more cooperative. 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 11:17, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's not polite to talk about other people when they are listening. Yes, I may in some degree be rude towards some Polish contributors, but I am terribly tired of uncooperative persons like User:Gdansk with sock puppets, cautious with sock puppets or Space Cadet, of whom at least two are calling other contributors, and especially me, nazis all the time. Most Polish contributors, with a few exceptions, seems to be supporting their goals. I hate revert wars and the whole problem users thing, but my normal procedure is to list any people who is attacking me there on that page themselves. And Halibutt's complaint was just too far out. Calling a "proposal" to use the Polish name of Danzig only by a banned troll "constructive" is simply just ridiculous. [[User:Nico|Nico]] 16:49, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I try to say the same things behind peoples' back as I dare to say to them face-to-face. In this case I hope it's obvioius that I say the same things to you as I say about you, and you could chose to like my frankness and hope that I follow my anti-slandering princles.

Nico, to boil it down: I think you are rather intelligent, and I think you've proved that during your time here. I think, furthermore, that you represent views which are rather extreme, but that is no reason to suppress or hide them. You seem to have quite some energy to put into projects you are interested in. Unfortunately, you are also easy to provoke, and you respond sometimes on provokations in a provokative way, which is unfortunate as it tends to lead to a polarization and heatened conflicts which in the long run make wikipedia articles less worth reading, and then they are also less worth working on. I understand very well that you don't like a bunch of the contributors with a Polish POV, and that you dislike some of their contributions even more, but... as far as I understand, it's even in your interest to appear likable instead of aggressive to them.

As I tried to convince [[User:Cautious]] above, "if you make additions to the article instead of suppressing the point of view that you dislike," you'll gain support by the broad majority of wikipedians.

See [[Talk:Hero City]] and the page history for [[Hero City]] to get an example of something that (at least for the time being) seems to have a happy ending.

You write: ''Most Polish contributors, with a few exceptions, seems to be supporting their goals.'' This I dispute! I would rather say, that most Polish contributors can '''understand''' them, as they represent views which in a less extreme form are quite common in Poland. My hope is that the more balanced of them with a pro-Polish [[point of view]] could take it as their task to moderate the more extremist contributors. But your actions tend to unite them behind the extremists instead - i.e. polarization - which I consider bad.

--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 01:32, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

:Thanks for being so honest. I believe you are largely right, and appreciate your comments. I was going to say something about my views on these German-Polish issues, explain them, but I just changed my mind. Another time, maybe.

:When talking about happy endings, [[Silesia]] is another example. Anyway, I'm glad you are back. [[User:Nico|Nico]] 02:53, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've not been "away"! I have a work with irregular hours, and I was out in Copenhagen last night. :-) 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 03:02, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

well, I was actually referring to your longer absence from wikipedia since november(?) last year until recently. I guess I missed you. [[User:Nico|Nico]] 03:25, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

== Gdansk aka Danzig ==

What do you mean?What proposal are you talking about?[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]]

Well, the proposal has since then moved on to [[Gdansk/temp]]. :-) 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 01:58, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

==Request for comments==

If you have evidence or any remarks to add at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nico]], please do so.[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]]

It is my sincerest opinion that Wikipedia is not served by provoking Nico even more. I do not wish to contribute more than I have done[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Nico&diff=3007551&oldid=3007482]. 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 01:32, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

::Ok. I think we all agreed that nobody wants Nico banned and that the only purpose of that page was to find some way to explain to Nico that the world is not black&white. He didn't listened so far, perhaps some day he will. Anyway, my purpose was not to provoke Nico; the only thing I'd like to provoke him to is some reflection, nothing more.

::What you write about the extremists becoming the nucleus in face of external danger is obviously true. However, the big problem is that some people treat all Poles as if we were Cautious, no matter what we say or do. That's not the way to go and I feel that my fellow hot-headed countrymen have calmed down a little recently. Now it's time for Nico to show his good will. Refraining from ''the page will stay here no matter what'' attitude would be a good first step, don't you think?[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 03:53, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ruhrjung, apparently I did all I could to win Nico for the common, wiki good. To no effect. We failed and apparently all who contributed to [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Nico]] page simply lost their time, since the only reaction from [[User:Nico]] was to declare that the page and proposal of a gesture of goodwill are a personal attack ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Erika_Steinbach&curid=448675&diff=0&oldid=0]). Please tell me what else can be done? If we won't find a solution fast, I'm going to list Nico on the ban list and I'm sure I'll find plenty of evidence and many people will support the idea. I'm simply fed up with his edit wars and disregard for facts, discussion pages and versions agreed upon there.

But perhaps there still is a choice? Perhaps I failed to notice some other option? Perhaps there is some User that could talk to him or send him a personal letter and try to convince him once again? Any ideas?[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 01:25, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

== Karelia ==
I actually did look at the map you suggested. I used this page (at the same site) as a reference: [http://www.kolumbus.fi/rastas/maaritel.html]. Too bad it is only in finnish... But it gives quite good definitions on the different terms. But, please comment on the actual page, as an "outsider" you can probably point out some POV that the rest of us might miss. -- [[User:Jniemenmaa|Jniemenmaa]] 11:33, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

==Reply==

At my [[User talk:Sannse|talk page]]. Regards -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 11:04, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

==Cautious==

Have you seen the articles I actually moved?? It is obvious that they sould be moved to proper places and I am convinced that they are better right now.
[[User:Cautious|Cautious]] 14:39, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Of course I've seen them.

