text:
Army of the Czech Republic

The Czech Armed Forces (Armáda České republiky), also known as the Czech Army, is the military service responsible for the defence of the Czech Republic as part of the Armed Forces of the Czech Republic (ozbrojené síly České republiky) alongside the Military Office of the President of the Republic and the Castle Guard. The army consists of the General Staff, the Land Forces, the Air Force and support units.

Czech Army's main historical legacy and inspiration stems from the 15th century Hussite militia, which is credited with numerous warfare advancements, including introduction of firearms to field battles as well as the wagon fort strategy, called vozová hradba in Czech. Modern history precedes the 1918 Czechoslovak declaration of independence with formal establishment of the Czechoslovak Legion fighting on the side of the Entente powers during the WW1. Following the Munich Agreement, the country was occupied by Nazi Germany and the Army was reconstituted in exile, fighting on the side of Allies of World War II in the European as well as Mediterranean and Middle East theatre. After the 1948 Communist Coup, the Czechoslovak People's Army with over 200,000 active personnel and some 4,500 tanks formed one of the pillars of the Warsaw Pact military alliance.

Following the Velvet Revolution and dissolution of Czechoslovakia, the Czech Republic joined NATO in 1999. The conscription was abolished in 2004, leading to transformation into a modern professional army inspired mostly by the British Armed Forces and USMC example. Today, the Czech Army has 28.000 professional personnel and 4.200 members of active reserves. Additionally, any citizen can voluntarily join a five week basic training without becoming a soldier or join advanced shooting training with their privately owned firearms and become civilian reservist.

A law adopted in June 2023 stipulates that the military expenditures shall not be lower than 2% of country's GDP, starting from 2024.

Czech lands
The military history of the Czech people dates back to the Middle Ages and the creation of the Duchy of Bohemia and the Kingdom of Bohemia. During the Hussite Wars, Jan Žižka became a military leader of such skill and eminence that the Hussite legacy became an important and lasting part of the Czech military traditions.

Official military names since 1918:

1918–1950 - Czechoslovak Armed Forces (this official name was given to the Czechoslovak Army on March 19, 1920 on the basis of the Armed Forces Act)

1950–1954 - Czechoslovak Army

1954–1989 - Czechoslovak People's Army

1990–1992 - Czechoslovak Army

since 1993 - Army of the Czech Republic (ACR)

Czechoslovakia
The Czechoslovak Armed Forces were originally formed on 30 June 1918 when 6,000 members of the Czechoslovak Legion in France, which had been established in 1914, took oath and received a battle banner in Darney, France, thus preceding the official declaration of Czechoslovak independence by four months. There were also 50 000 legion soldiers in Russia at that time. The military achievements of the Czechoslovak legions on the French, Italian and especially Russian front became one of the main arguments that the Czechoslovak pro-independence leaders, especially for T. G. Masaryk in America, could use to gain the support for the country's independence by the Allies of World War I.

In 1938, servicemen of the Czechoslovak Army and the State Defense Guard fought in an undeclared border war against the German-backed Sudetendeutsches Freikorps as well as Polish and Hungarian paramilitary forces. As a result of the Munich Agreement, areas heavily populated by ethnic German speaking people were incorporated into the Third Reich and military-aged men living there were subject to being drafted into the Wehrmacht. In 1939, after the Slovak State proclaimed its independence and the remainder of Carpathian Ruthenia was occupied and annexed by Hungary, the German occupation of the Czech Lands followed and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was proclaimed after the negotiations with Emil Hácha. The Protectorate's government possessed its own armed force, the Government Army (6,500 men), tasked with public security and rearguard duties. On the other side of the conflict, a number of Czechoslovak units and formations served with the Polish Army (Czechoslovak Legion), the French Army, the Royal Air Force, the British Army (the 1st Czechoslovak Armoured Brigade), and the Red Army (I Corps). Four Czech and Slovak-manned RAF squadrons were transferred to Czechoslovak control in late 1945.

From 1954 until 1989, the Army was known as the Czechoslovak People's Army (ČSLA). Although the ČSLA, as formed in 1945, included both Soviet- and British-equipped/trained expatriate troops, the "Western" soldiers had been purged from the ČSLA after 1948 when the communists took power. The ČSLA offered no resistance to the invasion mounted by the Soviets in 1968 in reaction to the "Prague Spring", and was extensively reorganized by the Soviets following the re-imposition of communist rule in Prague.

Of the approximately 201,000 personnel on active duty in the ČSLA in 1987, about 145,000, or about 72 percent, served in the ground forces (commonly referred to as the army). About 100,000 of these were conscripts. There were two military districts, Western and Eastern. A 1989 listing of forces shows two Czechoslovak armies in the west, the 1st Army at Příbram with one tank division and three motor rifle divisions, the 4th Army at Písek with two tank divisions and two motor rifle divisions. In the Eastern Military District, there were two tank divisions, the 13th and 14th, with a supervisory headquarters at Trenčín in the Slovak part of the country.

During the Cold War, the ČSLA was equipped primarily with Soviet arms, although certain arms like the OT-64 SKOT armored personnel carrier, the L-29 Delfín and L-39 Albatros aircraft, the P-27 Pancéřovka antitank rocket launcher, the vz. 58 assault rifle or the Uk vz. 59 machine gun were of Czechoslovak design.

After the fall of communism during the Velvet Revolution in 1989, the Czechoslovak People's Army was renamed back to the Czechoslovak Army and was completely transformed as well.

After 1992 (dissolution of Czechoslovakia)
The Army of the Czech Republic was formed after the Czechoslovak Armed Forces split after the 31 December 1992 peaceful dissolution of Czechoslovakia. Czech forces stood at 90,000 in 1993. They were reduced to around 65,000 in 11 combat brigades and the Air Force in 1997, to 63,601 in 1999, and to 35,000 in 2005. At the same time, the forces were modernized and reoriented towards a defensive posture. In 2004, the army transformed itself into a fully professional organization and compulsory military service was abolished. The Army maintains an active reserve.

The Czech Republic is a member of the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. In March 1999, the Czech Republic joined NATO. Since 1990, the ACR and the Czech Armed Forces have contributed to numerous peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, including IFOR, SFOR, and EUFOR Althea in Bosnia, Desert Shield/Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Albania, Turkey, Pakistan and with the Coalition forces in Iraq.

Current deployments (2019):

 * Lithuania: NATO Operation (NATO Enhanced Forward Presence) - 230 soldiers
 * Latvia: NATO Operation (NATO Enhanced Forward Presence) - 60 soldiers
 * Afghanistan: NATO Operation (Resolute Support Mission) - 390 soldiers
 * Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania: NATO Operation (Baltic Air Policing) - 95 soldiers, 5x Jas 39 Gripen
 * Kosovo: NATO Operation (KFOR) - 9 soldiers
 * Mali: EU military training mission (EUTM Mali) - 120 soldiers
 * Mali: UN peacekeeping mission (MINUSMA) - 5 soldiers
 * Somalia: EU Operation Atalanta (NAVFOR) - 3 soldiers
 * Sinai: International peacekeeping force (MFO) - 18 soldiers
 * Iraq: Military intervention against the Islamic State (OIR) - 31 soldiers (air advisory team), 12 soldiers (chemical unit)
 * Mediterranean Sea: EU military operation (EU Navfor Med) - 5 soldiers
 * Bosnia and Herzegovina: Military deployment to oversee the military implementation of the Dayton Agreement (European Union Force Althea) - 2 soldiers
 * Golan Heights: UN peacekeeping mission (UNDOF) - 3 soldiers
 * DR Congo: UN peacekeeping mission (MONUC) - 2 military observers
 * Mali: UN peacekeeping mission (MINUSMA) - 2 military observers
 * Kosovo: UN peacekeeping mission (UNMIK) - 2 military observers
 * Central African Republic: UN peacekeeping mission (MINUSCA) - 3 military observers

Structure
Many of the duties of the President of the Czech Republic can be said to be ceremonial to one degree or another, especially since the President has relatively few powers independent of the will of the Prime Minister. One of those is the status as commander in chief of the military; no part of these duties can take place but through the assent of the Prime Minister. In matters of war, he is in every sense merely a figurehead, since the Constitution gives all substantive constitutional authority over the use of the armed forces to the Parliament. In fact, the only specific thing the constitution allows the President to do with respect to the military is to appoint its generals – but even this must be done with the signature of the Prime Minister.

Structure of the Czech Armed Forces consists of two main parts and other commands:

 * General Staff of Czech Armed Forces (Praha)
 * Emblem of Czech Land Forces.svg Czech Land Forces (Olomouc)
 * Emblem of Czech Air Force.svg Czech Air Force (Praha)
 * Special Forces Command (Praha)
 * Cyber Forces Command (Brno)
 * Territorial Command (Tábor)
 * Training Command - Military Academy (Vyškov)

Active reserves
Active Reserve (in Czech Aktivní záloha) is a part of the otherwise professional Army of the Czech Republic. This service was created to allow the participation of citizens with a positive attitude to the military.

A volunteer needs either to have completed the compulsory military service (which ended in 2004) or to attend 6 week training. Then the reservists have to serve up to three weeks a year and can be called up to serve two weeks during a non-military crisis. They are not intended to serve abroad, but individuals may volunteer to do so. The Reserve presents itself on events like BAHNA, a military show.

