text:
Colocation centre

A colocation center (also spelled co-location, or shortened to colo) or "carrier hotel", is a type of data centre where equipment, space, and bandwidth are available for rental to retail customers. Colocation facilities provide space, power, cooling, and physical security for the server, storage, and networking equipment of other firms and also connect them to a variety of telecommunications and network service providers with a minimum of cost and complexity.

Configuration
Many colocation providers sell to a wide range of customers, ranging from large enterprises to small companies. Typically, the customer owns the information technology (IT) equipment and the facility provides power and cooling. Customers retain control over the design and usage of their equipment, but daily management of the data center and facility are overseen by the multi-tenant colocation provider.

 * Cabinets – A cabinet is a locking unit that holds a server rack. In a multi-tenant data center, servers within cabinets share raised-floor space with other tenants, in addition to sharing power and cooling infrastructure.
 * Cages – A cage is dedicated server space within a traditional raised-floor data center; it is surrounded by mesh walls and entered through a locking door. Cages share power and cooling infrastructure with other data center tenants.
 * Suites – A suite is a dedicated, private server space within a traditional raised-floor data center; it is fully enclosed by solid partitions and entered through a locking door. Suites may share power and cooling infrastructure with other data center tenants, or have these resources provided on a dedicated basis.
 * Modules – data center modules are purpose-engineered modules and components to offer scalable data center capacity. They typically use standardized components, which make them easily added, integrated or retrofitted into existing data centers, and cheaper and easier to build. In a colocation environment, the data center module is a data center within a data center, with its own steel walls and security protocol, and its own cooling and power infrastructure. "A number of colocation companies have praised the modular approach to data centers to better match customer demand with physical build outs, and allow customers to buy a data center as a service, paying only for what they consume."

Building features
Buildings with data centres inside them are often easy to recognize by the amount of cooling equipment located outside or on the roof.

Colocation facilities have many other special characteristics:
 * Fire protection systems, including passive and active elements, as well as implementation of fire prevention programmes in operations. Smoke detectors are usually installed to provide early warning of a developing fire by detecting particles generated by smouldering components prior to the development of flame. This allows investigation, interruption of power, and manual fire suppression using hand held fire extinguishers before the fire grows to a large size. A fire sprinkler system is often provided to control a full scale fire if it develops. Clean agent fire suppression gaseous systems are sometimes installed to suppress a fire earlier than the fire sprinkler system. Passive fire protection elements include the installation of fire walls around the space, so a fire can be restricted to a portion of the facility for a limited time in the event of the failure of the active fire protection systems, or if they are not installed.
 * 19-inch racks for data equipment and servers, 23-inch racks for telecommunications equipment
 * Cabinets and cages for physical access control over tenants' equipment. Depending on one's needs a cabinet can house individual or multiple racks.
 * Overhead or underfloor cable rack (tray) and fibreguide, power cables usually on separate rack from data
 * Air conditioning is used to control the temperature and humidity in the space. ASHRAE recommends a temperature range and humidity range for optimal electronic equipment conditions versus environmental issues. The electrical power used by the electronic equipment is converted to heat, which is rejected to the ambient air in the data centre space. Unless the heat is removed, the ambient temperature will rise, resulting in electronic equipment malfunction. By controlling the space air temperature, the server components at the board level are kept within the manufacturer's specified temperature and humidity range. Air conditioning systems help keep equipment space humidity within acceptable parameters by cooling the return space air below the dew point. Too much humidity and water may begin to condense on internal components. In case of a dry atmosphere, ancillary humidification systems may add water vapour to the space if the humidity is too low, to avoid static electricity discharge problems which may damage components.
 * Low-impedance electrical ground
 * Few, if any, windows

Colocation data centres are often audited to prove that they attain certain standards and levels of reliability; the most commonly seen systems are SSAE 16 SOC 1 Type I and Type II (formerly SAS 70 Type I and Type II) and the tier system by the Uptime Institute or TIA. For service organizations today, SSAE 16 calls for a description of its "system". This is far more detailed and comprehensive than SAS 70's description of "controls". Other data center compliance standards include Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) audit and PCI DSS Standards.

Power
Colocation facilities generally have generators that start automatically when utility power fails, usually running on diesel fuel. These generators may have varying levels of redundancy, depending on how the facility is built. Generators do not start instantaneously, so colocation facilities usually have battery backup systems. In many facilities, the operator of the facility provides large inverters to provide AC power from the batteries. In other cases, customers may install smaller UPSes in their racks.

Some customers choose to use equipment that is powered directly by 48 VDC (nominal) battery banks. This may provide better energy efficiency, and may reduce the number of parts that can fail, though the reduced voltage greatly increases necessary current, and thus the size (and cost) of power delivery wiring. An alternative to batteries is a motor–generator connected to a flywheel and diesel engine.

