text:
Wikipedia talk:Patent nonsense

Renaming: patent nonsense -> obvious nonsense
I really know what is meant, but due to nonsense patents being around so much I always get it wrong at first each single encounter of the term ... Are there others with the same sentiment? -- Tomdo08 (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For historical reasons, I oppose moving the page; this is a reference to one of the earliest edits to Wikipedia, especially because the term "patent nonsense" is used together with "brilliant prose."  In fact, it appears that the term "brilliant prose" refered to what are now featured articles; see [ historical revisions of the Featured articles page].  D RAGON 280  ( T ALK / C ONTRIBS ) 07:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tomdo08. We shouldn't keep an ambiguous term for purely historical reasons. WP:PATENT really shouldn't redirect here, but changing it, e.g., to Verifiability would break existing uses. (Although, since there only appear to be eight such links, they could feasibly be changed.) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Patent nonsense" is a well-established expression in our language. Any confusion is immediately cleared up on reading the lede. Secondarily, it creates havoc when WP policies are renamed; it's difficult for anyone to master the policy spaghetti we necessarily generate here, and changing our jargon on fairly cosmetic grounds means users have to give effort to relearning something without improving overall comprehension. Laodah 07:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation
The WP:PATENT short-cut links here. I want to put a hatnote on this page to disambiguate with patent (legal) meaning help i.e. link to the essay Reliable_source_examples. Any objections? Widefox ; talk 13:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. It should also help disambiguate the subcase of the nonsense patents above. Widefox ; talk 12:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * After a bit of research, I understand patent nonsense has here an established meaning, but as a novice here I expected it to mean something like nonsense in patent (legal protection of intellectual right) material (which I have sometimes encountered).
 * For novices like I was when I first came here, a concise explanation of that meaning would be welcome (but I can't provide, or propose, it yet, because here I mostly see what it is not). For the first idea, maybe to be added (possibly to the beginning of the section Not to be confused with ...) something like "not to be confused with nonsense in patents" (see here the rest after the first) "or patented nonsense" (a lot of mumbo-jumbo in publicity industries seems to be copyrighted and protected), which is both related, but far form the meaning here - until something better can be written here. Another addition of "what it is not" is not what I'd like to see; hopefully someone else shall have some better idea. --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't some obscure, Wikipedia originated definition of the phrase "patent nonsense". This is the accepted definition of the phrase in the language as a whole. "Patent nonsense" meaning "obvious nonsense" has been part of the English language for far, FAR longer than the internet has been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khajidha (talk • contribs) 16:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding PN to existing articles.
The way that this page is currently written excludes instructions on what to do if a user adds patent nonsense to an existing article. I would think that in such cases the user should be warned with the uw-test series of templates and that such instances should be reverted (undone or rolled back). Could someone add this to this guideline with easy to read and understand language? I'm not as good at wording things like this as I thought I was based on my experiences attempting to modify wordings on other guidelines. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding random characters to the middle of an article is just garden-variety vandalism. You handle it like you would any other edit.  The only time patent nonsense requires special handling is when the whole page needs to be deleted.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 * I came here looking for tips on what to do if a user adds an entire section to an existing page, and I agree that this guideline is not clear on what to do in that case.
 * I added a few words about UNDO. What else should we say about undoing nonsense added to normal, no-nonsense articles? What other parts of this guideline can we trim down to avoid instruction creep? --DavidCary (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant prose=featured article?
Something rather confusing about this project page is that brilliant prose is linked to Featured article. First of all, "brilliant prose" is made to sound like a popularly used phrase to describe good articles. Second of all, are "brilliant prose"s only featured articles? Anyway I find this nomenclature weird and the Wikilinking even more baffling. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a hangover from the early days of Wikipedia, when WP:Featured Articles was called 'Brilliant prose'. It was renamed back in 2004 for precisely the reasons you've identified. The link here should really be renamed as well, since Featured Articles do not necessarily contain 'brilliant prose' (whatever that peacock term is meant to mean, anyway). Robofish (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit request re: Featured article link
In the section "Dealing with patent nonsense", the first bulleted item is "Replace it with a well-written article." with the "well-written article" linking to WP:Featured articles. I don't think anyone is going to replace a patent nonsense article with a featured article (not off the bat, anyway) and would like to request that the link either be removed or (better) replaced with a link to WP:How to write a great article. This seems more in keeping with dealing with patent nonsense and encouraging editors to replace it with non-nonsense. KDS4444 (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. I find it amusing that someone could have a WP:COI in patent nonsense. Keira  1996  06:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As do I, Keira1996, but it has been suggested that I not attempt to directly edit any policy or guideline as I have disclosed participating in paid editing and am now considered to have a conflict of interest with regard to pretty much anything, including patent nonsense... as nonsensical as that may sound to both of us! Such are the costs of disclosure, it turns out. KDS4444 (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm aware, and I heavily pity your situation there. I understand the rationale behind the decision, though... I'm going to work through the quicker portions of the COI requests backlog over the next few days, so hopefully your editing won't be too hindered by the waits. Keira  1996  05:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The Not to be confused with ... section
How could anyone confuse copyright violations, plagiarism, defamation, or underlinked content with patent nonsense? They do not resemble patent nonsense. If we are going to list everything that is not patent nonsense—as opposed to problems that one might plausibly confuse with patent nonsense—this section should grow to approximately the size of Wikipedia. In my opinion, we should remove these items because they detract from the guideline.—Finell 21:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It maybe could be that the person in question had no idea of such material being copyrighted. But yes, i do agree it cannot be some sort of nonsense, unless in some extreme cases — Creesperings (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)   (reformatted  :-)  SquisherDa (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC))
 * It seems sensible to clarify tht "patent nonsense" isn’t a catch-all bucket for any-/everything an editor disapproves of? And maybe editors reading the piece occasionally confuse "patent nonsense" with "patently unsuitable"? and condemn (eg) underlinked articles under the wrong heading?  The admins on New pages patrol would be the ones to know, I guess.  But the point about diverting from / diluting the guideline topic seems probably important.  And of the various listed types of duff copy, copyvio is probably the least likely to give classification problems like that - and therefore a rather baffling first item, as at present, in the list.  (That bullet is also least clear on what the editor should do in such cases.)  So I’m moving that bullet to the end.  - SquisherDa (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems sensible to clarify tht "patent nonsense" isn’t a catch-all bucket for any-/everything an editor disapproves of? And maybe editors reading the piece occasionally confuse "patent nonsense" with "patently unsuitable"? and condemn (eg) underlinked articles under the wrong heading?  The admins on New pages patrol would be the ones to know, I guess.  But the point about diverting from / diluting the guideline topic seems probably important.  And of the various listed types of duff copy, copyvio is probably the least likely to give classification problems like that - and therefore a rather baffling first item, as at present, in the list.  (That bullet is also least clear on what the editor should do in such cases.)  So I’m moving that bullet to the end.  - SquisherDa (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems sensible to clarify tht "patent nonsense" isn’t a catch-all bucket for any-/everything an editor disapproves of? And maybe editors reading the piece occasionally confuse "patent nonsense" with "patently unsuitable"? and condemn (eg) underlinked articles under the wrong heading?  The admins on New pages patrol would be the ones to know, I guess.  But the point about diverting from / diluting the guideline topic seems probably important.  And of the various listed types of duff copy, copyvio is probably the least likely to give classification problems like that - and therefore a rather baffling first item, as at present, in the list.  (That bullet is also least clear on what the editor should do in such cases.)  So I’m moving that bullet to the end.  - SquisherDa (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

cos as presently positioned, at the top, it must be unnecessarily baffling. - SquisherDa (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