Each of the active duty brigades or regiments have their own active reserve subordinate units that train with the same equipment as the professional soldiers and is part of the organisational structure usually as a 4th company in a battalion. The Territorial Command is responsible for the active reserves and have direct control of the 14 infantry companies that belong to regional military commands in each of the 13 regions and capital city Prague.

Equipment
The Army of the Czech Republic, to a large extent, currently uses equipment dating back to the times of the Warsaw Pact. During the Cold War, Czechoslovakia was a major supplier of tanks, armoured personnel carriers, military trucks and trainer aircraft – the bulk of military exports went to its Comecon partners. Replacement of aging or obsolete equipment, or making it at least compliant with NATO standards, is urgently required. Modernization plans include acquisition of new multi-role helicopters, transport aircraft, infantry fighting vehicles, air defence radars and missiles. If possible, the Czech Ministry of Defence selects products that are manufactured or co-produced in the Czech Republic. This includes firearms of the Česká zbrojovka Uherský Brod, namely the CZ 75 pistol, CZ Scorpion Evo 3 submachine gun, and CZ 805 BREN and BREN 2 assault rifles. Moreover, the Czech Army is equipped with about 3,000 T810 and T815 vehicles of various modifications produced by the Czech Tatra Trucks company. Tatra Defence Vehicle factory ensures licensed production of Pandur II and Titus armoured vehicles. Aircraft such as the Aero L-39 Albatros, Aero L-159 Alca and Let L-410 Turbolet have been produced domestically as well.

At the beginning of 2019, the Czech Ministry of Defence announced its modernization program, consisting of acquiring 210 new modern IFVs as a replacement for the aging BVP-2. MoD approached four manufacturers: BAE Systems (CV90), GDELS (ASCOD), Rheinmetall (Lynx) and PSM (Puma). The cost of the program is expected to exceed 50 billion CZK.

In May 2022 the Czech Ministry of Defence announced it will get 15 Leopards 2A4 from Germany as an exchange for Czech tanks that will be given to Ukraine to help defend against Russian invasion and will purchase up to 50 modern 2A7+ variants later.

Uniforms
Different types of Czech Army uniforms:

Commanding officers

 * Chief of the General Staff: Lieutenant General Karel Řehka
 * First Deputy Chief of the General Staff: Major General Ivo Střecha
 * Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the AČR-Chief of Staff: Lieutenant General Miroslav Hlaváč
 * Deputy Chief of the General Staff - Inspector of the AČR: Major General Milan Schulc

title: Army of the Czech Republic


text:
Foreign relations of the Czech Republic

The Czech Republic is a Central European country, a member of the European Union, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the United Nations (and all of its main specialized agencies and boards). It entertains diplomatic relations with 191 countries of the world, around half of which maintain a resident embassy in the Czech capital city, Prague.

During the years 1948–1989, the foreign policy of Czechoslovakia had followed that of the Soviet Union. Since the revolution and the subsequent mutually-agreed peaceful dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the Czechs have made reintegration with Western institutions their chief foreign policy objective. This goal was rapidly met with great success, as the nation joined NATO in 1999 and the European Union in 2004, and held the Presidency of the European Union during the first half of 2009.

Liechtenstein
Throughout the past decades, Liechtenstein continuously claimed restitution for 1600 km2, or an area roughly ten times the size of Liechtenstein, of land currently located in the Czech Republic. The land was partially confiscated from the Liechtenstein family in 1918 with the rest of the property being confiscated in 1945 after the expulsion of Germans and confiscation of German property. The Czech Republic insisted that it could not acknowledge or be responsible for claims going back to before February 1948, when the Communists had seized power.

As a result, Liechtenstein did not diplomatically recognize the existence of the Czech Republic as a new state (and, for that matter, also that of the Slovak Republic) until 2009.

In July 2009, the Prince of Liechtenstein announced he was resigning to the previous unsuccessful claims to property located in the Czech Republic, and on 13 July 2009, after politically recognizing one another, the Czech Republic and Liechtenstein formally established diplomatic relations.

Placement of US National Missile Defense base
In February 2007, the US started formal negotiations with Czech Republic and Poland concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-based Midcourse Defense System. Government of the Czech Republic agrees (while 67% Czechs disagree and only about 22% support it) to host a missile defense radar on its territory while a base of missile interceptors is supposed to be built in Poland. The objective is reportedly to protect another parts of US National Missile Defense from long-range missile strikes from Iran and North Korea, but Czech PM Mirek Topolánek said the main reason is to avoid Russian influence and strengthen ties to US.

The main government supporter Alexandr Vondra, Deputy Prime Minister for European affairs, used to be an ambassador to the USA. More problematic is that between 2004 and 2006 he was an executive director of a lobbying company Dutko Worldwide Prague. Dutko's and its strategic partner AMI Communications (PR company) customers are Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Nortrop Grumman, which are largest contractors for NMD development. AMI Communications also received (without a formal selection procedure) a government contract to persuade Czechs to support US radar base.

Diplomatic relations
List of countries which Czechia maintains diplomatic relations with:

Multilateral relations

 * Foreign relations of the European Union
 * Foreign relations of NATO

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

title: Foreign relations of the Czech Republic


text:
Climbing

Climbing is the activity of using one's hands, feet, or other parts of the body to ascend a steep topographical object that can range from the world's tallest mountains (e.g. the eight thousanders) to small boulders. Climbing is done for locomotion, sporting recreation, for competition, and is also done in trades that rely on ascension, such as rescue and military operations. Climbing is done indoors and outdoors, on natural surfaces (e.g. rock climbing and ice climbing), and on artificial surfaces (e.g. climbing walls and climbing gyms)

The sport of climbing evolved by climbers making first ascents of new types of climbing routes, using new climbing techniques, at ever-increasing grades of difficulty, with ever-improving pieces of climbing equipment. Guides and guidebooks were an important element in developing the popularity of the sport in the natural environment. Early pioneers included Walter Bonatti, Riccardo Cassin, Hermann Buhl, and Gaston Rébuffat, who were followed by and Reinhold Messner and Doug Scott, and later by Mick Fowler and Marko Prezelj, and Ueli Steck. Since the 1980s, the development of the safer format of bolted sport climbing, the wider availability of artificial climbing walls and climbing gyms, and the development of competition climbing, increased the popularity of rock climbing as a sport, and led to the emergence of professional rock climbers, such as Wolfgang Güllich, Alexander Huber, Chris Sharma, Adam Ondra, Lynn Hill, Catherine Destivelle, and Janja Garnbret.

Climbing became an Olympic sport for the first time in the 2021 Olympic Games in Tokyo (see Sport climbing at the 2020 Summer Olympics) in that format that included competition lead climbing, competition bouldering, and competition speed climbing disciplines;  competition ice climbing is not yet an Olympic sport.

Rock-based
Rock climbing can trace its origins to the late 19th-century, and has since developed into several main sub-disciplines. Single-pitch and multi-pitch (and big wall) climbing, can be performed in varying styles (including aid, sport, traditional, free solo, and top-roping), while the standalone discipline of bouldering (or boulder climbing) is by definition performed in a free solo format.

 * Single pitch climbing means ascending climbs that are a single rope-length (up to 50-metres) while multi-pitch climbing (and big wall climbing) means ascending routes that are many rope-lengths (even up to 1,000-metres). These two rock climbing sub-disciplines can be conducted in one of several ways:

 * Aid climbing is a form of rock climbing that uses artificial aids such as aiders, pitons, and other mechanical devices to assist in ascending a route. Much of rock climbing began as aid climbing, and even by the 1970s, many big wall routes required aid (e.g. The Nose and the Salathé Wall).

 * Sport climbing is a form of rock climbing that uses no artificial aids (which is known as free climbing), but does rely on permanent fixed bolts (or pitons), for use as protection while climbing (but not as aid); was started in the 1980s in France and now makes up the world's hardest climbs (e.g. Silence).

 * Traditional climbing is a form of rock climbing that uses no artificial aids (and is thus free climbing) but unlike sport climbing, the climbers place removable protection such as SCLDs and nuts while ascending that are removed by the second climber; has many famous routes (e.g. Indian Face, Cobra Crack).

 * Free soloing is a form of rock climbing that uses no artificial aids (and is thus also free climbing) and where the climber uses no protection (neither sport nor traditional); thus any fall while free soloing could be fatal; deep-water soloing is a form of free soloing where a fall will result in landing into safe water. The 2017 free solo of Freerider became the Oscar-winning film, Free Solo.

 * Top rope climbing is a form of rock climbing that uses no artificial aids but as the sole form of protection, uses a pre-fixed rope secured to the top of the route (i.e. is used on single-pitches), and thus should the climber fall, they simply hang off the rope with no risk of any injury; it is not regarded as free climbing but is a popular and safe way to introduce people to free climbing (and common on climbing walls).

 * Bouldering: means ascending boulders or small outcrops with no artificial aids (free climbing) and due to the lower height, with no protection (making bouldering a form of free soloing); very tall boulders where a fall could be serious (i.e. up to 10-metres) are known as highball bouldering. Many milestones in bouldering (e.g. Midnight Lightning, Dreamtime and Burden of Dreams) were created by practitioners of bouldering and free climbing.