The issue is not whether they ought to be moved or not, but that you forgot to discuss the issue in advance, which might cause more problems than the move itself solved. 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 14:45, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the merger of [[Expulsion of Germans after World War II]] and the article about evacuation. Expulsion should be about expulsions, evacuation about the evacuation. We should only add the head article to connect them. [[User:Cautious|Cautious]] 14:52, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We are in no hurry. There is probably plenty of time to discuss that. 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 14:57, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

== Dawn_of_German_East ==

I am preparing the new article, dealing with the whole process
[[User_talk:Cautious/Dawn_of_German_East]], while
[[Expulsion of Germans after World War II]] should remain the description of one of the phases of the process.

Please contribute your comments. [[User:Cautious|Cautious]] 07:50, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

== Thanks! ==

Thanks for your support in my admin nomination, Ruhrjung. I especially appreciate that you took so much time to review my material before voting. I'm really very flattered. [[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]] 03:33, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

==Erika Steinbach==
I seem to be putting a lot of time here into an article that I don't care about at all. Personally, while some versions are better than others (I think your most recent version looks pretty good), I don't especially care. Why not just let the POV warriors revert each other until the page requires protection, and then protect it on whatever version? [[User:John Kenney|john]] 08:05, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I ''try'' to show that there are alternatives to reversions. That's why. :-) 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 08:07, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I've tried it too. It doesn't seem to be convincing anyone. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 08:09, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No... I know... ;-/

I am convinced that the wikipedia software is flawed on this point. :-> (You knwo, humans are as they are, only software can be improved.) I believe at least proposals for changes of controversial articles ought to be delayed a week under which it had not to be opposed by too many (say 25% of them who care to take a stance) in order to get valid (and of course sockpuppets must get avoided by counting [[IP address]] netblocks. 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 08:20, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

----
Hi,

Thanks for your comment about Great Britain and United Kingdom. There are a lot of misunderstandings about the geopolitics.

'''Politically:''' 
England + Scotland + Wales = Great Britain 
Great Britain + Northern Ireland = United Kingdom
The United Kingdom came into being on 1 Jan 1801.

'''Linguistically:''' 
''Britain'' = United Kingdom
''British'' = belonging to the United Kingdom

But note well that '''Great Britain''' only refers to the limited political group that defines only a part of the nation state (see above). It is the use of the key word ''Great'' that is so specific that it sounds deliberate. It is actually regarded as offensive in some contexts. Some people make the mistake of using the term ''Great Britain'' in the belief that it is a more polite and formal term than merely ''Britain''. In fact it really would be more accurate if this term were ''Lesser Britain'' or ''Partial Britain''. This is the error on several pages that I was correcting.

'''Geographically:'''
British Isles is the set of islands on which the two countries of Ireland (Eire) + United Kingdom exist. A large part of the United Kingdom (Great Britain), happens to be on the larger island of the British Isles. That causes some people to equate the political and geographical terms.

I have not heard the term ''Britannic island'' before so I cannot speculate on the meaning.

There are times when people correctly say ''Great Britain'' in official usage. Amazingly, there are times when Great Britain is used with an incorrect meaning but is still the correct official term. This is usually because of an error in some international committee that did not get corrected. With all these anomalies, unless you know what you are doing, the term ''Great Britain'' should not be used. Simply say ''Britain'' or the ''United Kingdom'' or ''UK''.

People also make mistakes by saying ''England'' when they are referring to ''Britain''.

In the case of the Viking page, I did read it before making the change. The reference postdates 1801. In most cases I changed it to ''United Kingdom'' because most cases postdate 1801, but in some cases I changed it to ''England'' or something else (in at least one medieval example that predated the Union with Scotland). To be honest, I think a British author would probably have used the colloquial term Britain rather than United Kingdom in many of the cases, but so far I have not stopped to think about that. I simply made all the changes to the formal form.

Respectable references are: 
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp 
http://www.britainusa.com/faq/showfaq.asp?SID=273 

But it is always a topic that fascinates me. Thanks for bringing it up. [[User:Bobblewik|Bobblewik]] 10:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
----

== Yes ==

Glad to agree with someone :) [[User:Pfortuny|Pfortuny]] 07:22, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

-----

== Political power / International Power ==

I included a paragraph about [[power (international)]] ont the [[political power]] page. Now it links both in the text and in the See: also... I was actually typing in that paragraph simultaniously as you placed the see also link.... I don't think it hurts to link two times. Especially if this article grows in the future

[[User:MrMambo|MrMambo]] 10:03, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that. 
Personally, I dislike exaggerated see-also lists. 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 10:05, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why did you revert my change under "early kingdoms"?
Stating that the early kingdoms emerged during the 11th century requires a very narrow and recent definition of "kingdom" as a centralised government. In contemporary sources, such as the icelandic sagas and in Beouwulf, "kingdom" does not have that meaning at all. Shouldn't the expression "early kingdom" refer to what "kingdom" referred to in early sources? [[User:Wiglaf|Wiglaf]]

1/ There is a link to Early kingdoms. The details are to be put there, as is actually already done by you. 
2/ Your sentence was broken. 
3/ The sentence that the early kingdoms ''emerged'' makes sence seen from abroad, where people before the christianization had no idea about internal organisation of Scandinavia - only known by the representation through Vikings. 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 11:36, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

== Eastern Front changes ==
I looked at your changes already and they looked good, thanks! [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 21:59, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

== Väinö I of Finland ==

Did you mean to write "manywhere" on yr last change to [[Väinö I of Finland]]? [[User:Ensiform|Ensiform]] 23:43, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Don't know! Probably since I'd recently seen ''manywhere'' somewhere and become influenced, or something! Feel free to improve, as long as you don't start to state that the man didn't exist of something! ;-))) 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 08:59, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

* OK. don't know anything about him but have improved the wording. Don't worry, the crank you are having an edit conflict with will stop sometime. [[User:Ensiform|Ensiform]] 12:37, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

== Livonia ==

I noticed you changed the overused word "region" to "land of Livonians" in [[Livonia]] article. Thanks for trying to improve the wording but that is not quite accurate. Livonians populated only about 20% of the land that was later named Livonia. I changed it back to "region" and inserted an explanation later in the article. [[User:Andris|Andris]] 01:23, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

No problem!