 * We've had problems with people calling any kind of unwanted content "patent nonsense". It's an incentives thing:  if I say "Ugh, that's stupid", then all I can do is revert it.  But if I say "Ugh, that's patent nonsense", then I can tag it as db-nonsense, and maybe an admin will delete it, which is far more satisfying, and then I can claim I'm an important Defender of the Wiki™ who protects the public from people who make test edits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Super crazy idea: demote to info page
Is this really a guideline? I feel like this is already covered by WP:G1 for entire articles, and Vandalism / Disruptive editing for individual edits. "Demoting" would decrease WP:CREEP, but I feel like there is something I am missing here. Thoughts / comments / reasons why this is a WP:BADIDEA? HouseBlastertalk 02:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is one of the oldest content guidelines. I agree it may seem obvious. However, I am uncomfortable with the idea of demoting something simply because it is obvious. Is there a reason why demoting this would help the encyclopedia? I don't think proposing to demote things reduces creep - I think that is actually increasing creep because we're spending time quibbling on distinctions without differences. Sure, in the end you're left with arguably less creep, but you've increased the aggregate creep over time value x, the area under the line of creep if you will. So, aside from it being a bad idea to go around reducing the emphasis on the idea that the encyclopedia can act with extreme prejudice when something is blatantly nonsensical - why is this a good idea? Andre🚐 03:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not really arguing that it should be demoted because it is obvious (even though it is obvious). I am arguing that benefit provided by this guideline does not outweigh the institutional creep it creates . creates does not outweigh the benefit it provides to the PAGs does help the encyclopedia, and this guideline does little to actively help the encyclopedia. This is obviously anecdotal evidence, but when I started editing, I was slightly overwhelmed by the number of times I would click on a blue link on a policy page and being  was greeted by another massive box with a green or blue checkmark. I imagine I am not the only person with that feeling. Making it just a tiny bit easier for newcomers to learn the rules would help the encyclopedia. From the second sentence of WP:CREEP, "the longer, more detailed, and more complicated you make the instructions, the less likely anyone is to read or follow whatever you write." It follows that decreasing creep makes people more likely to follow other, less obvious rules, and therefore be constructive contributors. That would help the encyclopedia. Finally, if you need to read this page to know that adding "dsafhialsdjflks" to the end of an article is a bad thing, I would rather you operate under the assumption that it is okay and be CIR blocked just a bit faster. That would help the encyclopedia. I also respectfully disagree that simply discussing this increases the complexity of the rules, especially when this particular debate centers around simplifying then. Even if it this discussion would only decrease creep in the future, that still means that this would eventually result in a net decrease in creep under the line. Sure, we would only remove one PAG. But I believe that we cannot let perfect be the enemy of good. We all know that Wikipedia changes at a glacial pace. This would get the glacier moving in the right direction. HouseBlastertalk 04:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC) edited for clarity 05:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your good faith argument and reasoning, and I will concede the point that a simplification of a complex system, even a small one, is a good thing. However, I think having a clear bright line rule against obvious nonsense simplifies the operation of the project, so for this reason I oppose your proposal, but I will grant that you have legitimate reasoning for coming here. I am all in favor of moving the glaciers and whatnot. This one doesn't feel like it does actually move in the right direction. I don't think the right direction is "fewer polices and guidelines." We might need fewer in some areas, and more in other areas. Andre🚐 04:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Sounds like a solid idea and I agree with HouseBlaster's reasoning. I support the idea of having fewer policies and guidelines. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support demoting: I have little to add, other than that I support condensing the amount of guidelines. — VersaceSpace  🌃 05:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. G1 is a useful speedy deletion criteria and this is the guideline that justifies it. Both are commendably brief, perhaps some other areas of policy could be rewritten to emulate their brevity.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Concur with WereSpielChequers on this. Andre🚐 14:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Without trying to badger, I want to point out why I would disagree with the G1 logic (which I fully believe it is a valid perspective): not every speedy criterion is justified in a separate PAG. WP:C1, WP:F8, WP:G7, and WP:G13, off the top of my head. In fact, WP:A7, a CSD which arguably needs more of an explanation than G1, is justified by the non-PAG WP:CCS. Completely agree that as PAGs go, this one is commendable for its brevity. HouseBlastertalk 17:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support change to info page. This is not a demotion. An information page such as this one is simply not a guideline or policy on it's own, but merely a clarification and discussion on actual policies and guidelines such as Vandalism. Side note - maybe a grander reshuffling of policy vs guideline vs info in general is in order - for example, Gaming the system is a guideline... I don't know about you, but that seems like a good candidate for full-on policy to me - "occasional exceptions may apply" just looks kind of dumb on that particular page. casualdejekyll  19:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC on "demoting" to information page
Should Patent nonsense page be "demoted" from a guideline to an information page? HouseBlastertalk 02:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer. My thoughts have largely been said above, but the TL;DR version: this guideline is not worth the amount of WP:CREEP it creates. Decreasing CREEP, even slightly, makes it just that little bit easier for newbies to learn our endless volume of rules, and makes it more likely they will follow them. We already have Vandalism and Disruptive editing which cover individual edits, and WP:G1 for articles. Not every CSD has a policy/guideline to support it (for example, WP:C1 and WP:G13). In fact, WP:A7 is further explained in an information page, not a policy or guideline. HouseBlastertalk 02:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Is there any actual disagreement that this page is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply? If not, then it should stay a guideline. I see no such disagreement above. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, justifies WP:G1. It's useful to have a bright-line rule about obvious nonsense. The guideline isn't needlessly complex or adding a lot of process cruft. It justifies the deletion of word salad and confusing content without a need to justify this content under another reason. A rule that is very old and has a lot of long-time consensus support shouldn't be removed just to reduce the absolute number of policies. Andre🚐 02:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I don't see how demoting this really achieves anything. This seems like a "no duh" guideline, but sometimes "no duh" things need to be spelled out. I also don't buy the WP:CREEP argument. If telling newbies not to put nonsense in articles is CREEP, then.....I don't know lol. ♠ JCW555  (talk)  ♠ 03:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support it's a good idea to avoid having unnecessary guidelines, and this one doesn't really say anything useful.  Hut 8.5  07:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I should add that the mere fact the community agrees with it doesn't mean it should be a guideline. By that logic you could create a project page with any obvious statement and it would have to be declared a guideline. Guidelines are supposed to be useful as well as accepted.  Hut 8.5  18:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