Mountain-based

 * Alpine climbing: Ascending large routes that require rock, ice, and mixed climbing skills but with minimal equipment and no outside support.
 * Ice climbing: Ascending frozen water ice or hard alpine snow using equipment such as ice axes and crampons; usually in mountain settings.
 * Mixed climbing: Ascending routes using ice climbing equipment where there is both rock and ice (called dry-tooling if there is no ice).
 * Mountaineering: Ascending mountains, which can involve some rock or ice climbing, but unlike alpine climbing can involve support and fixed ropes.
 * Via ferrata: Ascending mountain routes using previously installed fixed steel cables, metal rungs, and ladders for protection and aid.
 * Scrambling: Climbing rocky faces and ridges, which can include basic rock climbing, but is considered part of hillwalking.
 * Solo climbing: Ascending routes alone; can involve ropes (roped solo climbing) and artificial aid; where no protection or aid is used, it is free soloing.

Competition-based
Competition climbing (sometimes confusingly called "sport climbing"), is a regulated sport of 'competitive rock climbing' that originated in the 1980s, and which is done as indoor climbing on artificial climbing walls. The IFSC is the governing body for competition rock-climbing worldwide and is recognized by the IOC and GAISF and is a member of the International World Games Association (IWGA). Competition climbing has three parts:

 * Competition lead climbing is a form of competitive lead climbing performed on an artificial bolted sport climbing route.
 * Competition bouldering is a form of competitive bouldering performed on a selection of artificial bouldering routes.
 * Competition speed climbing is a form of competitive speed climbing performed on a standardized artificial wall with a top rope.

Competition ice climbing is a regulated sport of 'competitive ice climbing' that originated in the early 2000s, and which is done on outdoor or indoor climbing on artificial ice climbing walls that consist of ice and dry surfaces. The UIAA is the governing body for competition ice climbing worldwide and their events include a lead ice climbing discipline and a speed ice climbing discipline. Competition ice climbing is not as yet an Olympic Sport.

Other recreational-based

 * Buildering: Ascending the exterior skeletons of buildings, typically without protective equipment (e.g. as free solo climbing by Alain Robert).
 * Canyoneering: Climbing along canyons for sport or recreation.
 * Crane climbing: An illicit act of climbing up mechanical cranes, which is a form of buildering.
 * Grass climbing: An older form of climbing when climbing steep but grassy mountainsides, often requiring ropes, was undertaken.
 * Mallakhamba: A traditional Indian sport that combines climbing a pole or rope with the performance of aerial yoga and gymnastics.
 * Parkour: A sport based around smooth movement, including climbing, around urban landscapes.
 * Pole climbing: Climbing poles and masts without equipment.
 * Rope climbing: Climbing a short, thick rope for speed; not to be confused with roped climbing, as used in rock or ice climbing.
 * Stair climbing: ascending elevation via stairs.
 * Tree climbing: Recreationally ascending trees using ropes and other protective equipment.

Commercial-based

 * Rope access: Industrial climbing, usually abseiling, as an alternative to scaffolding for short works on exposed structures.
 * A tower climber is a professional who climbs broadcasting or telecommunication towers or masts for maintenance or repair.

International organizations and governing bodies

 * The International Federation of Sport Climbing (IFSC) serves as the official governing body for competition climbing worldwide. It is recognized by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Global Association of International Sports Federations (GAISF) and oversees and regulates competitive climbing events in the disciplines of lead climbing, bouldering, and speed climbing.

 * The International Mountaineering and Climbing Federation (UIAA) is a long-standing body for mountaineering and climbing equipment, and which also oversees competition ice climbing, where it sets standards and guidelines for ice climbing events and promotes the sport's development.

In film
Climbing has been the subject of both narrative and documentary films. Notable climbing films include Touching the Void (2003), Everest (2015), Meru (2015), The Dawn Wall (2015), Free Solo (2018), 14 Peaks: Nothing Is Impossible (2021), and The Alpinist (2021). The Reel Rock Film Tour is a traveling film festival that exclusively screens climbing and adventure films, and includes the Reel Rock climbing film series.

title: Climbing


text:
Talk:Software

Wiki Education assignment: College Composition II
— Assignment last updated by Lindseybean28 (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2024
2409:4085:4EBB:89F:0:0:8F8B:FB0F (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC) software downloader provide daily software update https://Softwaredownloader7.blogspot.com
 * ❌ Spam is not permitted on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit request
During the recent AfD, problems with the article's sourcing and content were brought up. I have resolved them with a new draft of the article and am pinging participants User:Praxidicae, User:EucalyptusTreeHugger, User:TartarTorte, and User:Aoidh in case any of you would be willing to implement the edit request.

User:Buidhe paid/Software should be copied into this article, above the categories. My version of the article also makes a clear differentiation between this article and computer program. It adds information about software development, software maintenance, quality and security, how software is executed on hardware, and the impact of software in the world.

Thanks! Buidhe paid (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Reversion: the edit was implemented by (thanks) and then reverted without an explanation. As noted in policy, "When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons. This can be done in the edit summary and/or talk page."  did not indicate any reason for reverting. Although there is some discussion below, I did tweak the definition of software in the draft based on a larger number of reliable sources, and also made edits to the workforce and impact sections based on the feedback. Buidhe paid (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

First/definition sentence
WRT the current first line: ''Software is a collection of programs and data that tell a computer how to perform specific tasks. Software often includes associated software documentation. This is in contrast to hardware, from which the system is built and which actually performs the work.''

Why say collection? A single program is software. Software does cover all programs so maybe that's why they use 'collection'. But, it's the collection of all programs. But that's awkward phrasing.

Why 'specific' task? Software tells how to do any task; even general ones.

Ordering of sentences causes the hardware part to seem to be in contrast to documentation when it should contrast software.

How about: Software is data, in particular machine instructions, that can control a computer via its machine instruction interface. Generally, software also encompasses related artifacts such as any source code used to drive execution and any documentation written as part of the development process.

Maybe this is more accessible (not just longer/wordier): Software is information that controls computer hardware via its machine instruction interface. Often is a computer program or a script. A native executable drives the hardware directly via machine instructions. The executable is software, but generally the source code used to generate the executable is also considered software. Software also generally encompasses interpreted source code that itself is not converted to machine code, but drives an interpreter that is machine code.Stevebroshar (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

 * my edit request above actually addresses your concern. You can implement it if you want. Buidhe paid (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I did see that notice/topic on this talk page the other day, but couldn't figure out how to see your draft ... until rn.
 * I do not like to be critical, but rather than beat around the bush I'll say that I think your draft is less than good. TBO it's less than good throughout, but I'll only critique the start.
 * The start: Software "is the set of programs, concepts, tools, and methods used to produce a running system on computing devices" is off the mark IMO. It's quoted and cited so that is valid for WP, but I do not think it's a good definition. Software is not a set of programs even though a program is software. Software encompasses concepts, but doesn't everything encompass concepts? Tools are used to build software, but tools are used to build anything. Methods applies to almost anything too. So, I can summarize: Software is something used to produce a running system on a computing device. But, system and computing device can be replaced with more precise terms computer program and computer, and I assume you mean runnable. So: Software is something used to produce a runnable computer program. That's describing software development tools and/or processes; not the core concept of software.
 * I do think that defining software is hard. I think that everyone knows what software is, but would struggle to say what it means in a concise and accurate way.
 * Maybe there is good content in your draft. There are so many changes from the current version that it's hard to review all the changes, but I will say that the current version is not great and would benefit from enhancement. I would like to encourage your input and feel bad that my feedback may be discouraging. Maybe a good way to move forward is to consider smaller and more focused changes. What are the issues you have with the current content? What changes would have the biggest impact? Can we start there?
 * I'm curious: what is your conflict of interest? Why do you not make these changes yourself? Are you wanting a review and that there is no conflict of interest? More context of your motivation would be considerate. Stevebroshar (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi I am being paid for these edits; that is the extent of my COI. My employer is not even requesting specific content changes, they are just paying me to improve the article. Because I'm being paid to edit, it's considered best practices to request edits instead of making the changes myself.
 * In terms of the definition of software, I did some digging and found that sources don't agree:
 * Nontechnical
 * "for purposes of this paper, software is defined to be computer programs"
 * "Software is defined a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to achieve a specified objective."
 * "Software is defined as the instructions that a computer follows to perform a specified task."
 * "Software has never been unequivocally defined by any disciplinary field (including technical ones) and that it takes different forms in different contexts..." (xix) but a "widely accepted definition of software as the totality of all computer programs as well as all the written texts related to computer programs" (xx).
 * "software is the set of instructions that make the machine operate in specific ways." (naive definition followed by a lot of philosophizing)
 * Technical
 * "when asked to ponder what “software” is, computer software engineers seem to assume that the only kind of software is computer software. They provide answers that roughly equate software with code to be executed on a computer. When prodded, most will readily agree that the software they produce consists of more than just the code, but also somehow incorporates specifications of various kinds, designs, and perhaps testing regimes and results as well." (although the author goes on to say it should be defined more broadly than computer software, and might include recipes and legislation)
 * "In this volume," software" is defined broadly as a generic for all the stages of tailoring a computer system to solve a problem."
 * "In this volume," software" is defined broadly as a generic for all the stages of tailoring a computer system to solve a problem."