Many colocation facilities can provide redundant, A and B power feeds to customer equipment, and high end servers and telecommunications equipment often can have two power supplies installed.

Colocation facilities are sometimes connected to multiple sections of the utility power grid for additional reliability.

Internal connections
Colocation facility owners have differing rules regarding cross-connects between their customers, some of whom may be carriers. These rules may allow customers to run such connections at no charge, or allow customers to order such connections for a monthly fee. They may allow customers to order cross-connects to carriers, but not to other customers. Some colocation centres feature a "meet-me-room" where the different carriers housed in the centre can efficiently exchange data.

Most peering points sit in colocation centres and because of the high concentration of servers inside larger colocation centres, most carriers will be interested in bringing direct connections to such buildings. In many cases, there will be a larger Internet exchange point hosted inside a colocation centre, where customers can connect for peering.

title: Colocation centre


text:
Colo (gorilla)

Colo (December 22, 1956 – January 17, 2017) was a western gorilla widely known as the first gorilla to be born in captivity anywhere in the world and the oldest known gorilla in the world in 2017. Colo was born at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium to Millie Christina (mother) and Baron Macombo (father), and lived there for her entire life. She was briefly called "Cuddles" before a contest was held to officially name her. (Mrs. Howard Brannon of Zanesville, Ohio, won the contest.) Colo's name was derived from the place of her birth, Columbus, Ohio.

Life
The Columbus Zoo first introduced gorillas in 1951. It was in 1956 that two gorillas first produced offspring in the zoo. The gorilla was named Colo, short for the Columbus Zoo. After she was rejected at birth by her mother, zookeepers had to hand-raise Colo. They hand-raised her much like a human child, by dressing her in clothes and giving her bottles of formula. At the age of two years, Colo was introduced to a 19-month-old male from Africa called Bongo. Colo and Bongo had three offspring, the first on February 1, 1968, Emmy, a female. Colo and Bongo had two more offspring: Oscar, born July 18, 1969, and Toni, on December 28, 1971.

On April 25, 1979, Columbus Zoo had its first third generation birth. The infant was named Cora, short for Central Ohio Rare Ape. On January 27, 1997, Colo's great-grandson Jantu was born. A birth at the Henry Doorly Zoo made Colo a great-great-grandmother in 2003. Although Colo did not raise any of her own offspring, she reared her twin grandsons, Macombo II and Mosuba, from birth. Colo also acted as a guardian for her grandson, named J.J. after "Jungle" Jack Hanna with whom he shares a birthday.

Colo was held at the Columbus Zoo and has been there longer than any other animal in the zoo's captive animal collection. Colo and her progeny, five of whom are still held at the Columbus Zoo, comprised about one-third of the Zoo's 17 captive gorillas as of 2015.

Colo became the oldest living gorilla in captivity following the death of 55-year-old Jenny in September 2008. Colo celebrated her 60th birthday on December 22, 2016. The Columbus Zoo announced that Colo died in her sleep on January 17, 2017.

Genealogy
Colo was a mother to three, a grandmother to 16, a great-grandmother to 12, and a great-great-grandmother to three.

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

title: Colo (gorilla)


text:
Telephone company

A telephone company is a kind of electronic communications service provider, more precisely a telecommunications service provider (TSP), that provides telecommunications services such as telephony and data communications access. Many traditional solely telephone companies now function as internet service providers (ISPs), and the distinction between a telephone company and ISP has tended to disappear completely over time, as the current trend for supplier convergence in the industry developes. Additionally, with advances in technology development, other traditional separate industries such as cable television, Voice-over IP (VoIP), and satellite providers offer similar competing features as the telephone companies to both residential and businesses leading to further evolution of corporate identity have taken shape.

Due to the nature of capital expenditure involved in the past, most telecoms were government owned agencies or privately-owned monopolies operated in most countries under close state-regulations. But today there are many private players in most regions of the world, and even most of the government owned companies have been opened up to competition in-line with World Trade Organization (WTO) policy agenda. Historically these government agencies were often referred to, primarily in Europe, as PTTs (postal, telegraph and telephone services). Telephone companies are common carriers, and in the United States are also known as local exchange carriers. With the advent of mobile telephony, telephone companies now include wireless carriers, or mobile network operators and even satellite providers (Iridium).

Over time software companies have also evolved to perform telephone services such as: Net2Phone, WhatsApp, and others.

History
In 1913, the Kingsbury Commitment allowed more than 20,000 independent telephone companies in the United States to use the long distance trunks of Bell Telephone Company.