I thought it was an improvement. If it wasn't, ...well, nothing to do about that! 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 11:42, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

==Re:Germany/Germany==

Germany today may have de facto different borders than previously, but really, a lot of countries have changed their borders after 1945. Poland, for instance, have lost the eastern part as well, an area even bigger than the lost eastern part of Germany. Also, remember that [[Germany]] claimed the eastern part of pre-war Germany or reserved the right to claim it until 1990, and did only give up that right because it was forced to do in order to have West and Middle Germany reunited. Take also into account the Hallstein doctrine. Considering Germany (Deutsches Reich) and Germany (the Federal Republic) two different states is utter nonsense. I know some leftists in Germany want to do it, but there are reasons that Germany in the English, French or Scandinavian world, or in short: the world outside Germany, is considered being exactly the same state as founded by Bismarck. In Scandinavian schools, the children learn 1871 as the date of foundation of Germany. 1949 is hardly mentioned. To non-Germans, 1871 and 1990 are the two important dates.

Regards, [[User:Nico|Nico]] 19:17, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

:Oh, and don't forget the 1970 treaty... [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:38, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

::West and "Middle Germany" reunited? I live in 2004, what year does Nico live in? [[User:Get-back-world-respect|Get-back-world-respect]] 22:12, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

== Consider readability? ==
Answer to your comments on my talk page. [[User:Get-back-world-respect|Get-back-world-respect]] 22:12, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

:What exactly are you trying to tell me? [[User:Get-back-world-respect|Get-back-world-respect]] 22:25, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That your chosen lay-out is uninviting and results in a loss of readers. 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 22:35, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There are only two short paragraphs, the second one has a concise title. How do you think should I improve the layout? [[User:Get-back-world-respect|Get-back-world-respect]] 22:59, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

* discussion on '''Belligerent / Nonbelligerent''' moved to [[Talk:Belligerent]]

==[[Status quo]] and [[status quo ante]]==

Since you wrote the original article for ''status quo'', I wonder if you'd examine it and ''status quo ante'' to see if they're still accurate. I removed the comment that it's short for ''status quo ante erat'', but put it back if you think it's important. Actually, looking at it now, I don't think the current definitions are good enough. It should have a ''very'' literal translation of the Latin, which would be something along the lines of "The state of things as it- " and then say that the verb is missing, but generally implies the present tense "is" unless context indicates otherwise.

I've forgotten most of the little Latin I learned. Mike [[User:Mackerm|Mackerm]] 18:26, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm a lay-man who've learned a few factoids about Latin along the dozen-or-so other languages I've had professional reason to learn some simple phrases in. 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 20:56, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

OK. Time to call my uncle, who earns his living with this stuff. [[User:Mackerm|Mackerm]] 22:34, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

== US and Israel or US vs Islam ==

You need to have more information than a mis-statement by George Bush to create a heading called "anti-muslim tendencies" on [[Anti-American sentiment]]. [[User:GrazingshipIV|GrazingshipIV]] 23:40, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

That might well be so, I've no problem to agree with you so far that it would be good to have a richer text there. However, I disagree with puting the anti-Muslim policies (represented by the "Crusade" against Islam) under the pro-Israel heading; and I question the relevance of discussing if it was a mis-statement or a slip of the tounge revealing the true sentiments behind the US actions. The statement is made, and has had its impact together with US policies that have targeted Muslims in a way more or less resembling how US policymakers made World-Communism into The Big Enemy after WWII. Finally, I've made it a modus vivendi to avoid contacts with VV as far as possible, why I don't intende to participate much in editing that article.

(You may also want to see: [[User:Ruhrjung#Anti-American bias]].) 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 20:56, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

== Barbarians inside ==

What are you referring to? My role at the [[Gdansk|Gdańsk]] page ended with the new version of the article. We agreed on a compromise (note that I was in favour of the other option, yet I obey the rules we set democratically) and I can't remember the last time I made any edits there..
:May 20th, two times supporting them who work against stable versions.
The same for [[Erika Steinbach]]: I proposed a compromise on [[May 19]]th, it was apparently ignored by the rest so I gave up. So where's the problem, Ruhrjung? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 01:41, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
:The problem is, that it was half past two, half past a bottle of wiskey, and I possibly expressed myself slightly more emotional than I would otherways, but factually: look at the list of recent contributors on each side at those two articles. You know, as well as I, that this kind of flip-flop editing, destroy the mutual respect, and that the likely outcome is that sane contributors give up unless they get mentally converted into warriors.
:In my sincerest opinion: It doesn't improve the article. It doesn't improve Wikipedia. Quite the contrary.
:See how eager people on both sides are to declare any compromise "outdated". I wonder what to do about that.
:--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 07:42, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