 * I tend to agree with you when it comes to the actual definition of software, but what is harder is finding a source that defines it that way. One step could be acknowledging the disputed nature of the definition (some of the above sources could be cited for this).
 * The reason I rewrote the entire article is because there are no sections of it that are well sourced and do a good job covering the content IMO. You are welcome to partially implement the edit if you want; one place to start might be the "Impact" or "Workforce" section, which have no parallel in the current article. Buidhe paid (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

 * so, your last name is not "paid" :) and that's why it's not capitalized ... who considers it best practice to request edits when your paid? but it's fine, I'm happy to work collaboratively. ... in general a definition of a non-trivial concept is often misleading and a bit wrong since it cannot encompass the totality of the concept, but IMO all concepts benefit from being defined. The trick is it come up with a definition that is close and not clearly wrong so that later text that clarify edge cases. Everyone who defines a concept will do so differently. So, there are a zillion definitions of 'software'. Using one particular source is actually a disservices to the WP reader. Could list every sourcable definition and then every article would start with "XXX has the following meanings: ..." Doesn't read well. WP seems to be about synthesizing text based on source material, and that includes re-stating rather than quoting. ... But, where is the line between re-stating and OR? IDK. But I will boldly say that it's better to be right than to be misleading or to present a narrow view. Writing WP requires thinking and creativity to synthesize source material into a readable article, but at the end of the day, a WP article, as any written work, involves authors opinions. ... so, I wonder what my point is ;) ... I think the WP community is responsible to define software. The definition should be supported by sources but need not be a quote. I think that software may be particularly hard to define and as with some articles it may be worthwhile to include a section on particular definitions that demonstrate the array of opinions in the world. But, I think the first sentence should be a synthesized definition; not a quote. Stevebroshar (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

 * On your broader edits: I agree that the existing article could be improved and I will look at your Impact and Workforce sections Stevebroshar (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

False depiction of law
The sentence "Software patents, like other types of patents, are theoretically supposed to give an inventor an exclusive, time-limited license for a detailed idea (e.g. an algorithm) on how to implement a piece of software," is false.

Patent protection is never awarded to "ideas" but "inventions". The sentence is legally misleading. Rebentisch (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Yes, my version of the article fixes this Buidhe paid (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Cpu
central processing unit or the brain 2001:4450:463E:B00:61B4:FEE9:BD89:FF0 (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Wiki99 summary
Summary of changes as a result of the Wiki99 project (before, after, diff): Further possibilities for improvement: Buidhe paid (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Complete rewrite from reliable sources
 * Fixed unsourced content issues
 * Add coverage of important subtopics such as software development, software maintenance, quality and security, how software is executed on hardware, and the impact of software in the world.
 * Cover multiple definitions of software in use
 * Consider some expansion for comprehensiveness
 * Get the article to good article status

 * @Buidhe paid I'm sure you have the best of intentions, but this major re-write is less than high quality writing. The old article wasn't great, but I think this is a step in the wrong direction
 * For example: Software is defined narrowly as unambiguous instructions that can be transformed into a form executable on computer hardware, or more broadly including supporting concepts, tools and methods needed to make the computer system operational. Using narrowly defined in the first sentence is awkward and off-putting. I find the word 'unambiguous' to be extraneous. The word 'instructions' connotes declarative languages. The word 'transformed' connotes compiled. If I think real hard I guess what you've said not wrong, but it's off the mark IMO.
 * Start the reader out gently yet boldly; without qualifications. How about: "Software controls the behavior of computer hardware as configured by a programmer".
 * Remove the definition section. That's too scholastic and dry. The first sentence of a WP article is the definition of the term. No need for a definition section.
 * Building off of previous innovations in mathematics and technology, software was created reads like nonsense to me. Software _is_ technology (which is overly obvious). Software is related to mathematics rather loosely. Software was a grass roots innovation that transcends all existing tech. That's one amazing thing about it. And something that should be highlighted. It's not an offshoot of math.
 * software was created for the programmable digital computers that emerged in the late 1940s and was necessary to realize their usefulness. So awkward and not quite true. Software creation has little to do with the 1940s. In fact, it kinda predates 1940. Kinda predates and transcends digital computers.
 * The first software was tied closely to the underlying computer hardware. What are you trying to say? That originally there was little abstraction from the hardware? Yeah. "tied closely to the underlying computer hardware'' is overly non-technical.
 * the lower layers of the system have become more standardized really?
 * A host of earlier inventions were necessary for the creation of software, including mathematics—especially binary and decimal number systems, and zero—alphabets, writing, mechanical calculators, boolean algebra, transistors, integrated circuits, and plastic zero? alphabets? plastic? come on now. Plastic is not needed for software. You mean computers need plastic? Maybe, but if we're going go down that path, then software required the invention of the wheel too.
 * Stopping there. I think we should revert back to before this re-write. The new content has too many issues.
 * I told you already that I don't think your writing is high quality. I take no pride in saying that, but I wish you would not make sweeping changes until your writing skill improves. Stevebroshar (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback, but most of your concerns do not relate to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines:
 * For example, there is no rule against the creation of "definition" sections, which are quite common especially when a topic is difficult to define, or where there are multiple significantly different definitions found in reliable sources. Both are true for this topic.
 * While my definition section and its summary in the lead could doubtless be improved, it is at least based on multiple reliable sources, while as far as I can tell your suggested definition of software is not found in any source.
 * You're objecting to a lot of the content in the history section about how software was developed. The section is pretty well sourced in my version and I can confirm that the content you object to is verified in the cited sources. The section could be improved by incorporating other reliable sources that provide an overview of the origins of software, but it should not be changed because one Wikipedia editor disagrees with what the cited sources say.
 * Reverting would mean going back to a version that is largely unsourced and consequently whose material is mostly subject to removal under the verifiability policy.
 * You're welcome to your opinion about the quality of my writing but many other editors disagree, as you can tell by looking at my main user page. Buidhe paid (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * your concerns do not relate to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines Correct! I value quality writing. I think that folks that value rules over quality are misguided. I think that it is possible to satisfy rules while producing quality output.
 * You mention a rule about no definition section which I find interesting. Do you think everything must be rule-based? ... My point is that common style in WP is to define a term in the first sentence, _and_ that is what you did. Your definition section is mostly duplicate info. DRY.
 * I'm sure there are thousands of definitions of software out there. You picked only a few. The choice of sources is less than objective. In the end, what is in WP is not free of subjectivity no matter how many rules you follow.
 * WP is not just about quoting sources. A google search and AI search can do that. WP is about synthesizing prose that is consistent with sources while being easy to consume/understand.
 * As a strict rule follower, I think you struggle to understand what I'm getting at about quality.
 * I have no problem disagreeing with others about the quality of your work. I stand behind what I've said.
 * I think that condensing the _massive_ topic of 'software' into a WP article is a tall order. Clearly, you have the best of intensions. But, I think it's worse now than it was. ... I think you plan similar re-work on other articles. I am not looking forward to that. Stevebroshar (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If it's not sourced it is encyclopedically useless and therefore automatically less "quality" by Wikipedia standards than any content that is correctly sourced. (t · c)  buidhe  17:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Quality writing is much more than sourcing. Stevebroshar (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct, but phrasing can be improved by other editors, bad sourcing can only be fixed by ripping out the entire thing and starting over again (t · c)  buidhe  15:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair-use of software definition
I made this edit to make the definition of software easy to understand. It was reverted with the explanation that it needed quotation marks b/c it is a sentence from a textbook. The use of a simple sentence in an educational environment is allowed under US copyright law under the Fair use doctrine. Timhowardriley (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I've never heard that interpretation on Wikipedia. As far as I'm aware, if it's an exact quote more than a few words it needs to be attributed to the source—otherwise it's plagiarism, if it may not be entirely clear where copyright violation begins. (t · c)  buidhe  01:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And if you just change a couple words so that it's not a direct quote, we call that Close paraphrasing. If you want to use the exact quote fine, but use quotation marks so it's clear that the words are from the source and not a Wikipedia editor. (t · c)  buidhe  03:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Software


text:
Continuity Irish Republican Army

The Continuity Irish Republican Army (Continuity IRA or CIRA), styling itself as the Irish Republican Army (Óglaigh na hÉireann ), is an Irish republican paramilitary group that aims to bring about a united Ireland. It claims to be a direct continuation of the original Irish Republican Army and the national army of the Irish Republic that was proclaimed in 1916. It emerged from a split in the Provisional IRA in 1986 but did not become active until the Provisional IRA ceasefire of 1994. It is an illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland and is designated a terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom, New Zealand and the United States. It has links with the political party Republican Sinn Féin (RSF).

Since 1994, the CIRA has waged a campaign in Northern Ireland against the British Army and the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), formerly the Royal Ulster Constabulary. This is part of a wider campaign against the British security forces by dissident republican paramilitaries. It has targeted the security forces in gun attacks and bombings, as well as with grenades, mortars and rockets. The CIRA has also carried out bombings with the goal of causing economic harm and/or disruption, as well as many punishment attacks on alleged criminals.

To date, it has been responsible for the death of one PSNI officer. The CIRA was smaller and less active than the now-defunct Real IRA, and there have been a number of splits within the organisation since the mid-2000s.

Origins
The Continuity IRA has its origins in a split in the Provisional IRA. In September 1986, the Provisional IRA held a General Army Convention (GAC), the organisation's supreme decision-making body. It was the first GAC in 16 years. The meeting, which like all such meetings was secret, was convened to discuss among other resolutions, the articles of the Provisional IRA constitution which dealt with abstentionism, specifically its opposition to the taking of seats in Dáil Éireann (the parliament of the Republic of Ireland). The GAC passed motions (by the necessary two-thirds majority) allowing members of the Provisional IRA to discuss and debate the taking of parliamentary seats, and the removal of the ban on members of the organisation from supporting any successful republican candidate who took their seat in Dáil Éireann.