 * Oppose As has already been explained, a “guideline” is something that has been vetted and endorsed by the community and it formally represents the community’s position. No argument has been made that this isn’t the case. ~Swarm~  {sting} 07:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Changing the banner at the top of this page from "This is a guideline" to "This is an information page" doesn't actually reduce the amount of content in this page or reduce the amount of rules you have to read. I don't think that the definition of "Patent Nonsense" is obvious, and I see value in a page that clearly lays out what patent nonsense is, some of the kind of stuff that is frequently mistaken for patent nonsense and how you should deal with said stuff instead. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This provides a clear definition to support WP:G1, and "demoting" the guideline serves no purpose to further the objectives of Wikipedia. The page has been in place since 2001 and has been updated numerous times since, though I don't know when it was officially made a guideline. Pointing to other CSD criteria that do not have guidelines supporting them as justification for this is a perfect example of WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Yes, I know those were written specifically in regard to deletion discussions, but they apply here. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In researching this guideline ahead of this RfC, I was unable to find a discussion that resulted in its "promotion". It was tagged as a "semi-policy" in 2005 by UninvitedCompany. I would hazard a guess that there was no discussion beforehand, given that on the same day UnivitedCompany made a similar edit to other pages (see, for example, AGF or COI. He also marked IAR as historical ). While I am here, I am going to clarify that I mentioned the other CSDs as evidence that "demoting" this page would not require us to depreciate G1. HouseBlastertalk 16:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It was more common in 2005 to make bold changes to policies that didn't need to be ratified formally. Andre🚐 17:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - this page is a supplement for policy, not a guideline itself. Note that Credible claim of significance, which is equally important for understanding some CSDs, is only a supplement. 93.172.250.69 (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Framing this is a "demotion" is counterproductive. Remember that WP:BRD, a critical aspect of discretionary sanctions and general sanctions, isn't a policy or guideline despite its widespread consensus; the general notability guideline is not a policy despite being one of the most rigidly applied standards on the encyclopedia. The labels we use for our essays are not iron-clad and should not be taken as rigid statements about the level of consensus supporting an essay. Instead, they're more useful as descriptive statements about the content: policies are fundamental editorial standards, guidelines document best practices, and information pages, supplements, and essays provide additional context and perspectives on policies and guidelines. These are often organized by levels of consensus, but there are plenty of exceptions at all levels.So with all that said, I think this page is best labelled as an information page. That's not a statement on its level of consensus, rather, it's a statement on the content. This page informs editors about our definition of "patent nonsense" and lists typical responses, but it doesn't really provide best practices or rules in the way that policies or guidelines typically do; what . Without an understanding of WP:CSD and WP:DE, this essay is not particularly enlightening, and so it is best to use a template like information page which makes that connection clear to editors who are not well-versed in our alphabet soup. The benefit of information page is that, unlike supplement or essay, the text of the banner doesn't disclaim a lack of consensus, and so we don't need to view it as a "demotion" at all. Support — Wug·a·po·des 20:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Meh, I've read the supporting arguments and am unconvinced this is a productive change or a good use of community time to discuss. -  F ASTILY   22:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A world-class competencies, and tossed management of people have changed, the hot and garlic. The full involvement and nearly inconceivable with the importance - in quality for destiny with the full involvement of sweet basil, part of pesto is absolutely parsley and baked to golden performance of sweet based managers assume recognize that you'll get a large 1-topped of sweet basil, parsley and garlic. Herostratus (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The above !vote should be discounted, per the guideline. Ha! – wbm1058 (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Took me embarrassingly long to understand this comment.... Ovinus (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait, you understood it? Can you explain it? Herostratus (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh? Or in the affirmative, I said there are EXACTLY 4 times when that would be apropriate, not necessarily or (and of??) similar impotance like, When do we ever think that way.. This so extremely basic (parsly and pesto, yes, sweet basil no (!)) the guideline must be tomatoes/capsicum, or else what? Because, oterwise I disagree. What Disapointment...! Ovinus (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll have that sweet basil and garlic pesto, sounds delicious. Andre🚐 14:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose "demotion" to "an explanatory essay about a section of the Criteria for speedy deletion policy." This is the WP:CSD Main page providing guidelines for enforcement of a component of the speedy deletion policy. As Spam is the WP:CSD Main page providing guidelines for enforcement of another component of the speedy deletion policy. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Explanatory for the CSD tag, does little harm (although it's not as important as the average guideline), mildly amusing, has historical value. Not seeing the WP:CREEP argument, mostly per JCW. Ovinus (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: there should be fewer guidelines per WP:CREEP. This guideline sticks out as a rather strange one: I can't really see how it is useful. As HouseBlaster says, CSD does not require some underlying guideline for each criterion. Nonsense can still be deleted. This would be clear were IAR our only policy or guideline. But we also have things like 5P1 and NOTWEBHOST. The most useful part of this page is probably what is not patent nonsense (e.g. non-English text), but G1 covers that such things are not eligible for G1 deletion. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:CREEP, Wugs, and Bilorv. We have too many WP:GUIDELINES and should reduce their number, and this is one that can go. Telling newbies not to insert patent nonsense into articles is "instruction creep" because we don't need to tell newbies not to do that because people already know not to do that. We really should endeavor to just have one page about WP:Vandalism policy, we don't need separate guidelines about specific types of vandalism, like WP:Patent nonsense, WP:Page blanking, WP:Do not create hoaxes, and WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Levivich (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:CREEP. I concur with Levivich, this is redundant to WP:VANDALISM. If I opened Joe Biden one day and saw random text in place of the article's usual content, I would identify and treat it as vandalism. This being a guideline is pointless and doesn't actually enforce anything on its own. — VersaceSpace  🌃 22:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support WP:G1 already provides a satisfactory standalone definition. The current page also fails WP:CREEP, because it's not worth drawing a distinction between what is and most of what isn't 'patent nonsense', if it's all bad and should be removed anyway. Avilich (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It is illogical that this be a guideline while WP:Credible claim of significance, about another CSD-related term, is an information page. –LaundryPizza<b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 21:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- I really don't see the point of demoting this. Keep it as a guideline. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  07:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't think anyone has argued that this page contains anything significant that doesn't already follow from other policies or guidelines, so I support the proposal since all else being equal, it's better to have fewer guidelines than more. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, but with the caveat that we explain in WP:Vandalism how to deal with accidental nonsense (intentional nonsense is of course already covered under "Silly vandalism"). Edderiofer (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Seems rather redundant to other guidelines, and probably satisfies WP:CREEP. 2601:647:5800:4D2:E5BD:CFBB:FA1E:62F3 (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom & Wug. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'm not convinced there's an actual problem with this, or improvement by demoting it. Sergecross73   msg me  15:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would have given a weak support but the oppose arguments convinced me — Python Drink (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Perfectly fine as it is. Stifle (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I frankly don't find the argument from WP:CREEP to be convincing; this is a page that explains what patent nonsense means and, as such, serves as a guideline for how to apply a particular speedy deletion criterion and what the criterion does not apply to. This is a good thing, since the community can come to an agreement on what patent nonesense actually means for that purpose. The arguments from WP:CREEP are generally that the value of the guideline is negligible, but I don't think this is actually the case here. And, nobody seems to be objecting to the guideline on the basis that it does not reflect community consensus, which indicates that the argument in support of demotion does not really claim that this document fails to meet the essential definition of a guideline, which is a set of best practices supported by consensus. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I can't say that I've ever specifically cited it myself, but I certainly could have had I been more aware of it. This guideline seems quite non-controversial and serves a valuable function.  I don't see where it's responsible for unnecessary CREEP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - As a (relatively) inexperienced user, I appreciate having a reference written down that claims to reflect consensus. I'd agree that the page doesn't contain much that's not covered by common sense and other rules, but I think demoting is the wrong response. It doesn't mean the rule disappears or that less time will be spent reading rules, instead readers who reach the page just won't get a clear answer, and may have to open yet another page to try to get a more authoritative description of consensus. I've always reached this page through contextual links. WP:CREEP is reduced by making explanations on other pages more self-contained, or linking to broader well-known rules that sufficiently cover. If it's truly useless, orphan it and then it can be deleted. Starting with demotion means I have to read even more rules to get a clear answer when I land on this page, not less. Mlkj (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It may be obvious to most of us, but apparently not to everyone. In looking at the 2009 version of this guideline, I do not see significant "creep". --Bejnar (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Followup comment - I don't buy into this meme in which we go around trying to "demote" pages for no other reason than "reducing CREEP". CREEP is simply the principle that policy pages should not be allowed to become overly complex, because the more complex they become, the less people will read them. It is an argument that actually has to be made on a case-by-case basis, not some sledgehammer for users who want to implement a sweeping cull of our policy pages. The tags indicating whether a page is a policy/guideline or information page/essay simply indicate whether the page formally represents the community's views. This has never been controversial, it is an important distinction, and such tags should obviously only be removed if that is no longer the case. Swapping a tag and patting yourself on the back for "reducing creep" does nothing to benefit the project. Like anywhere else on the project, you actually need to articulate a specific argument that there is a specific problem to begin with. ~Swarm~  {sting} 18:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