::I knew someone will misunderstand me, but I didn't expect it would be you. Take a closer look at the edit history of Gdansk article ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Gdansk&action=history]) and see the reason behind my reverts, it's all explained well both in the edit comments and on the Talk page: I simply wanted the anon to stop deleting important pieces of information and move them to where they belong. I could've done it myself, but with all probability the guy wouldn't have noticed at all and would not learn the basic rule we all should adopt: think twice before you delete. If he had a lesson out of it - great. If not - a pity. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:56, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

:::Doing that, I note that the long list of names were inserted in the intro by two probable sockpuppets[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Gdansk&diff=3470557&oldid=3464690][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Gdansk&diff=3576537&oldid=3576507] (no offence intended, it's only my assumption, and I don't think sockpuppets are more despisable than people who like me state that they won't put their picture or home address into their presentation) and inbetween removed by 212.181.86.76[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Gdansk&diff=3569981&oldid=3568777]. It's worth to note that there were dozens of edits inbetween, also you edited, and the list of editors who might be seen as silently approving these actual changes of the initial paragraph is in no way conclusive.

:::Then the long list was moved to the names section[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Gdansk&diff=3576582&oldid=3576537] by David Gerard, and duplicated to the intro[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Gdansk&diff=3608996&oldid=3608963] by 217.96.26.85 (an internet café in Koszalin) rather late in the evening of May 16th.

:::In the next hours me[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Gdansk&diff=3610181&oldid=3609024], David G.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Gdansk&diff=3638505&oldid=3638401], and Rick K.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Gdansk&diff=3642853&oldid=3639558] removed the duplication, which in turn was re-inserted into the introductory paragraph by an AOL-account and Space Cadet, and the next day effectively endorsed by Szopen[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Gdansk&diff=3646078&oldid=3643047], which made me disappointed; then removed by 212...[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Gdansk&diff=3656743&oldid=3656679], and re-inserted by you[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Gdansk&diff=3656952&oldid=3656743], which made me even more disappointed.
:::— Please note that the Names section wasn't touched. What it was all about, was whether to duplicate the text from the end of the second section into the first paragraph of the first section.

:::Then:
:::* 212: ''This has been discussed at the talk page - what meaning does such a discussion have if no-one follows the result of the discussion?''
:::** Halibutt: ''dear anon, join the discussion (it's at the bottom of the page) and describe your objections there. deletion is not the way to go''
::: 12 hours later:
:::* David: ''check the diff on this edit - see, it was right there under''
:::** AOL: revert
:::* Raul654: revert
:::** AOL: revert
:::* Maximus Rex: revert[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Gdansk&diff=3669817&oldid=3667627] (plus add Kashubian)
:::* a calm day with regard to the long list in the intro, four personas edit but endorse the list's absence from the intro
:::** AOL: revert (after 15 hours)
:::* John Kenney: revert
:::** Koszalin: revert
:::* David Gerard: revert
:::** AOL: revert (6 hours later)
:::* David Gerard: revert

:::The tone at the talk page is what I characterized as barbarized by warfare.

:::I think it is anything but promising that You, Szopen and Space Cadet sided with the inserter, and that it was solely non-Poles who stood for the restorations. (I don't guess about the inserter being one or two, or if coalesced with any of you. I can't find it important.)
:::What I do find important is that Wikipedia's intended function, the dogm of immediate effect of edits, make this problem more likely to appear. Any remedy would surely have other disadvantages, but I think it's necessary to be less inviting for people who don't care about cooperation or the result of discussions.
:::--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 00:42, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I am not taking part in revert war. What I only care is that Rumia now is city and Rahmel was a village (runway stayed the same I guess). [[User:Cautious|Cautious]] 22:36, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say so, but the barbarians will always win. No matter what you or I do, there will always turn up a guy who knows better or simply judges by the nationality. And all compromises work only as long as the pages are protected. After that, someone will appear and change it just because. I'm loosing hope any cooperation among the wikipedians is sensible. It works, but have barely any sense. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:39, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

...but you see what I ment with "your role" now, I guess. 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 02:44, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

==rise to power==

My objection to "rise to power" was that it sounded like a much more gradual process than it actually was. Not sure I swallow the native/non-native argument against seizure (and the word I really wanted to use was "usurpation"), but perhaps we could say "his seizing of power" -- would that help? (If the phrase survives the next round of edit warring, which is doubtful.) Cheers, [[User:Hajor|–''Hajor'']] 03:10, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes it would. 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 03:11, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)

== Return of an "old friend" to [[Szczecin]] ==

Our favorite sock puppeteer is back over at [[Szczecin]], now calling himself [[User:PolishPoliticians]], and I think I've already reverted three times or so, if you want to help out. [[User:John Kenney|john]] [[User_talk:John Kenney|k]] 05:10, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

== [[User:Halibutt/Allied policy towards Central Europe]] ==

Could you help me out with finishing my [[User:Halibutt/Allied policy towards Central Europe]] project? What it needs the most is a simple revision and correction. I'm planning to move it to the proper place (probably [[Western betrayal]] since that would be the name of the phenomenon in English, but I guess John would oppose) and I don't want this article to get listed on VfD just because there are lots of minor gramatical or factual mistakes. I'd really appreciate your help. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 22:22, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

=== Naming issues ===
I have made a proposition in [[Talk:Gdansk/Naming convention#Other_concepts]]. In short, it's sing most controversial
names when first name appears in artcile and making a msg
saying that the names are controversial and pointing to
article explaining why. Please, contribute your opinion.[[User:Szopen|Szopen]] 10:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

== German names ==

Please take note that your recent flooding campaign is against the community discussion that is currently going on. Please reconsider your behaviour. [[User:Halibutt|[[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User Talk:Halibutt|tt]]]] 09:24, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