The Provisional IRA convention delegates opposed to the change in the constitution claimed that the convention was gerrymandered "by the creation of new IRA organisational structures for the convention, including the combinations of Sligo-Roscommon-Longford and Wicklow-Wexford-Waterford." The only IRA body that supported this viewpoint was the outgoing IRA Executive. Those members of the outgoing Executive who opposed the change comprised a quorum. They met, dismissed those in favour of the change, and set up a new Executive. They contacted Tom Maguire, who was a commander in the old IRA and had supported the Provisionals against the Official IRA (see Irish republican legitimatism), and asked him for support. Maguire had also been contacted by supporters of Gerry Adams, then president of Sinn Féin, and a supporter of the change in the Provisional IRA constitution.

Maguire rejected Adams' supporters, supported the IRA Executive members opposed to the change, and named the new organisers the Continuity Army Council. In a 1986 statement, he rejected "the legitimacy of an Army Council styling itself the Council of the Irish Republican Army which lends support to any person or organisation styling itself as Sinn Féin and prepared to enter the partition parliament of Leinster House." In 1987, Maguire described the "Continuity Executive" as the "lawful Executive of the Irish Republican Army."

Campaign
Initially, the Continuity IRA did not reveal its existence, either in the form of press statements or paramilitary activity. Although the Garda Síochána had suspicions that the organisation existed, they were unsure of its name, labelling it the "Irish National Republican Army". On 21 January 1994, on the 75th anniversary of the First Dáil Éireann, a group of men in paramilitary dress offered a "final salute" to Tom Maguire by firing over his grave. A public statement headed "Irish Republican Publicity Bureau" signed "B Ó Ruairc, Rúnaí [Secretary]" identifying the firing party as "Volunteers of Óglaigh na hÉireann-the Irish Republican Army", and two accompanying photos were published in Saoirse Irish Freedom. Garda Special Branch detectives raided the headquarters of Republican Sinn Féin at Arran Quay, Dublin, two days after the graveside volley, seizing files and questioning staff. In February 1994 it was reported that in previous months Gardaí had found arms dumps along the Cooley Peninsula in County Louth that did not belong to the Provisional IRA, and forensics tests determined had been used for firing practice recently.

It was only after the Provisional IRA declared a ceasefire in 1994 that the Continuity IRA became active, announcing its intention to continue the campaign against British rule. The CIRA continues to oppose the Good Friday Agreement and, unlike the Provisional IRA (and the Real IRA in 1998), the CIRA has not announced a ceasefire or agreed to participate in weapons decommissioning—nor is there any evidence that it will. In the 18th Independent Monitoring Commission's report, the RIRA, the CIRA and the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) were deemed a potential future threat. The CIRA was labelled "active, dangerous and committed and... capable of a greater level of violent and other crime". Like the RIRA and RIRA splinter group Óglaigh na hÉireann, it too sought funds for expansion. It is also known to have worked with the INLA.

The CIRA has been involved in a number of bombing and shooting incidents. Targets of the CIRA have included the British military, the Northern Ireland police (both the Royal Ulster Constabulary and its successor the Police Service of Northern Ireland). Since the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 the CIRA, along with other paramilitaries opposing the ceasefire, have been involved with a countless number of punishment shootings and beatings. By 2005 the CIRA was believed to be an established presence on the island of Great Britain with the capability of launching attacks. A bomb defused in Dublin in December 2005 was believed to have been the work of the CIRA. In February 2006, the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC) blamed the CIRA for planting four bombs in Northern Ireland during the final quarter of 2005, as well as several hoax bomb warnings. The IMC also blamed the CIRA for the killings of two former CIRA members in Belfast, who had stolen CIRA weapons and established a rival organisation. The CIRA continued to be active in both planning and undertaking attacks on the PSNI. The IMC said they tried to lure police into ambushes, while they have also taken to stoning and using petrol bombs. In addition, other assaults, robbery, tiger kidnapping, extortion, fuel laundering and smuggling were undertaken by the group. The CIRA also actively took part in recruiting and training members, including disgruntled former Provisional IRA members. As a result of this continued activity the IMC said the group remained "a very serious threat".

On 10 March 2009 the CIRA claimed responsibility for the fatal shooting of a PSNI officer in Craigavon, County Armagh—the first police fatality in Northern Ireland since 1998. The officer was fatally shot by a sniper as he and a colleague investigated "suspicious activity" at a house nearby when a window was smashed by youths causing the occupant to phone the police. The PSNI officers responded to the emergency call, giving a CIRA sniper the chance to shoot and kill officer Stephen Carroll. Carroll was killed two days after the Real IRA's 2009 Massereene Barracks shooting at Massereene Barracks in Antrim. In a press interview with Republican Sinn Féin some days later, regarded by some to be the political wing of the Continuity IRA, Richard Walsh described the attacks as "acts of war".

In 2013, the Continuity IRA's 'South Down Brigade' threatened a Traveller family in Newry and published a statement in the local newspaper. There were negotiations with community representatives and the CIRA announced the threat was lifted. It was believed the threat was issued after a Traveller feud which resulted in a pipe bomb attack in Bessbrook, near Newry. The Continuity IRA is believed to be strongest in the County Fermanagh – North County Armagh area (Craigavon, Armagh and Lurgan). It is believed to be behind a number of attacks such as pipe bombings, rocket attacks, gun attacks, and the PSNI claimed it orchestrated riots a number of times to lure police officers into areas such as Kilwilkie in Lurgan and Drumbeg in Craigavon in order to attack them. It also claimed the group orchestrated a riot during a security alert in Lurgan. The alert turned out to be a hoax.

On Easter 2016, the Continuity IRA marched in paramilitary uniforms through North Lurgan, Co Armagh, without any hindrance from the PSNI who monitored the parade from a police helicopter.

In July and August 2019 the CIRA carried out attempted bomb attacks on the PSNI in Craigavon, County Armagh and Wattlebridge, County Fermanagh.

On 5 February 2020, a bomb planted by the CIRA was found by the PSNI in a lorry in Lurgan. The CIRA believed the lorry was going to be put on a North Channel ferry to Scotland in January 2020.

Claim to legitimacy
Similar to the claim put forward by the Provisional IRA after its split from the Official IRA in 1969, the Continuity IRA claims to be the legitimate continuation of the original Irish Republican Army or Óglaigh na hÉireann. This argument is based on the view that the surviving anti-Treaty members of the Second Dáil delegated their "authority" to the IRA Army Council in 1938. As further justification for this claim, Tom Maguire, one of those anti-Treaty members of the Second Dáil, issued a statement in favour of the Continuity IRA, just as he had done in 1969 in favour of the Provisionals. J. Bowyer Bell, in his The Irish Troubles, describes Maguire's opinion in 1986: "abstentionism was a basic tenet of republicanism, a moral issue of principle. Abstentionism gave the movement legitimacy, the right to wage war, to speak for a Republic all but established in the hearts of the people". Maguire's stature was such that a delegation from Gerry Adams sought his support in 1986, but was rejected.

Relationship to other organisations
These changes within the IRA were accompanied by changes on the political side and at the 1986 Sinn Féin Ard Fheis (party conference), which followed the IRA Convention, the party's policy of abstentionism, which forbade Sinn Féin elected representatives from taking seats in the Oireachtas, the parliament of the Republic, was dropped. On 2 November, the 628 delegates present cast their votes, the result being 429 to 161. The traditionalists, having lost at both conventions, walked out of the Mansion House, met that evening at the West County Hotel, and reformed as Republican Sinn Féin (RSF).

According to a report in the Cork Examiner, the Continuity IRA's first chief of staff was Dáithí Ó Conaill, who also served as the first chairman of RSF from 1986 to 1987. The Continuity IRA and RSF perceive themselves as forming a "true" Republican Movement.

Structure and status
The leadership of the Continuity IRA is believed to be based in the provinces of Munster and Ulster. It was alleged that its chief of staff was a Limerick man and that a number of other key members were from that county, until their expulsion. Dáithí Ó Conaill was the first chief of staff until 1991. In 2004 the United States (US) government believed the Continuity IRA consisted of fewer than fifty hardcore activists. In 2005, Irish Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform Michael McDowell told Dáil Éireann that the organisation had a maximum of 150 members.

The CIRA is an illegal organisation under UK (section 11(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000) and ROI law due to the use of 'IRA' in the group's name, in a situation analogous to that of the Real Irish Republican Army (RIRA). Membership of the organisation is punishable by a sentence of up to ten years imprisonment under UK law. On 31 May 2001 Dermot Gannon became the first person to be convicted of membership of the CIRA solely on the word of a Garda Síochána chief superintendent. On 13 July 2004, the US government designated the CIRA as a 'Foreign Terrorist Organization'. This made it illegal for Americans to provide material support to the CIRA, requires US financial institutions to block the group's assets and denies alleged CIRA members visas into the US.

External aid and arsenal
The US government suspects the Continuity IRA of having received funds and arms from supporters in the United States. Security sources in Ireland have expressed the suspicion that, in co-operation with the RIRA, the Continuity IRA may have acquired arms and materiel from the Balkans. They also suspect that the Continuity IRA arsenal contains some weapons that were taken from Provisional IRA arms dumps, including a few dozen rifles, machine guns, and pistols; a small amount of the explosive Semtex; and a few dozen detonators.