 * Side note to future editors: If anyone wants to have another (a third?) discussion about this, it might be worth mentioning in that RFC that this page was boldly marked as a guideline with no discussion or WP:PROPOSAL (that I can find).   WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Patent nonsense


text:
Bernhard von Reesen

Bernhard von Reesen (1491 – 1521) was a successful merchant born to a patrician family in the Hanseatic city of Danzig (Gdańsk). The Reesen name, with its prefix "von" (of), indicates that the family had its origins in the city of Rees.

He was the son of Bernd von Reesen (c. 1460 – 1506) and Brigitte Proite (d. 1506) who were married in 1489. His younger brother Heinrich (1497 – 1532) was also a merchant; his eldest sister, Margarethe (b. 1490), married, in 1516, Hans (Johann) von Schwarzwald (1468 – 1521), an alderman of Danzig.

Reesen was highly educated as was the custom for men of his background at that time. The wealthy businessman was evidently one of a circle of merchants with whom Albrecht Dürer of Nuremberg and his wife were in regular contact while the artist was in Antwerp. In early 1521, when Reesen was about thirty, Dürer painted his portrait. The painting can be seen in the permanent exhibition of Old Masters in Dresden, Germany.

He died in October 1521, "tempore pestis" according to the chronicler, Stenzel Bornbach. The day, place and cause of his death are unknown.

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

title: Bernhard von Reesen


text:
Henri Lebesgue

Henri Léon Lebesgue (June 28, 1875 – July 26, 1941) was a French mathematician known for his theory of integration, which was a generalization of the 17th-century concept of integration—summing the area between an axis and the curve of a function defined for that axis. His theory was published originally in his dissertation Intégrale, longueur, aire ("Integral, length, area") at the University of Nancy during 1902.

Personal life
Henri Lebesgue was born on 28 June 1875 in Beauvais, Oise. Lebesgue's father was a typesetter and his mother was a school teacher. His parents assembled at home a library that the young Henri was able to use. His father died of tuberculosis when Lebesgue was still very young and his mother had to support him by herself. As he showed a remarkable talent for mathematics in primary school, one of his instructors arranged for community support to continue his education at the Collège de Beauvais and then at Lycée Saint-Louis and Lycée Louis-le-Grand in Paris.

In 1894, Lebesgue was accepted at the École Normale Supérieure, where he continued to focus his energy on the study of mathematics, graduating in 1897. After graduation he remained at the École Normale Supérieure for two years, working in the library, where he became aware of the research on discontinuity done at that time by René-Louis Baire, a recent graduate of the school. At the same time he started his graduate studies at the Sorbonne, where he learned about Émile Borel's work on the incipient measure theory and Camille Jordan's work on the Jordan measure. In 1899 he moved to a teaching position at the Lycée Central in Nancy, while continuing work on his doctorate. In 1902 he earned his PhD from the Sorbonne with the seminal thesis on "Integral, Length, Area", submitted with Borel, four years older, as advisor.

Lebesgue married the sister of one of his fellow students, and he and his wife had two children, Suzanne and Jacques.

After publishing his thesis, Lebesgue was offered in 1902 a position at the University of Rennes, lecturing there until 1906, when he moved to the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Poitiers. In 1910 Lebesgue moved to the Sorbonne as a maître de conférences, being promoted to professor starting in 1919. In 1921 he left the Sorbonne to become professor of mathematics at the Collège de France, where he lectured and did research for the rest of his life. In 1922 he was elected a member of the Académie des Sciences. Henri Lebesgue died on 26 July 1941 in Paris.

Mathematical career
Lebesgue's first paper was published in 1898 and was titled "Sur l'approximation des fonctions". It dealt with Weierstrass's theorem on approximation to continuous functions by polynomials. Between March 1899 and April 1901 Lebesgue published six notes in Comptes Rendus. The first of these, unrelated to his development of Lebesgue integration, dealt with the extension of Baire's theorem to functions of two variables. The next five dealt with surfaces applicable to a plane, the area of skew polygons, surface integrals of minimum area with a given bound, and the final note gave the definition of Lebesgue integration for some function f(x). Lebesgue's great thesis, Intégrale, longueur, aire, with the full account of this work, appeared in the Annali di Matematica in 1902. The first chapter develops the theory of measure (see Borel measure). In the second chapter he defines the integral both geometrically and analytically. The next chapters expand the Comptes Rendus notes dealing with length, area and applicable surfaces. The final chapter deals mainly with Plateau's problem. This dissertation is considered to be one of the finest ever written by a mathematician.