I am ''removing'' the references to the German language. Oughtn't that make you confident? --[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 09:28, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

::Well, I thought that you are perfectly aware that the very word ''formerly'' and its usage in such cases is disputed. Skipping the community discussion and forcing the word does not make me confident in any way. [[User:Halibutt|[[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User Talk:Halibutt|tt]]]] 10:04, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

:::And the reference to a possibly eternal presence of Slavonics is made by the formula ''formerly also,'' which ought to make those happy who fear to give false representation of history, but not those who fight to falsify the history. --[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 10:52, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

::: Just wanted to make sure you won't think that i was removing the references to older names.. i was only reverting the changes by some anon who was removing all mentions of former German names of Polish cities. [[User:Szopen|Szopen]] 11:41, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:::: Perhaps instead of being sarcastic you could be more constructive. Yes, even I do oppose the form ''formerly Gottenhafen'' or ''formerly Hitlerstadt''. Just like I do oppose the term ''formerly Lwów'' or ''formerly Wilno''. [[User:Halibutt|[[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User Talk:Halibutt|tt]]]] 18:31, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

== Naming wars ==
Since you were either directly or indirectly once involved into edits revolving around "proper" naming of cities like Gdansk/Danzig etc i thought you may be interested in my proposition in [[User:Szopen/NamingWar]]. I would want to create a way aimed at stopping the revert wars in future - through creating something like a msg (in see also list or header) explaining that's there is compromise and why, and by linking to the article explaining changes of the statuses of the Royal Prussia province (I would prefer it ot have it as separate article, not scatter it in plethora other articles). I would be happy to hear from you.
[[User:Szopen|Szopen]] 09:16, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

== Greenberg ==

Thank you for your interest in [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Joseph Greenberg (economist)]]. I wasn't sure it deserved the attention i gave it, but at this point, it has been an interesting enough object lesson for me that it will certainly have been worth my effort, whatever the outcome. [smile] --[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]][[User talk:Jerzy|(t)]] 18:49, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

== Summer is over ==

I've got an eye on you too, beware! :D
Cheers [[User:Halibutt|[[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User Talk:Halibutt|tt]]]]

== RfA ==

Thanks a lot for actually going through my edits and the disputes that I've had before voting (I don't think that some other people have done so). And by the way, your English doesn't suck, as you said on your user page. I honestly had no idea that English wasn't your first language. What ''is'' your first language? [[User:Mike Storm|[[User:Mike Storm|Mike]][[User talk:Mike Storm|∞]][[User:Mike Storm|Storm]]]] 02:37, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for your support for my adminship, and for your supportive words. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg]] 16:34, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

== Vernichtung ==

Thank you for bringing the phrase to the attention. I didn't read it carfully. I noticed that an anonymous editor replaced a more neutral term by a less neutal one.
''The [[German language|German]] term ''Vernichtung'' (literally meaning'' "elimination"<->"eradication") ''is a [[euphemism]] for killing; hence these camps are also known as [[death camps]].''
: "eradication" is a very strong word in its indirect meaning, and it is hardly an [[euphemism]] (which is replacement by a ''more agreeable'' or ''less offencive'' word). Hence the phrase lost is sense. Moreover, the actual euphemism was "Endlösung". Vernichtung was used it its direct sence: extermination, as you wrote. I will fix the phrase accordingly. [[User:Mikkalai|Mikkalai]] 01:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

== [[Gerhard Schröder]], [[Sejm]] and [[Prussian Claims Society]] ==

Have you heard about the recent declaration by the Polish Sejm? I mean the one about war reparations and such. I wonder what an average German thinks of it. [[User:Halibutt|[[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User Talk:Halibutt|tt]]]] 04:30, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Remember that I haven't lived in Germany for many years. The only one whom I've heard mention it was my great-aunt living in Berlin, but born in East-Prussia, and not without emotional attachment to Poland (although, primarily to that of her youth, and particularily to Wroclaw whereto she went to work as a maid in her early teens). She remarked that Schröder must feel disappointed in the answer he got on his speech (to the Sejm?) earlier in the summer. She also rethorically wondered, what "they" (the Poles) believed they would achieve, but on the other hand I would guess that she and many others rather would tend to view this and much else as a sign of immaturity. — After all, Weimar Germany's decade of democracy shows plenty of examples of immature handling of democracy, so why shouldn't the Poles be allowed to?

The perception of Poles as ''immature'' (or something along the same line, like ''unsophisticated, uncultivated, lesser educated...)'' seems to me to lie deep in the collective psyche of the Germans — maybe in much similar to how I've realized that [[Ethnic Finns|Finns]] are perceived in Sweden, or as many Canadians tend to relate to the population of USA. My close mate from Krakow, who studied medicin in Germany, many times made this point, and thanks to him I think I can see what he saw. Maybe lesser so in the aviation industry where I work now, but most definitely among the more typical working class (women) at a nursing home for elderly, where I worked a couple of months inbetween other jobs, and unquestionably also in the café, bars and restaurant business (where I still work extra now and then), where some accents are considered much more of a stigma than other accents, and the Polish accent is definitely one of those. This is however not ''necessarily'' connected to the perception of the Polish state, but maybe an explanation that has a wider appeal than many other.

All in all, I think I don't exaggerate when I say that those (average) Germans who at all have an opinion are surprised and ''...verwundert'' (astonished?). And that is, I believe, an astonishment that has lesser to do with public Polish expressions directed to Germany and much more with the general attitude Poland has shown in relation to '''all''' of EU's other members.