Internal tension and splits
In 2005, several members of the CIRA, who were serving prison sentences in Portlaoise Prison for paramilitary activity, left the organisation. Some transferred to the INLA landing of the prison, but the majority of those who left are now independent and on E4 landing. The remaining CIRA prisoners have moved to D Wing. Supporters of the Continuity IRA leadership claim that this resulted from an internal disagreement, which although brought to a conclusion, was followed by some people leaving the organisation anyway. Supporters of the disaffected members established the Concerned Group for Republican Prisoners. Most of those who had left went back to the CIRA, or dissociated themselves from the CGRP, which is now defunct.

In February 2006, the Independent Monitoring Commission claimed in a report on paramilitary activity that two groups, styling themselves as "Óglaigh na hÉireann" and "Saoirse na hÉireann", had been formed after a split in the Continuity IRA either in early 2006 or late 2005. The Óglaigh na hÉireann group was responsible for a number of pipe bomb attacks on the PSNI, bomb hoaxes, and robberies, the IMC also claimed the organisation was responsible for the killing of Andrew Burns on 12 February 2008 and was seeking to recruit former members of the RIRA. The Saoirse na hÉireann (SNH) group was composed of "disaffected and largely young republicans" and was responsible for a number of bomb hoaxes, two of which took place in September 2006. It was thought to have operated largely in republican areas of Belfast. The groups had apparently ceased operations by early 2009.

In 2007, the Continuity IRA was responsible for shooting dead two of its members who had left and attempted to create their own organisation. Upon leaving the CIRA, they had allegedly taken a number of guns with them. The Continuity IRA is believed by Gardaí to have been involved in a number of gangland killings in Dublin and Limerick.

In July 2010, members of a "militant Northern-based faction within the CIRA" led by a well-known member from south Londonderry claimed to have overthrown the leadership of the organisation. They also claimed that an Army Convention representing "95 per cent of volunteers" had unanimously elected a new 12-member Army Executive, which in turn appointed a new seven-member Army Council. The moves came as a result of dissatisfication with the southern-based leadership and the apparent winding-down of military operations. A senior source from RSF said: "We would see them [the purported new leadership] as just another splinter group that has broken away." This organisation is referred to as the Real CIRA.

In June 2011 CIRA member Liam Kenny was murdered, allegedly by drug dealers, at his home in Clondalkin, West Dublin. On 28 November 2011 an innocent man was mistakenly shot dead in retaliation for the murder of Liam Kenny. Limerick Real IRA volunteer Rose Lynch pleaded guilty to this murder at the Special Criminal Court and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

In July 2012 the CIRA announced it had a new leadership after expelling members who had been working against the organisation.

In April 2014 a former leading member of the Belfast Continuity IRA who had been expelled from the organisation, Tommy Crossan, was shot dead.

In popular culture
The CIRA are depicted in RTÉ's TV series crime drama Love/Hate.

title: Continuity Irish Republican Army


text:
Congo

Congo may refer to:

 * Congo River, in central Africa
 * Congo Basin, the sedimentary basin of the river
 * Democratic Republic of the Congo, the larger country to the southeast, sometimes referred to as "Congo-Kinshasa"
 * Republic of the Congo, the smaller country to the northwest, sometimes referred to as "Congo-Brazzaville"

Africa

 * Congo Canyon, a submarine canyon
 * Kingdom of Kongo (1390–1914)
 * Kingdom of Kakongo (15th century–1885)
 * Congo Free State (1885–1908)
 * Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville) or Congo-Léopoldville (1960–1971)
 * People's Republic of the Congo (1969–1992)
 * Kongo, Ghana, town in Ghana
 * Kongo, Liberia, small town in Liberia

Former colonies

 * Belgian Congo (modern-day Democratic Republic of the Congo)
 * French Congo (modern-day Republic of the Congo)
 * Portuguese Congo (modern-day Kabinda, Angola)

United States

 * Congo, Alabama
 * Congo, Missouri
 * Congo, Pennsylvania
 * Congo, West Virginia
 * Congo Cay, United States Virgin Islands

Elsewhere

 * Congo, New South Wales, Australia
 * Congo, Paraíba, Brazil
 * Congo River (disambiguation), a list of rivers with the name
 * Congo Town, a village in Andros Island, Bahamas
 * Congo Volcano or Congo Mountain, in Costa Rica

Languages and ethnic groups

 * Niger–Congo languages
 * Kongo languages
 * Kongo language, a Bantu language
 * Kongo people, a Bantu ethnic group

Music

 * The Congos, a reggae vocal group from Jamaica
 * Congo (album), 1979
 * "Congo" (song), by Genesis, 1997
 * Kongos (band), a South African American band

Other uses in arts, entertainment, and media

 * Congo (novel), a 1980 novel by Michael Crichton
 * Congo (film), a 1995 film based on the novel
 * Congo (chess variant), using a 7×7 gameboard
 * Congo (pinball), a 1995 pinball machine
 * Congo (TV series), a 2001 nature documentary
 * Congo – A Political Tragedy, a 2018 documentary film
 * Congo: The Epic History of a People, a 2010 book by David van Reybrouck
 * Kongo (1932 film), an American film

People

 * Edwin Congo (born 1976), Colombian footballer
 * Louis Congo (fl. 1725), emancipated slave appointed public executioner of French Louisiana
 * Richard Congo (born 1961), American basketball player
 * Cheick Kongo (born 1975), French mixed martial arts fighter and kickboxer
 * John Kongos (born 1945), South African singer and songwriter
 * Kongo Kong, wrestling ring name of Steven Wilson (born 1979)

Other uses

 * Congo (chimpanzee), a chimpanzee who learned how to draw and paint
 * Congo (loa), a voodoo spirit
 * Congo Airways, the flag carrier of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
 * Congo Airlines, a former airline
 * HMS Congo (1816), a Royal Navy ship
 * Conference of NGOs (CoNGO), a membership association of non-governmental organizations
 * Kongo University, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
 * Congo Brands, the manufacturer of Prime (drink)

title: Congo


text:
Copenhagen interpretation

The Copenhagen interpretation is a collection of views about the meaning of quantum mechanics, stemming from the work of Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, and others. While "Copenhagen" refers to the Danish city, the use as an "interpretation" was apparently coined by Heisenberg during the 1950s to refer to ideas developed in the 1925–1927 period, glossing over his disagreements with Bohr. Consequently, there is no definitive historical statement of what the interpretation entails.

Features common across versions of the Copenhagen interpretation include the idea that quantum mechanics is intrinsically indeterministic, with probabilities calculated using the Born rule, and the principle of complementarity, which states that objects have certain pairs of complementary properties that cannot all be observed or measured simultaneously. Moreover, the act of "observing" or "measuring" an object is irreversible, and no truth can be attributed to an object except according to the results of its measurement (that is, the Copenhagen interpretation rejects counterfactual definiteness). Copenhagen-type interpretations hold that quantum descriptions are objective, in that they are independent of physicists' personal beliefs and other arbitrary mental factors.

Over the years, there have been many objections to aspects of Copenhagen-type interpretations, including the discontinuous and stochastic nature of the "observation" or "measurement" process, the difficulty of defining what might count as a measuring device, and the seeming reliance upon classical physics in describing such devices. Still, including all the variations, the interpretation remains one of the most commonly taught.

Background
Starting in 1900, investigations into atomic and subatomic phenomena forced a revision to the basic concepts of classical physics. However, it was not until a quarter-century had elapsed that the revision reached the status of a coherent theory. During the intervening period, now known as the time of the "old quantum theory", physicists worked with approximations and heuristic corrections to classical physics. Notable results from this period include Max Planck's calculation of the blackbody radiation spectrum, Albert Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect, Einstein and Peter Debye's work on the specific heat of solids, Niels Bohr and Hendrika Johanna van Leeuwen's proof that classical physics cannot account for diamagnetism, Bohr's model of the hydrogen atom and Arnold Sommerfeld's extension of the Bohr model to include relativistic effects. From 1922 through 1925, this method of heuristic corrections encountered increasing difficulties; for example, the Bohr–Sommerfeld model could not be extended from hydrogen to the next simplest case, the helium atom.

The transition from the old quantum theory to full-fledged quantum physics began in 1925, when Werner Heisenberg presented a treatment of electron behavior based on discussing only "observable" quantities, meaning to Heisenberg the frequencies of light that atoms absorbed and emitted. Max Born then realized that in Heisenberg's theory, the classical variables of position and momentum would instead be represented by matrices, mathematical objects that can be multiplied together like numbers with the crucial difference that the order of multiplication matters. Erwin Schrödinger presented an equation that treated the electron as a wave, and Born discovered that the way to successfully interpret the wave function that appeared in the Schrödinger equation was as a tool for calculating probabilities.

Quantum mechanics cannot easily be reconciled with everyday language and observation, and has often seemed counter-intuitive to physicists, including its inventors. The ideas grouped together as the Copenhagen interpretation suggest a way to think about how the mathematics of quantum theory relates to physical reality.

Origin and use of the term
The 'Copenhagen' part of the term refers to the city of Copenhagen in Denmark. During the mid-1920s, Heisenberg had been an assistant to Bohr at his institute in Copenhagen. Together they helped originate quantum mechanical theory. At the 1927 Solvay Conference, a dual talk by Max Born and Heisenberg declared "we consider quantum mechanics to be a closed theory, whose fundamental physical and mathematical assumptions are no longer susceptible of any modification." In 1929, Heisenberg gave a series of invited lectures at the University of Chicago explaining the new field of quantum mechanics. The lectures then served as the basis for his textbook, The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory, published in 1930. In the book's preface, Heisenberg wrote:

"On the whole, the book contains nothing that is not to be found in previous publications, particularly in the investigations of Bohr. The purpose of the book seems to me to be fulfilled if it contributes somewhat to the diffusion of that 'Kopenhagener Geist der Quantentheorie' [Copenhagen spirit of quantum theory] if I may so express myself, which has directed the entire development of modern atomic physics."