His lectures from 1902 to 1903 were collected into a "Borel tract" Leçons sur l'intégration et la recherche des fonctions primitives. The problem of integration regarded as the search for a primitive function is the keynote of the book. Lebesgue presents the problem of integration in its historical context, addressing Augustin-Louis Cauchy, Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet, and Bernhard Riemann. Lebesgue presents six conditions which it is desirable that the integral should satisfy, the last of which is "If the sequence fn(x) increases to the limit f(x), the integral of fn(x) tends to the integral of f(x)." Lebesgue shows that his conditions lead to the theory of measure and measurable functions and the analytical and geometrical definitions of the integral.

He turned next to trigonometric functions with his 1903 paper "Sur les séries trigonométriques". He presented three major theorems in this work: that a trigonometrical series representing a bounded function is a Fourier series, that the nth Fourier coefficient tends to zero (the Riemann–Lebesgue lemma), and that a Fourier series is integrable term by term. In 1904-1905 Lebesgue lectured once again at the Collège de France, this time on trigonometrical series and he went on to publish his lectures in another of the "Borel tracts". In this tract he once again treats the subject in its historical context. He expounds on Fourier series, Cantor-Riemann theory, the Poisson integral and the Dirichlet problem.

In a 1910 paper, "Représentation trigonométrique approchée des fonctions satisfaisant a une condition de Lipschitz" deals with the Fourier series of functions satisfying a Lipschitz condition, with an evaluation of the order of magnitude of the remainder term. He also proves that the Riemann–Lebesgue lemma is a best possible result for continuous functions, and gives some treatment to Lebesgue constants.

Lebesgue once wrote, "Réduites à des théories générales, les mathématiques seraient une belle forme sans contenu." ("Reduced to general theories, mathematics would be a beautiful form without content.")

In measure-theoretic analysis and related branches of mathematics, the Lebesgue–Stieltjes integral generalizes Riemann–Stieltjes and Lebesgue integration, preserving the many advantages of the latter in a more general measure-theoretic framework.

During the course of his career, Lebesgue also made forays into the realms of complex analysis and topology. He also had a disagreement with Émile Borel about whose integral was more general. However, these minor forays pale in comparison to his contributions to real analysis; his contributions to this field had a tremendous impact on the shape of the field today and his methods have become an essential part of modern analysis. These have important practical implications for fundamental physics of which Lebesgue would have been completely unaware, as noted below.

Lebesgue's theory of integration

Integration is a mathematical operation that corresponds to the informal idea of finding the area under the graph of a function. The first theory of integration was developed by Archimedes in the 3rd century BC with his method of quadratures, but this could be applied only in limited circumstances with a high degree of geometric symmetry. In the 17th century, Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz discovered the idea that integration was intrinsically linked to differentiation, the latter being a way of measuring how quickly a function changed at any given point on the graph. This surprising relationship between two major geometric operations in calculus, differentiation and integration, is now known as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. It has allowed mathematicians to calculate a broad class of integrals for the first time. However, unlike Archimedes' method, which was based on Euclidean geometry, mathematicians felt that Newton's and Leibniz's integral calculus did not have a rigorous foundation.

In the 19th century, Augustin Cauchy developed epsilon-delta limits, and Bernhard Riemann followed up on this by formalizing what is now called the Riemann integral. To define this integral, one fills the area under the graph with smaller and smaller rectangles and takes the limit of the sums of the areas of the rectangles at each stage. For some functions, however, the total area of these rectangles does not approach a single number. Thus, they have no Riemann integral.

Lebesgue invented a new method of integration to solve this problem. Instead of using the areas of rectangles, which put the focus on the domain of the function, Lebesgue looked at the codomain of the function for his fundamental unit of area. Lebesgue's idea was to first define measure, for both sets and functions on those sets. He then proceeded to build the integral for what he called simple functions; measurable functions that take only finitely many values. Then he defined it for more complicated functions as the least upper bound of all the integrals of simple functions smaller than the function in question.

Lebesgue integration has the property that every function defined over a bounded interval with a Riemann integral also has a Lebesgue integral, and for those functions the two integrals agree. Furthermore, every bounded function on a closed bounded interval has a Lebesgue integral and there are many functions with a Lebesgue integral that have no Riemann integral.

As part of the development of Lebesgue integration, Lebesgue invented the concept of measure, which extends the idea of length from intervals to a very large class of sets, called measurable sets (so, more precisely, simple functions are functions that take a finite number of values, and each value is taken on a measurable set). Lebesgue's technique for turning a measure into an integral generalises easily to many other situations, leading to the modern field of measure theory.

The Lebesgue integral is deficient in one respect. The Riemann integral generalises to the improper Riemann integral to measure functions whose domain of definition is not a closed interval. The Lebesgue integral integrates many of these functions (always reproducing the same answer when it does), but not all of them. For functions on the real line, the Henstock integral is an even more general notion of integral (based on Riemann's theory rather than Lebesgue's) that subsumes both Lebesgue integration and improper Riemann integration. However, the Henstock integral depends on specific ordering features of the real line and so does not generalise to allow integration in more general spaces (say, manifolds), while the Lebesgue integral extends to such spaces quite naturally.

title: Henri Lebesgue


text:
Talk:Bernhard von Reesen

Untitled
Huh??? I am especially curious about the claim that thirty was an idealized age "because Christ had been that age." Was He not also 29, 28, 27, etc. Most of the rest I do not understand. Has this become of the Encyclopedia of Handsome German Merchants? Danny

Handsome and ugly, smart and stupid, merchants, plumbers, teachers, shoemakers and village idiots, as long as German, or even better - Prussian! Space Cadet -

title: Talk:Bernhard von Reesen


text:
Transportation (disambiguation)

Transportation refers to transport, the movement of people and goods from place to place.

Transportation may also refer to:

 * Penal transportation, the moving of convicted criminals to penal colonies.
 * Transportation theory (mathematics), which concerns optimization of transportation and resource allocation.
 * Transportation theory (psychology), which concerns psychological immersion in narrative content.
 * Sediment transport, the movement of weathered rocks from one place to another.
 * Transportation (journal), an academic journal on transportation planning.

title: Transportation (disambiguation)


text:
Anwar Sadat

Muhammad Anwar es-Sadat (25 December 1918 – 6 October 1981) was an Egyptian politician and military officer who served as the third president of Egypt, from 15 October 1970 until his assassination by fundamentalist army officers on 6 October 1981. Sadat was a senior member of the Free Officers who overthrew King Farouk I in the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, and a close confidant of President Gamal Abdel Nasser, under whom he served as Vice President twice and whom he succeeded as president in 1970. In 1978, Sadat and Menachem Begin, Prime Minister of Israel, signed a peace treaty in cooperation with United States President Jimmy Carter, for which they were recognized with the Nobel Peace Prize.