I'm pretty much confident that the average German expected that if only Germany went ahead and demonstrated a considerable good will and a noticable degree of favouritism for Poland, then the relations between Poland and Germany would more or less follow the same track as the French-German relations. It doesn't seem to work out that way. ...or at least not yet.

The ''[[Preussische Treuhand]]'' is nothing I know or care about, and I don't think '''most''' Germans do. 
--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 10:04, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

::Thanks a lot, that's the analisis I needed (as a confirmation of what one of the journalists I like stated recently). Also, you've said that you're working for the aviation industry. Interesting, many of my friends (25% perhaps) study at either Aviation Faculty of the Warsaw University of Science and Technology or Kiev Aviation University (former KIGA). Perhaps I simply have some aviation in my genes... [[User:Halibutt|[[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User Talk:Halibutt|tt]]]] 15:19, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

:::You're welcome. [[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 16:36, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)

== the [[Farnaz Fassihi]] piece ==

Don't know if you've seen it yet?
For instance: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100304X.shtml
/[[User:Tuomas|Tuomas]] 09:18, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:Thanks! [[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 16:37, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)

Talk:Node (networking)

2004-10-12T23:56:25Z

Jrn: The title Node (networking) is misleading; perhaps most senses of node belong in one article

I don't think this article should exist. First of all, there is not much to be said about nodes in the computer science sense. The [[node|disambiguation]] page tell us, "Node, in information technology, a device connected to a network, such as a
computer or router." Indeed. What more is there to say? If anything, not much more than a paragraph-worth. But the same could also be said about nodes in linked lists: we define them, describe them, perhaps give some history, and we're done. What is essential and important is that [[Node (graph theory)|node]] is a synonym for vertex, with its origins in its [[node (botany)|botanical sense]], and that when we call something a node we are saying that we would like to deal with it abstractly as a point with arcs to other points. What is confusing is that this structure of nodes and arcs, often called a graph, is also often called a network, so Node (networking) suggests to me that what I will read is a discussion of applied graph theory.

Why must each sense have its own page? We can isolate the graph theoretic node, or just link to Graph (mathematics) after a cursory discussion of it. But nodes in botany, programming, and telecommunications would be better treated in one article than many, at least at first. Once they outgrow the page, they could split off, but as is this structure sprawling from the disambiguation page is overkill. Just my two cents. I'd try to change it myself if I understood this place better. - [[User:Jrn|Jrn]] 23:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Link

2004-10-11T17:56:26Z

Jrn: Removed "Also:" section; added a comment.

The term '''link''' can refer to:
*One element of a [[chain]].
*A [[U.S. customary units|U.S. customary unit]] of length equal to one hundredth of a [[chain (length)|chain]].
*A connection between two [[node|component]]s of a [[network]].
**In [[transportation]], a [[road]], [[railroad]], [[cable]], or [[pipeline]]. ([[List_of_transport_topics#Links|more examples]])
**A '''[[hyperlink]]''', or a provision for moving from one page to another in [[hypertext]].
**A '''[[communications channel]]''' between adjacent nodes in a [[telecommunications network]].
***A connection by [[radio wave]]s, or a [[radio]] [[path]] between two points, is called a '''[[radio link]]'''.
***Other types of communication channel are [[data link]], [[downlink]], [[duplex link]], [[fiber optic link]], [[line-of-sight link]], [[point-to-point link]], and [[satellite link]].
*In [[knot theory]], a nonempty set of knots. 
*The verb "to '''[[linker|link]]'''", which in [[computer science]] means to assemble one or more [[object file]]s and [[library (computer science)|libraries]] into a single [[executable]] or [[library (computer science)|library]].
*'''[[Link (Legend of Zelda)|Link]]''', a [[video game character]] in the [[Legend of Zelda series]] by [[Nintendo]].
*Project [[LINK]], a project initiated in [[1968]] to build the world's first global [[Macroeconomics|macroeconomic]] model.
*[[The Link]], a [[United Kingdom|British]] pro-[[Germany|German]] organisation founded in [[1937]].
*[[Edwin Albert Link]], an aviation pioneer.

== References ==
*[[Federal Standard 1037C]] 
*[[MIL-STD-188]]
*[[Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms]]

{{disambig}}

[[de:Link]]
[[nl:link]]

Link

2004-10-11T17:53:21Z

Jrn: Simplified; removed incomprehensible item; and duplex is already refered to in communications channel

The term '''link''' can refer to:
*One element of a [[chain]].
*A [[U.S. customary units|U.S. customary unit]] of length equal to one hundredth of a [[chain (length)|chain]].
*A connection between two [[node|component]]s of a [[network]].
**In [[transportation]], a [[road]], [[railroad]], [[cable]], or [[pipeline]]. ([[List_of_transport_topics#Links|more examples]])
**A '''[[hyperlink]]''', or a provision for moving from one page to another in [[hypertext]].
**A '''[[communications channel]]''' between adjacent nodes in a [[telecommunications network]].
***A connection by [[radio wave]]s, or a [[radio]] [[path]] between two points, is called a '''[[radio link]]'''.
***Other types of communication channel are [[data link]], [[downlink]], [[duplex link]], [[fiber optic link]], [[line-of-sight link]], [[point-to-point link]], and [[satellite link]].
*In [[knot theory]], a nonempty set of knots. 