The term 'Copenhagen interpretation' suggests something more than just a spirit, such as some definite set of rules for interpreting the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, presumably dating back to the 1920s. However, no such text exists, and the writings of Bohr and Heisenberg contradict each other on several important issues. It appears that the particular term, with its more definite sense, was coined by Heisenberg around 1955, while criticizing alternative "interpretations" (e.g., David Bohm's ) that had been developed. Lectures with the titles 'The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory' and 'Criticisms and Counterproposals to the Copenhagen Interpretation', that Heisenberg delivered in 1955, are reprinted in the collection Physics and Philosophy. Before the book was released for sale, Heisenberg privately expressed regret for having used the term, due to its suggestion of the existence of other interpretations, that he considered to be "nonsense". In a 1960 review of Heisenberg's book, Bohr's close collaborator Léon Rosenfeld called the term an "ambiguous expression" and suggested it be discarded. However, this did not come to pass, and the term entered widespread use.

Principles
There is no uniquely definitive statement of the Copenhagen interpretation. The term encompasses the views developed by a number of scientists and philosophers during the second quarter of the 20th century. This lack of a single, authoritative source that establishes the Copenhagen interpretation is one difficulty with discussing it; another complication is that the philosophical background familiar to Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, and contemporaries is much less so to physicists and even philosophers of physics in more recent times. Bohr and Heisenberg never totally agreed on how to understand the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, and Bohr distanced himself from what he considered Heisenberg's more subjective interpretation. Bohr offered an interpretation that is independent of a subjective observer, or measurement, or collapse; instead, an "irreversible" or effectively irreversible process causes the decay of quantum coherence which imparts the classical behavior of "observation" or "measurement".

Different commentators and researchers have associated various ideas with the term. Asher Peres remarked that very different, sometimes opposite, views are presented as "the Copenhagen interpretation" by different authors. N. David Mermin coined the phrase "Shut up and calculate!" to summarize Copenhagen-type views, a saying often misattributed to Richard Feynman and which Mermin later found insufficiently nuanced. Mermin described the Copenhagen interpretation as coming in different "versions", "varieties", or "flavors".

Some basic principles generally accepted as part of the interpretation include the following:
 * 1) Quantum mechanics is intrinsically indeterministic.
 * 2) The correspondence principle: in the appropriate limit, quantum theory comes to resemble classical physics and reproduces the classical predictions.
 * 3) The Born rule: the wave function of a system yields probabilities for the outcomes of measurements upon that system.
 * 4) Complementarity: certain properties cannot be jointly defined for the same system at the same time. In order to talk about a specific property of a system, that system must be considered within the context of a specific laboratory arrangement. Observable quantities corresponding to mutually exclusive laboratory arrangements cannot be predicted together, but considering multiple such mutually exclusive experiments is necessary to characterize a system.

Hans Primas and Roland Omnès give a more detailed breakdown that, in addition to the above, includes the following:
 * 1) Quantum physics applies to individual objects. The probabilities computed by the Born rule do not require an ensemble or collection of "identically prepared" systems to understand.
 * 2) The results provided by measuring devices are essentially classical, and should be described in ordinary language.  This was particularly emphasized by Bohr, and was accepted by Heisenberg.
 * 3) Per the above point, the device used to observe a system must be described in classical language, while the system under observation is treated in quantum terms. This is a particularly subtle issue for which Bohr and Heisenberg came to differing conclusions. According to Heisenberg, the boundary between classical and quantum can be shifted in either direction at the observer's discretion. That is, the observer has the freedom to move what would become known as the "Heisenberg cut" without changing any physically meaningful predictions.  On the other hand, Bohr argued both systems are quantum in principle, and the object-instrument distinction (the "cut") is dictated by the experimental arrangement. For Bohr, the "cut" was not a change in the dynamical laws that govern the systems in question, but a change in the language applied to them.
 * 4) During an observation, the system must interact with a laboratory device. When that device makes a measurement, the wave function of the system collapses, irreversibly reducing to an eigenstate of the observable that is registered. The result of this process is a tangible record of the event, made by a potentiality becoming an actuality.
 * 5) Statements about measurements that are not actually made do not have meaning. For example, there is no meaning to the statement that a photon traversed the upper path of a Mach–Zehnder interferometer unless the interferometer were actually built in such a way that the path taken by the photon is detected and registered.
 * 6) Wave functions are objective, in that they do not depend upon personal opinions of individual physicists or other such arbitrary influences.

There are some fundamental agreements and disagreements between the views of Bohr and Heisenberg. For example, Heisenberg emphasized a sharp "cut" between the observer (or the instrument) and the system being observed, while Bohr offered an interpretation that is independent of a subjective observer or measurement or collapse, which relies on an "irreversible" or effectively irreversible process, which could take place within the quantum system.

Another issue of importance where Bohr and Heisenberg disagreed is wave–particle duality. Bohr maintained that the distinction between a wave view and a particle view was defined by a distinction between experimental setups, whereas Heisenberg held that it was defined by the possibility of viewing the mathematical formulas as referring to waves or particles. Bohr thought that a particular experimental setup would display either a wave picture or a particle picture, but not both. Heisenberg thought that every mathematical formulation was capable of both wave and particle interpretations.

Nature of the wave function
A wave function is a mathematical entity that provides a probability distribution for the outcomes of each possible measurement on a system. Knowledge of the wave function together with the rules for the system's evolution in time exhausts all that can be predicted about the system's behavior. Generally, Copenhagen-type interpretations deny that the wave function provides a directly apprehensible image of an ordinary material body or a discernible component of some such, or anything more than a theoretical concept.

Probabilities via the Born rule
The Born rule is essential to the Copenhagen interpretation. Formulated by Max Born in 1926, it gives the probability that a measurement of a quantum system will yield a given result. In its simplest form, it states that the probability density of finding a particle at a given point, when measured, is proportional to the square of the magnitude of the particle's wave function at that point.

Collapse
The concept of wave function collapse postulates that the wave function of a system can change suddenly and discontinuously upon measurement. Prior to a measurement, a wave function involves the various probabilities for the different potential outcomes of that measurement. But when the apparatus registers one of those outcomes, no traces of the others linger. Since Bohr did not view the wavefunction as something physical, he never talks about "collapse". Nevertheless, many physicists and philosophers associate collapse with the Copenhagen interpretation.

Heisenberg spoke of the wave function as representing available knowledge of a system, and did not use the term "collapse", but instead termed it "reduction" of the wave function to a new state representing the change in available knowledge which occurs once a particular phenomenon is registered by the apparatus.

Role of the observer
Because they assert that the existence of an observed value depends upon the intercession of the observer, Copenhagen-type interpretations are sometimes called "subjective". All of the original Copenhagen protagonists considered the process of observation as mechanical and independent of the individuality of the observer. Wolfgang Pauli, for example, insisted that measurement results could be obtained and recorded by "objective registering apparatus". As Heisenberg wrote,

"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the 'possible' to the 'actual,' is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory."

In the 1970s and 1980s, the theory of decoherence helped to explain the appearance of quasi-classical realities emerging from quantum theory, but was insufficient to provide a technical explanation for the apparent wave function collapse.

Completion by hidden variables?
In metaphysical terms, the Copenhagen interpretation views quantum mechanics as providing knowledge of phenomena, but not as pointing to 'really existing objects', which it regards as residues of ordinary intuition. This makes it an epistemic theory. This may be contrasted with Einstein's view, that physics should look for 'really existing objects', making itself an ontic theory.

The metaphysical question is sometimes asked: "Could quantum mechanics be extended by adding so-called "hidden variables" to the mathematical formalism, to convert it from an epistemic to an ontic theory?" The Copenhagen interpretation answers this with a strong 'No'. It is sometimes alleged, for example by J.S. Bell, that Einstein opposed the Copenhagen interpretation because he believed that the answer to that question of "hidden variables" was "yes". By contrast, Max Jammer writes "Einstein never proposed a hidden variable theory." Einstein explored the possibility of a hidden variable theory, and wrote a paper describing his exploration, but withdrew it from publication because he felt it was faulty.

Acceptance among physicists
During the 1930s and 1940s, views about quantum mechanics attributed to Bohr and emphasizing complementarity became commonplace among physicists. Textbooks of the time generally maintained the principle that the numerical value of a physical quantity is not meaningful or does not exist until it is measured. Prominent physicists associated with Copenhagen-type interpretations have included Lev Landau, Wolfgang Pauli, Rudolf Peierls, Asher Peres, Léon Rosenfeld, and Ray Streater.

Throughout much of the 20th century, the Copenhagen tradition had overwhelming acceptance among physicists. According to a very informal poll (some people voted for multiple interpretations) conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 1997, the Copenhagen interpretation remained the most widely accepted label that physicists applied to their own views. A similar result was found in a poll conducted in 2011.

Consequences
The nature of the Copenhagen interpretation is exposed by considering a number of experiments and paradoxes.