In his 11 years as president, he changed Egypt's trajectory, departing from many political and economic tenets of Nasserism, reinstituting a multi-party system, and launching the Infitah economic policy. As President, he led Egypt in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 to regain Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, which Israel had occupied since the Six-Day War of 1967, making him a hero in Egypt and, for a time, the wider Arab World. Afterwards, he engaged in negotiations with Israel, culminating in the Camp David Accords and the Egypt–Israel peace treaty; this won him and Menachem Begin the Nobel Peace Prize, making Sadat the first Muslim Nobel laureate.

Although reaction to the treaty—which resulted in the return of Sinai to Egypt—was generally favorable among Egyptians, it was rejected by the country's Muslim Brotherhood and the left, which felt Sadat had abandoned efforts to ensure a State of Palestine. With the exception of Sudan, the Arab world and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) strongly opposed Sadat's efforts to make a separate peace with Israel without prior consultations with the Arab states. His refusal to reconcile with them over the Palestinian issue resulted in Egypt being suspended from the Arab League from 1979 to 1989. The peace treaty was also one of the primary factors that led to his assassination; on 6 October 1981, militants led by Khalid Islambouli opened fire on Sadat with automatic rifles during the 6 October parade in Cairo, killing him.

Early life and revolutionary activities
Anwar Sadat was born on 25 December 1918 in Mit Abu El Kom, part of Monufia Governorate in what was then the Sultanate of Egypt, to a poor family, and he had 14 siblings. One of his brothers, Atef Sadat, later became a pilot and was killed in action in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War. His father, Anwar Mohammed El Sadat, was an Upper Egyptian, and his mother, Sit Al-Berain, was born to an Egyptian mother and a Sudanese father.

He graduated from the Royal Military Academy in Cairo, the capital of what was then the Kingdom of Egypt, in 1938 and was appointed to the Signal Corps. He entered the army as a second lieutenant and was posted to the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (the Sudan being a condominium under joint British and Egyptian rule at the time). There, he met Gamal Abdel Nasser, and along with several other junior officers they formed the Free Officers, an organization committed to overthrowing British rule in Egypt and eliminating state corruption.

During World War II, Sadat collaborated with spies of Nazi Germany in Egypt as part of Operation Salam. Once this was discovered by the British authorities he was arrested and imprisoned for much of the war. By the end of the conflict, he had already met with the secret society that decided to assassinate Amin Osman, Minister of Finance in the Wafd Party government, and the head of the Egyptian-British Friendship Society, due to his strong sympathies towards the British. Osman was assassinated in January 1946. Following the assassination of Amin Osman, Sadat returned again and finally to prison.

In Qarmidan prison, he faced the most difficult ordeals of imprisonment by being held in solitary confinement, but the first accused in the Hussein Tawfiq case, escaped, and after there is no criminality evidence all the charges fall and the suspected went free. Salah Zulfikar, then young police officer, at that time was the officer in charge in the prison. He believed in his heart of Sadat's heroism and that he played a patriotic role towards his country and that he was convicted and imprisoned because of his love for his country. Zulfikar brought with him food, newspapers and cigarettes and helped his family a lot in obtaining visitor permits to check on him. Anwar Sadat was active in many political movements, including the Muslim Brotherhood, the fascist Young Egypt, the pro-palace Iron Guard of Egypt, and the secret military group called the Free Officers. Along with his fellow Free Officers, Sadat participated in the military coup that launched the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, which overthrew King Farouk I on 23 July of that year. Sadat gave the first statement of the revolution over the radio to the Egyptian people.

Reportedly, after the end of the Second World War, Sadat wrote to Al-Musawar weekly a letter that praised Adolf Hitler's legacy.

During Nasser's presidency
During the presidency of Gamal Abdel Nasser, Sadat was appointed minister of State in 1954. He was also appointed editor of the newly founded daily Al Gomhuria. In 1959, he assumed the position of Secretary to the National Union. Sadat was the President of the National Assembly (1960–1968) and then Vice President of Egypt and member of the presidential council in 1964. He was reappointed as vice president again in December 1969.

Presidency

Some of the major events of Sadat's presidency were his "Corrective Revolution" to consolidate power, the break with Egypt's long-time ally and aid-giver the USSR, the 1973 October War with Israel, the Camp David Accords and the Egypt–Israel peace treaty, the "opening up" (or Infitah) of Egypt's economy, and lastly his assassination in 1981.

Sadat succeeded Nasser as president after the latter's death in October 1970. Sadat's presidency was widely expected to be short-lived. Viewing him as having been little more than a puppet of the former president, Nasser's supporters in government settled on Sadat as someone they could manipulate easily. Sadat surprised everyone with a series of astute political moves by which he was able to retain the presidency and emerge as a leader in his own right.

On 15 May 1971, Sadat announced his Corrective Revolution, purging the government, political and security establishments of the most ardent Nasserists. Sadat encouraged the emergence of an Islamist movement, which had been suppressed by Nasser. Believing Islamists to be socially conservative he gave them "considerable cultural and ideological autonomy" in exchange for political support.

In 1971, as part of the Jarring Mission, three years into the War of Attrition in the Suez Canal zone, Sadat endorsed in a letter the peace proposals of UN negotiator Gunnar Jarring, which seemed to lead to a full peace with Israel on the basis of Israel's withdrawal to its pre-war borders. This peace initiative failed as neither Israel nor the United States of America accepted the terms as discussed then.

Corrective Revolution
Shortly after taking office, Sadat shocked many Egyptians by dismissing and imprisoning two of the most powerful figures in the regime, Vice President Ali Sabri, who had close ties with Soviet officials, and Sharawy Gomaa, the Interior Minister, who controlled the secret police.

Sadat's rising popularity would accelerate after he cut back the powers of the hated secret police, expelled Soviet military from the country and reformed the Egyptian army for a renewed confrontation with Israel.

Yom Kippur War

On 6 October 1973, in conjunction with Hafez al-Assad of Syria, Sadat launched the October War, also known as the Yom Kippur War (and less commonly as the Ramadan War), a surprise attack against the Israeli forces occupying the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula, and the Syrian Golan Heights in an attempt to retake these respective Egyptian and Syrian territories that had been occupied by Israel since the Six Day War six years earlier. The Egyptian and Syrian performance in the initial stages of the war astonished both Israel, and the Arab World. The most striking achievement (Operation Badr, also known as The Crossing) was the Egyptian military's advance approximately 15 km into the occupied Sinai Peninsula after penetrating and largely destroying the Bar Lev Line. This line was popularly thought to have been an impregnable defensive chain.

As the war progressed, three divisions of the Israeli army led by General Ariel Sharon had crossed the Suez Canal, trying to encircle first the Egyptian Second Army. Although this failed, prompted by an agreement between the United States of America and the Soviet Union, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 338 on 22 October 1973, calling for an immediate ceasefire. Although agreed upon, the ceasefire was immediately broken. Alexei Kosygin, the Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers, cancelled an official meeting with Danish Prime Minister Anker Jørgensen to travel to Egypt where he tried to persuade Sadat to sign a peace treaty. During Kosygin's two-day long stay it is unknown if he and Sadat ever met in person.