Also:
*In [[computer science]], to '''[[linker|link]]''' means to assemble one or more [[object file]]s and [[library (computer science)|libraries]] into a single [[executable]] or [[library (computer science)|library]].
*'''[[Link (Legend of Zelda)|Link]]''' is a [[video game character]] in the [[Legend of Zelda series]] by [[Nintendo]].
*Project [[LINK]] was initiated in [[1968]] to build the world's first global [[Macroeconomics|macroeconomic]] model.
*[[The Link]] was a [[United Kingdom|British]] pro-[[Germany|German]] organisation founded in [[1937]].
*[[Edwin Albert Link]] was an aviation pioneer.

== References ==
*[[Federal Standard 1037C]]
*[[MIL-STD-188]]
*[[Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms]]

{{disambig}}

[[de:Link]]
[[nl:link]]

Link

2004-10-11T17:23:21Z

Jrn: Refactored, I guess

In a [[network]], a '''link''' is a [[connection]] between two [[node]]s, such as:
*One element in a [[chain]] (literally or figuratively).
*In [[transportation]], a [[road]], [[railroad]], [[cable]], or [[pipeline]]. ([[List_of_transport_topics#Links|more examples]])
*A '''[[hyperlink]]''', or a provision for moving from one page to another in [[hypertext]].
*A connection by [[radio wave]]s, or a [[radio]] [[path]] between two points, called a '''[[radio link]]'''.
*More generally, a '''[[communications channel]]''' between adjacent nodes in a [[telecommunications network]].
**Some types of links in this sense are [[data link]], [[downlink]], [[duplex link]], [[fiber optic link]], [[line-of-sight link]], [[point-to-point link]], [[radio link]]  and [[satellite link]].
**Any link in this sense is simplex, half-duplex, or [[duplex]].
*A portion of a [[circuit]] connected in [[tandem]] with, i.e., in series with, other portions. 


The term '''link''' can also refer to:
*In [[knot theory]], a set of two or more knots (possibly including the [[unknot]]) which may be linked together. These are the components of the link. If they are not linked, they are said to be unlinked, but they are still referred to as a link. Likewise a knot may be called a link, even though it has only one component. 
*A [[U.S. customary units|U.S. customary unit]] of length equal to one hundredth of a '''[[chain (length)|chain]]'''.

----
Remaining senses:
*In [[computer science]], to '''[[linker|link]]''' means to assemble one or more [[object file]]s and [[library (computer science)|libraries]] into a single [[executable]] or [[library (computer science)|library]].
*'''[[Link (Legend of Zelda)|Link]]''' is a [[video game character]] in the [[Legend of Zelda series]] by [[Nintendo]].
*Project [[LINK]] was initiated in [[1968]] to build the world's first global [[Macroeconomics|macroeconomic]] model.
*[[The Link]] was a [[United Kingdom|British]] pro-[[Germany|German]] organisation founded in [[1937]].
*[[Edwin Albert Link]] was an aviation pioneer.

== References ==
*[[Federal Standard 1037C]]
*[[MIL-STD-188]]
*[[Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms]]

{{disambig}}

[[de:Link]]
[[nl:link]]

Talk:Linker (computing)

2004-10-11T16:47:33Z

Jrn: Linkers can assemble libraries too

Much overlap here with the [[Library Linking (Computer Science)]] which discusses dynamic linking. A linker doesn't actually handle dynamic linking. Should this article point to the other as a "See Also"? Its a more appropriate place to discuss non-static linking. -- [[User:Rlee0001|Robert Lee]]

The 'address space' link points to an article explaining IP address space rather than the address space of a process . I am unsure on how to correct this link and where it should point to, just wanted to make sure it was brought to the attention of someone who can fix it. --Chris

Linkers can also assemble libraries, so this article should address that process too. - [[User:Jrn|Jrn]] 16:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Species

2004-10-11T16:29:54Z

Jrn: Aristotle's sense of the word species

The definition I learned in high school (I know, I've set myself up to be wrong already) was: two animals are the same species iff they can produce fertile offspring. Was that wrong/has it changed?--BlackGriffen

(1) That definition can only apply to sexually reproducing species (how do you determine
whether or not two bacteria, each of which can reproduce alone by splitting, can "interbreed"?)
(2) Even among higher species, the lines aren't that sharp. There are severals "sets" of
species, such as arctic seabirds, where species A can and does interbreed with B, and B with
C, and C with D...but A cannot interbreed with D. So where do you draw that line? --LDC

Another problem with the definition is that there are well-accepted 'species' that can produce fertile offspring, but generally do not in nature. For instance grizzlies and polar bears breed successfully in zoos. Conversely there are animals which we accept as the same species even though they obviously cannot interbreed. For instance no matter how much a Great Dane and Pekinese may want otherwise, physical mechanics will be a problem. Yet both are dogs. --BJT

:The last example brings to mind the great song by Australian folk singer [[Eric Bogle]]; it is the tragic tale of "little Gomez" a chihuahua of great might and courage. He became enamoured of a lady St. Bernard. When our hero tried to consumate his love, she sat down and tragically terminated his efforts. :-) [[user:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]]

I think it would clarify things to introduce a section outlining the three common ways in which "species" is used today. Perhaps something like:
* ''Taxanomic.'' Species are classified, more or less arbitrarily, according to readily observable features, such as number of teeth, leaf shape, colour of feathers, and so on. This is the most common usage in everyday life, is convenient for the production of field guides, but often sheds little light on the underlying genetic isues and can be quite misleading.
* ''Biological.'' A species is distinct from another species if the union of the two cannot produce viable offspring. Has a satisfying logic on first inspection and is very useful for practical work with plant and animal breeding, but riddled with inconsistencies [as pointed out by LDC & BJT above]: many particular seperate taxanomic species can interbreed freely but seldom do in the wild, and the ability of any two seperate species to interbreed can be highly variable: some horse-donkey unions, for example, produce healthy, fertile mules. An arbitrary dividing line must sometimes be drawn to define a particular species.
* ''Evolutionary.'' Species is defined by relatedness of DNA sequences. More closely represents the web of relationships between different lifeforms, but this deeper level of abstraction moves the whole concept of species a long way away from its commonsense meaning.
Each of these three ways of defining a species is useful, each has its weaknesses, and the continuing use of all three helps highlight the underlying fact that the natural world consists of humps and subtle gradients which the straight lines and boxes of categorisation schemes can only render imperfectly.