Schrödinger's cat
This thought experiment highlights the implications that accepting uncertainty at the microscopic level has on macroscopic objects. A cat is put in a sealed box, with its life or death made dependent on the state of a subatomic particle. Thus a description of the cat during the course of the experiment—having been entangled with the state of a subatomic particle—becomes a "blur" of "living and dead cat." But this cannot be accurate because it implies the cat is actually both dead and alive until the box is opened to check on it. But the cat, if it survives, will only remember being alive. Schrödinger resists "so naively accepting as valid a 'blurred model' for representing reality." How can the cat be both alive and dead?

In Copenhagen-type views, the wave function reflects our knowledge of the system. The wave function $$(|\text{dead}\rangle + |\text{alive}\rangle)/\sqrt 2$$ means that, once the cat is observed, there is a 50% chance it will be dead, and 50% chance it will be alive. (Some versions of the Copenhagen interpretation reject the idea that a wave function can be assigned to a physical system that meets the everyday definition of "cat"; in this view, the correct quantum-mechanical description of the cat-and-particle system must include a superselection rule. )

Wigner's friend
"Wigner's friend" is a thought experiment intended to make that of Schrödinger's cat more striking by involving two conscious beings, traditionally known as Wigner and his friend. (In more recent literature, they may also be known as Alice and Bob, per the convention of describing protocols in information theory. ) Wigner puts his friend in with the cat. The external observer believes the system is in state $$(|\text{dead}\rangle + |\text{alive}\rangle)/\sqrt 2$$. However, his friend is convinced that the cat is alive, i.e. for him, the cat is in the state $$|\text{alive}\rangle$$. How can Wigner and his friend see different wave functions?

In a Heisenbergian view, the answer depends on the positioning of Heisenberg cut, which can be placed arbitrarily (at least according to Heisenberg, though not to Bohr ). If Wigner's friend is positioned on the same side of the cut as the external observer, his measurements collapse the wave function for both observers. If he is positioned on the cat's side, his interaction with the cat is not considered a measurement. Different Copenhagen-type interpretations take different positions as to whether observers can be placed on the quantum side of the cut.

Double-slit experiment
In the basic version of this experiment, a light source, such as a laser beam, illuminates a plate pierced by two parallel slits, and the light passing through the slits is observed on a screen behind the plate. The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through the two slits to interfere, producing bright and dark bands on the screen – a result that would not be expected if light consisted of classical particles. However, the light is always found to be absorbed at the screen at discrete points, as individual particles (not waves); the interference pattern appears via the varying density of these particle hits on the screen. Furthermore, versions of the experiment that include detectors at the slits find that each detected photon passes through one slit (as would a classical particle), and not through both slits (as would a wave). Such experiments demonstrate that particles do not form the interference pattern if one detects which slit they pass through.

According to Bohr's complementarity principle, light is neither a wave nor a stream of particles. A particular experiment can demonstrate particle behavior (passing through a definite slit) or wave behavior (interference), but not both at the same time.

The same experiment has been performed for light, electrons, atoms, and molecules. The extremely small de Broglie wavelength of objects with larger mass makes experiments increasingly difficult, but in general quantum mechanics considers all matter as possessing both particle and wave behaviors.

Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox
This thought experiment involves a pair of particles prepared in what later authors would refer to as an entangled state. In a 1935 paper, Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen pointed out that, in this state, if the position of the first particle were measured, the result of measuring the position of the second particle could be predicted. If instead the momentum of the first particle were measured, then the result of measuring the momentum of the second particle could be predicted. They argued that no action taken on the first particle could instantaneously affect the other, since this would involve information being transmitted faster than light, which is forbidden by the theory of relativity. They invoked a principle, later known as the "Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) criterion of reality", positing that, "If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity". From this, they inferred that the second particle must have a definite value of position and of momentum prior to either being measured.

Bohr's response to the EPR paper was published in the Physical Review later that same year. He argued that EPR had reasoned fallaciously. Because measurements of position and of momentum are complementary, making the choice to measure one excludes the possibility of measuring the other. Consequently, a fact deduced regarding one arrangement of laboratory apparatus could not be combined with a fact deduced by means of the other, and so, the inference of predetermined position and momentum values for the second particle was not valid. Bohr concluded that EPR's "arguments do not justify their conclusion that the quantum description turns out to be essentially incomplete."

Incompleteness and indeterminism
Einstein was an early and persistent supporter of objective reality. Bohr and Heisenberg advanced the position that no physical property could be understood without an act of measurement, while Einstein refused to accept this. Abraham Pais recalled a walk with Einstein when the two discussed quantum mechanics: "Einstein suddenly stopped, turned to me and asked whether I really believed that the moon exists only when I look at it." While Einstein did not doubt that quantum mechanics was a correct physical theory in that it gave correct predictions, he maintained that it could not be a complete theory. The most famous product of his efforts to argue the incompleteness of quantum theory is the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen thought experiment, which was intended to show that physical properties like position and momentum have values even if not measured. The argument of EPR was not generally persuasive to other physicists.

Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, while participating in a colloquium at Cambridge, denied that the Copenhagen interpretation asserted "What cannot be observed does not exist". Instead, he suggested that the Copenhagen interpretation follows the principle "What is observed certainly exists; about what is not observed we are still free to make suitable assumptions. We use that freedom to avoid paradoxes."

Einstein was likewise dissatisfied with the indeterminism of quantum theory. Regarding the possibility of randomness in nature, Einstein said that he was "convinced that He [God] does not throw dice." Bohr, in response, reputedly said that "it cannot be for us to tell God, how he is to run the world".

The Heisenberg cut
Much criticism of Copenhagen-type interpretations has focused on the need for a classical domain where observers or measuring devices can reside, and the imprecision of how the boundary between quantum and classical might be defined. This boundary came to be termed the Heisenberg cut (while John Bell derisively called it the "shifty split" ). As typically portrayed, Copenhagen-type interpretations involve two different kinds of time evolution for wave functions, the deterministic flow according to the Schrödinger equation and the probabilistic jump during measurement, without a clear criterion for when each kind applies. Why should these two different processes exist, when physicists and laboratory equipment are made of the same matter as the rest of the universe? And if there is somehow a split, where should it be placed? Steven Weinberg writes that the traditional presentation gives "no way to locate the boundary between the realms in which [...] quantum mechanics does or does not apply."

The problem of thinking in terms of classical measurements of a quantum system becomes particularly acute in the field of quantum cosmology, where the quantum system is the universe. How does an observer stand outside the universe in order to measure it, and who was there to observe the universe in its earliest stages? Advocates of Copenhagen-type interpretations have disputed the seriousness of these objections. Rudolf Peierls noted that "the observer does not have to be contemporaneous with the event"; for example, we study the early universe through the cosmic microwave background, and we can apply quantum mechanics to that just as well as to any electromagnetic field. Likewise, Asher Peres argued that physicists are, conceptually, outside those degrees of freedom that cosmology studies, and applying quantum mechanics to the radius of the universe while neglecting the physicists in it is no different from quantizing the electric current in a superconductor while neglecting the atomic-level details.

"You may object that there is only one universe, but likewise there is only one SQUID in my laboratory."

Alternatives
A large number of alternative interpretations have appeared, sharing some aspects of the Copenhagen interpretation while providing alternatives to other aspects. The ensemble interpretation is similar; it offers an interpretation of the wave function, but not for single particles. The consistent histories interpretation advertises itself as "Copenhagen done right". More recently, interpretations inspired by quantum information theory like QBism and relational quantum mechanics have appeared. Experts on quantum foundational issues continue to favor the Copenhagen interpretation over other alternatives. Physicists who have suggested that the Copenhagen tradition needs to be built upon or extended include Rudolf Haag and Anton Zeilinger.

Under realism and determinism, if the wave function is regarded as ontologically real, and collapse is entirely rejected, a many-worlds interpretation results. If wave function collapse is regarded as ontologically real as well, an objective collapse theory is obtained. Bohmian mechanics shows that it is possible to reformulate quantum mechanics to make it deterministic, at the price of making it explicitly nonlocal. It attributes not only a wave function to a physical system, but in addition a real position, that evolves deterministically under a nonlocal guiding equation. The evolution of a physical system is given at all times by the Schrödinger equation together with the guiding equation; there is never a collapse of the wave function. The transactional interpretation is also explicitly nonlocal.

Some physicists espoused views in the "Copenhagen spirit" and then went on to advocate other interpretations. For example, David Bohm and Alfred Landé both wrote textbooks that put forth ideas in the Bohr–Heisenberg tradition, and later promoted nonlocal hidden variables and an ensemble interpretation respectively. John Archibald Wheeler began his career as an "apostle of Niels Bohr"; he then supervised the PhD thesis of Hugh Everett that proposed the many-worlds interpretation. After supporting Everett's work for several years, he began to distance himself from the many-worlds interpretation in the 1970s. Late in life, he wrote that while the Copenhagen interpretation might fairly be called "the fog from the north", it "remains the best interpretation of the quantum that we have".

Other physicists, while influenced by the Copenhagen tradition, have expressed frustration at how it took the mathematical formalism of quantum theory as given, rather than trying to understand how it might arise from something more fundamental. (E. T. Jaynes described the mathematical formalism of quantum physics as "a peculiar mixture describing in part realities of Nature, in part incomplete human information about Nature—all scrambled up together by Heisenberg and Bohr into an omelette that nobody has seen how to unscramble". ) This dissatisfaction has motivated new interpretative variants as well as technical work in quantum foundations.

title: Copenhagen interpretation