The Israeli military then continued their drive to encircle the Egyptian army. The encirclement was completed on 24 October, three days after the ceasefire was broken. This development prompted superpower tension, but a second ceasefire was imposed cooperatively on 25 October to end the war. At the conclusion of hostilities, Israeli forces were 40 kilometres (25 mi) from Damascus and 101 kilometres (63 mi) from Cairo.

Peace with Israel
The initial Egyptian and Syrian victories in the war restored popular morale throughout Egypt and the Arab World and, for many years after, Sadat was known as the "Hero of the Crossing". Israel recognized Egypt as a formidable foe, and Egypt's renewed political significance eventually led to regaining and reopening the Suez Canal through the peace process. His new peace policy led to the conclusion of two agreements on disengagement of forces with the Israeli government. The first of these agreements was signed on 18 January 1974, and the second on 4 September 1975.

One major aspect of Sadat's peace policy was to gain some religious support for his efforts. Already during his visit to the US in October–November 1975, he invited Evangelical pastor Billy Graham for an official visit, which was held a few days after Sadat's visit. In addition to cultivating relations with Evangelical Christians in the US, he also built some cooperation with the Vatican. On 8 April 1976, he visited the Vatican for the first time, and got a message of support from Pope Paul VI regarding achieving peace with Israel, to include a just solution to the Palestinian issue. Sadat, on his part, extended to the Pope a public invitation to visit Cairo.

Sadat also used the media to promote his purposes. In an interview he gave to the Lebanese magazine Al Hawadeth in early February 1976, he claimed he had secret commitment from the US government to put pressure on the Israeli government for a major withdrawal in Sinai and the Golan Heights. This statement caused some concern to the Israeli government, but Kissinger denied such a promise was ever made.

In January 1977, a series of 'Bread Riots' protested Sadat's economic liberalization and specifically a government decree lifting price controls on basic necessities like bread. The riots lasted for two days and included hundreds of thousands in Cairo. 120 buses and hundreds of buildings were destroyed in Cairo alone. The riots ended with the deployment of the army and the re-institution of the subsidies/price controls. During this time, Sadat was also taking a new approach towards improving relations with the West.

The United States and the Soviet Union agreed on 1 October 1977, on principles to govern a Geneva conference on the Middle East. Syria continued to resist such a conference. Not wanting either Syria or the Soviet Union to influence the peace process, Sadat decided to take more progressive stance towards building a comprehensive peace agreement with Israel.

The 1977 visit by Anwar Sadat to Israel was the first time an Arab leader officially visited Israel. Sadat met with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, and spoke before the Knesset in Jerusalem about his views on how to achieve a comprehensive peace to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which included the full implementation of UN Resolutions 242 and 338.

The Peace treaty was finally signed by Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in Washington, D.C., United States, on 26 March 1979, following the Camp David Accords, a series of meetings between Egypt and Israel facilitated by US President Jimmy Carter. Both Sadat and Begin were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for creating the treaty. In his acceptance speech, Sadat referred to the long-awaited peace desired by both Arabs and Israelis.

The main features of the agreement were the mutual recognition of each country by the other, the cessation of the state of war that had existed since the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and the complete withdrawal by Israel of its armed forces and civilians from the rest of the Sinai Peninsula, which Israel had captured during the 1967 Six-Day War.

The agreement also provided for the free passage of Israeli ships through the Suez Canal and recognition of the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba as international waterways. The agreement notably made Egypt the first Arab country to officially recognize Israel. The peace agreement between Egypt and Israel has remained in effect since the treaty was signed. The treaty was extremely unpopular in most of the Arab World and the wider Muslim World. His predecessor Nasser had made Egypt an icon of Arab nationalism, an ideology that appeared to be sidelined by an Egyptian orientation following the 1973 war (see National identity of Egyptians). The neighboring Arab countries believed that in signing the accords, Sadat had put Egypt's interests ahead of Arab unity, betraying Nasser's pan-Arabism, and destroyed the vision of a united "Arab front" for the support of the Palestinians against the "Zionist Entity". However, Sadat decided early on that peace was the solution. Sadat's shift towards a strategic relationship with the US was also seen as a betrayal by many Arabs. In the United States his peace moves gained him popularity among some Evangelical circles. He was awarded the Prince of Peace Award by Pat Robertson.

In 1979, the Arab League suspended Egypt in the wake of the Egyptian–Israel peace agreement, and the League moved its headquarters from Cairo to Tunis. Arab League member states believed in the elimination of the "Zionist Entity" and Israel at that time. It was not until 1989 that the League re-admitted Egypt as a member, and returned its headquarters to Cairo. As part of the peace deal, Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula in phases, completing its withdrawal from the entire territory except the town of Taba by 25 April 1982 (withdrawal from which did not occur until 1989). The improved relations Egypt gained with the West through the Camp David Accords soon gave the country resilient economic growth. By 1980, however, Egypt's strained relations with the Arab World would result in a period of rapid inflation.

Relationship with Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran
The relationship between Iran and Egypt had fallen into open hostility during Gamal Abdel Nasser's presidency. Following his death in 1970, President Sadat turned this around quickly into an open and close friendship.

In 1971, Sadat addressed the Iranian parliament in Tehran in fluent Persian, describing the 2,500-year-old historic connection between the two lands.

Overnight, the Egyptian and Iranian governments were turned from bitter enemies into fast friends. The relationship between Cairo and Tehran became so friendly that the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, called Sadat his "dear brother".

After the 1973 war with Israel, Iran assumed a leading role in cleaning up and reactivating the blocked Suez Canal with heavy investment. The country also facilitated the withdrawal of Israel from the occupied Sinai Peninsula by promising to substitute the loss of the oil to the Israelis with free Iranian oil if they withdrew from the Egyptian oil wells in western Sinai.

All these added more to the personal friendship between Sadat and the Shah of Iran. (The Shah's first wife was Princess Fawzia of Egypt. She was the eldest daughter of Sultan Fuad I of Egypt and Sudan (later King Fuad I) and his second wife Nazli Sabri.)

After his overthrow, the deposed Shah spent the last months of his life in exile in Egypt. When the Shah died, Sadat ordered that he be given a state funeral and be interred at the Al-Rifa'i Mosque in Cairo, the resting place of Egyptian Khedive Isma'il Pasha, his mother Khushyar Hanim, and numerous other members of the royal family of Egypt and Sudan.

Assassination
The last months of Sadat's presidency were marked by internal uprising. Sadat dismissed allegations that the rioting was incited by domestic issues, believing that the Soviet Union was recruiting its regional allies in Libya and Syria to incite an uprising that would eventually force him out of power. Following a failed military coup in June 1981, Sadat ordered a major crackdown that resulted in the arrest of numerous opposition figures. Although Sadat still maintained high levels of popularity in Egypt, it has been said that he was assassinated "at the peak" of his unpopularity.