Errr .... that last bit is a bit flowery, but you get the idea. I'm reluctant to go chopping up an article that is coherent and reads well as it stands, but at present one must read between the lines to understand that 'species' is as variable and as slippery a concept as it is. Putting some of the more common current definitions into dot point form would help, I think. [[User:Tannin|Tannin]]

These are definitely contrasts that should be made. And please don't worry about chopping up the article. I think the article needs massive reconstruction anyway. Most of the history of taxonomy stuff probably belongs in another article, as does the not insignificant summary of how evolution is supposed to work. --[[User:Ryguasu|Ryguasu]] 20:58 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

----

I'm removing the following bit of metaphysics:

:It is unclear whether the category "species" exists "out there in the world", or if its existence is entirely dependent on our human classification systems. Answers to this question may hinge on one's understanding of [[epistemology]] as much as of [[biology]].

While this is a valid point, it has nothing to do with species in particular. You can ask the same questions about just about any scientific concept, if not just about every concept whatsoever. The only reason this should stay is if it ties in to a larger argument or controversy about ''species''. --[[User:Ryguasu|Ryguasu]] 20:58 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

:Yes, and I didn't like the phrasing. But there is another similar but I think more important point: prior to Darwin many naturalists did believe that "species" were real things; Darwin's major accomplishment was to redefine them as statistical phenomena. This accomplishment is bound to Darwin's rejection of intentionality, and these two elements of his thinking are where the conflict between his followers and "creationism" is crystal clear. I believe the article makes this clear, but I guess whoever wrote this short paragraph was unsatisfied. Perhaps there is a point here that really should be stated more emphatically? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]

----

Copied from discussion on talk pages between [[User:Alan Peakall|Alan Peakall]] and [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]

:Hello SLR, If you feel like a change from talk on Israel/Palestine, I would value your thoughts on the coverage in Wikipedia of the word ''subspecies''. A search shows that it is widely used in articles relating to particular animals, but a search on the article [[species]] shows no attempt being made to define it there. To ask a specific question, is it, in your view, correct to say that the majority scientific opinion captured in [[race]], that human races have no objective existence, is equivalent to a statement that the species [[homo sapiens]] has no subspecies? -- [[User:Alan Peakall|Alan Peakall]] 13:10 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

::Hi. I don't know enough about how zoologists or botanists uses the term "subspecies" -- is it the same as "variety?" Is a "subspecies" of a particular animal the same as a "population?" Offhand I would guess that what physical anthropologists call "populations" of humans may correspond to what zooligists call "subspecies" of an animal. I think the real problem is not the gulf between scientists who study humans and scientists who study other animals, but the gulf between scientists and laypeople. Scientists see "species" (and necessarily "subspecies") as statistical phenomena whereas many laypeople see species (and race) as fixed things. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]

I am not confident of my understanding of the status of the word ''subspecies''
in technical discussion either, but as the parent article points to [[race]], I believe that it should at least discuss the concept. It seems to me that there are these possibilities: 1) the concept of subspecies is in general no more useful than race is for [[homo sapiens]] and therefore is deprecated in technical discourse, 2) the concept of subspecies '''is''' meaningful for '''some''' species, but, at least since the extinction of [[neanderthal man|homo neanderthalensis]], '''not''' for [[homo sapiens]], 3) the possibility that you suggest, 4) that those who defend the use of the word ''race'' in a biological sense mean something different from a technically accepted meaning accorded to the word ''subspecies''. -- [[User:Alan Peakall|Alan Peakall]] 18:53 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

One of my professors, who in part studies different species' perceptual systems, claims that what gets called a new species and what gets called a subspecies is often more historical accident than principled distinction. Perhaps this is similar to the unprincipled way in which certain scientific results end up being called "laws", others "theories", etc.. (I know many people insist these words have well-defined technical meanings, but whether or not people pay any attention to those meanings in deciding which label to use is another story.) --[[User:Ryguasu|Ryguasu]] 20:51 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

==Tidy up needed==
This article has grown into a bit of a mess. It starts well with a discussion of the different possible definition of species, but there's a ragbag of stuff at the end. It needs a thorough sort out - I'll get to it when I have time, but...

[[User:Seglea|seglea]] 16:33, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

==Comment in edit summary box==
Added this comment from 172.192.160.124, which was included in an edit summary box: --[[User:Lexor|Lexor]]|[[User talk:Lexor|Talk]] 01:14, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

:''I have not edited, but note the ambiguity of "ancestor" in "A phylogenetic or evolutionary or Darwinian species is a group of organisms that shares a common ancestor [species? individual?]."''

== Aristotle's sense of the word species ==

Aristotle, in his ''[[m:wikisource:Categories|Categoriae]]'', uses "genus" and "species" in a nonbiological sense more closely related to the terms generic and specific. Perhaps mention of this would be appropriate, if only for its etymological ramifications: the meaning of the word "species" grew more specific as time went on. - [[User:Jrn|Jrn]] 16:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)