Earlier in his presidency, Islamists had benefited from the 'rectification revolution' and the release from prison of activists jailed under Nasser. But Sadat's Sinai treaty with Israel enraged Islamists, particularly the radical Egyptian Islamic Jihad. According to interviews and information gathered by journalist Lawrence Wright, the group was recruiting military officers and accumulating weapons, waiting for the right moment to launch "a complete overthrow of the existing order" in Egypt. Chief strategist of El-Jihad was Abbud al-Zumar, a colonel in the military intelligence whose "plan was to kill the main leaders of the country, capture the headquarters of the army and State Security, the telephone exchange building, and of course the radio and television building, where news of the Islamic revolution would then be broadcast, unleashing—he expected—a popular uprising against secular authority all over the country".

In February 1981, Egyptian authorities were alerted to El-Jihad's plan by the arrest of an operative carrying crucial information. In September, Sadat ordered a highly unpopular roundup of more than 1,500 people, including many Jihad members, but also the Coptic Pope and other Coptic clergy, intellectuals and activists of all ideological stripes. All non-government press was banned as well. The roundup missed a Jihad cell in the military led by Lieutenant Khalid Islambouli, who would succeed in assassinating Anwar Sadat that October.

According to Tala'at Qasim, ex-head of the Gama'a Islamiyya interviewed in Middle East Report, it was not Islamic Jihad but his organization, known in English as the "Islamic Group", that organized the assassination and recruited the assassin (Islambouli). Members of the Group's 'Majlis el-Shura' ('Consultative Council') – headed by the famed 'blind shaykh' – were arrested two weeks before the killing, but they did not disclose the existing plans and Islambouli succeeded in assassinating Sadat.

On 6 October 1981, Sadat was assassinated during the annual victory parade held in Cairo to celebrate Egypt's crossing of the Suez Canal. Islambouli emptied his assault rifle into Sadat's body while in the front of the grandstand, mortally wounding the President. In addition to Sadat, eleven others were killed, including the Cuban ambassador, an Omani general, a Coptic Orthodox bishop and Samir Helmy, the head of Egypt's Central Auditing Agency (CAA). Twenty-eight were wounded, including Vice President Hosni Mubarak, Irish Defence Minister James Tully, and four US military liaison officers.

The assassination squad was led by Lieutenant Khalid Islambouli after a fatwā approving the assassination had been obtained from Omar Abdel-Rahman. Islambouli was tried, found guilty, sentenced to death, and executed by firing squad in April 1982.

Aftermath
Sadat was succeeded by his vice president Hosni Mubarak, whose hand was injured during the attack. Sadat's funeral was attended by a record number of dignitaries from around the world, including a rare simultaneous attendance by three former US presidents: Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon. Sudan's President Gaafar Nimeiry was the only Arab head of state to attend the funeral. Only 3 of 24 states in the Arab League—Oman, Somalia and Sudan—sent representatives at all. Israel's prime minister, Menachem Begin, considered Sadat a personal friend and insisted on attending the funeral, walking throughout the funeral procession so as not to desecrate the Sabbath. Sadat was buried in the unknown soldier memorial in Cairo, across the street from the stand where he was assassinated.

Over three hundred Islamic radicals were indicted in the trial of assassin Khalid Islambouli, including future al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, Omar Abdel-Rahman, and Abd al-Hamid Kishk. The trial was covered by the international press and Zawahiri's knowledge of English made him the de facto spokesman for the defendants. Zawahiri was released from prison in 1984. Abboud al-Zomor and Tareq al-Zomor, two Islamic Jihad leaders imprisoned in connection with the assassination, were released on 11 March 2011.

Despite these facts, the nephew of the late president, Talaat Sadat, claimed that the assassination was an international conspiracy. On 31 October 2006, he was sentenced to a year in prison for defaming Egypt's armed forces, less than a month after he gave the interview accusing Egyptian generals of masterminding his uncle's assassination. In an interview with a Saudi television channel, he also claimed both the United States and Israel were involved noting that no one from the special personal protection group of Sadat fired a single shot during the killing, and not one of them has been put on trial.

Media portrayals of Anwar Sadat
In 1983, Sadat, a miniseries based on the life of Anwar Sadat, aired on US television with Oscar-winning actor Louis Gossett Jr. in the title role. The film was promptly banned by the Egyptian government, as were all other movies produced and distributed by Columbia Pictures, over allegations of historical inaccuracies. A civil lawsuit was brought by Egypt's artists' and film unions against Columbia Pictures and the film's directors, producers and scriptwriters before a court in Cairo, but was dismissed, since the alleged slanders, having taken place outside the country, fell outside the Egyptian courts' jurisdiction.

The film was critically acclaimed in North America, but was unpopular among Egyptians and in the Egyptian press. Western authors attributed the film's poor reception in Egypt to racism – Gossett being African-American – in the Egyptian government or Egypt in general. Either way, one Western source wrote that Sadat's portrayal by Gossett "bothered race-conscious Egyptians and wouldn't have pleased [the deceased] Sadat," who identified as Egyptian and Northeast African, not black. The two-part series earned Gossett an Emmy nomination in the United States.

He was portrayed by Robert Loggia in the 1982 television movie A Woman Called Golda, opposite Ingrid Bergman as Golda Meir.

The first Egyptian depiction of Sadat's life came in 2001, when Ayyam El Sadat (English: The Days of Sadat) was released in Egyptian cinemas. The movie was a major success in Egypt, and was hailed as Ahmed Zaki's greatest performance to date.

Sadat was a recurring character on Saturday Night Live, played by Garrett Morris, who bore a resemblance to Sadat.

National

 * EGY_Order_of_the_Republic_-_Grand_Cordon_BAR.png Collar of the Order of the Republic
 * EGY_Order_of_the_Nile_-_Grand_Cordon_BAR.svg Grand Cordon of the Order of the Nile
 * EGY_Order_of_Merit_-_Grand_Cross_BAR.png Grand Cross of the Order of Merit
 * EGY_-_Order_of_the_Virtues_-_Supreme_and_first_classes.svg Supreme Class of the Order of the Virtues

Foreign

 * 🇦🇱 Albania: Grand Cross of the Order of Fidelity
 * 🇦🇹 Austria: Grand Star of the Decoration of Honour for Services to the Republic of Austria
 * 🇮🇹 Italy: Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic
 * 🇰🇼 Kuwait: Collar of the Order of Mubarak the Great
 * 🇲🇾 Malaysia: Honorary Grand Commander of the Order of the Defender of the Realm (SMN (K)) with title Tun (1965)
 * 🇳🇵 Nepal:
 * Member First Class of the Order of the Star of Nepal
 * Member of the Order of the Benevolent Ruler
 * 🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia: First Class of the Order of King Abdulaziz
 * Syria: Member First Class of the Order of the Umayyads
 * 🇹🇳 Tunisia: Grand Cross of the Order of the Republic
 * 🇺🇸 United States:
 * Recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom (1984)
 * Recipient of the Congressional Gold Medal (2018, posthumous)
 * Yugoslavia
 * Order of the Yugoslav Great Star (1977)

title: Anwar Sadat