Popular culture

 * Comedian Lily Tomlin frequently satirized the telephone industry (and the country's then-dominant Bell System in particular) with a skit playing the telephone operator Ernestine. Ernestine, who became one of Tomlin's trademark characters, was perhaps most famous for the following line: "We don't care; we don't have to. We're the phone company."
 * In the satirical 1967 film The President's Analyst, The Phone Company (TPC) is depicted as plotting to enslave humanity by replacing landlines with brain-implanted mobile phones.
 * In the 1988 video game Zak McKracken and the Alien Mindbenders, The Phone Company (TPC) was used by the Caponian aliens to secretly reduce the intelligence of humans.

References and notes

 * Notes

 * Citations

 * Bibliography
 * Huurdeman, Anton A. The Worldwide History Of Telecommunications, Wiley-IEEE, 2003, ISBN 0-471-20505-2, ISBN 978-0-471-20505-0

title: Telephone company


text:
User talk:Walter

Requests for adminship/Walter
Hi Walter, just to let you know I posted two additional questions at Requests for adminship/Walter, would you care to have a look at them? I tried to make them open questions, in order to give you maximum liberty in answering them. tx. --Francis Schonken 08:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I have seen them. Thanks, it is good to anwers questions so users can make up there mind. --Walter 11:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I have a question on your current languages on your nomination page. --User:General Eisenhower 02:14, March 25 2006

 * What do you mean? That nomination is closed and I do not intend to reapply for at least one year. --Walter 21:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

VWN en WCN
Beste Walter,

Al enige tijd is er een Nederlandstalig chapter in oprichting, te vinden op http://nl.wikimedia.org. Dit wordt de Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland (VWN). Je kunt je interesse om lid te worden van deze vereniging hier aangeven.

Deze vereniging gaat eind augustus/begin september een Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland (WCN) houden, volgend op Wikimania in Boston, gedeeltelijk erop inspelend middels een aantal discussiegroepen. Om iets dergelijks te organiseren is imput erg gewenst. Dus als je wilt meehelpen, of als je interesse hebt om bij een dergelijk evenement aanwezig te zijn, geef dat dan aan op nl.wikimedia. Ik hoop daar snel je imput tegemoet te zien! Met vriendelijke groet, effeietsanders 21:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

PR week article
If you want to see the PR week article (which was subscribtion only), go to OTRS and take a look at Ticket#2006021710004879 Raul654 03:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

user:excaliburo
This is a definite dormant sock of user:Bonaparte. We have already wasted a huge amount of nerve and effort with him. And User:Alucard sepetdalv is not off my hook either. I guess you are a new in this ugly history of User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry and his persisitent trolling and using open proxiee to pretend that they are from "different continents". In fact, user:Bonaparte is from all over the globe, a true "citizen of the world", so to say. mikka (t) 21:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I am absolutely not interested in this Bonaparte-sock puppet story. I only know that two users that you have blocked now have come complain about there block here on EN Wikipedia at Meta. You have decided that user user:excaliburo is a sockpuppet of user Bonaparte. user:excaliburo does not agree. You need to inform that user where he can complain about that. I do not know where and he seems also not to know it because he comes to Meta and is annoying people there. --Walter 22:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you were runing for admin. With this attitude you will have problems, colleague. "He comes to meta and annoys people there", welcome to wiki world. That he does not know where to complain is bullshit. The page that appears when a blocked user logs in contains all necessary info. That he did not use regular channels is yet another proof of what you are not interested to hear. mikka (t) 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

about bots
I'we have replied to your discussion at WT:BRFA → A z a  Toth 00:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi there, Walter. For convenience and organisation, I've set up a couple of pages pertinent to the bot approvals process on En; these can be found at Bots/Trial runs and Bots/Approval log.

 * Items on the former list are approved for a one week trial run, while the latter list details all approved bot flags. I think this will lower the administrative overhead, and I'm sure it'll make life easier for the stewards as to who needs what doing when. :)

 * Cheers. Rob Church (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Porto-Novo
moved

Userpage
I took the liberty of fixing two spelling mistakes in your profile. I hope that you don't mind. You are more than welcome to revert my changes. Regards, Alphachimp  talk  00:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Inline audio link pop-ups

As you're one of the people who commented about formatting/clutter on the audio template, I'm wondering what you think of my proposal for a javascript popup instead. I fixed the "clicking on the icon goes to the image page" problem a while ago, but there is still the "overloaded interface"/"too many click targets" problem, and I'm proposing we use javascript to hide the extra links until you hover over it. You can try out the mock-up yourself by adding this to your User:Walter/monobook.js:

document.write('');

This would be a site-wide change, so everyone would see it, and it safely falls back to the current design with several links on browsers without javascript. I would be happy with any kind of support, suggestions, or criticism; right now I feel like I'm talking to a wall. — Omegatron 18:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Deblokkering Mythologica
Hallo Walter

Ik ben een gebruiker op Wiki NL maar sindskort geblokkeerd voor sokpopperij. Ik heb hier spijt van en zou graag gedeblokkeerd worden zoals je zult zien draag ik ook bij aan Wikipedia bv. het artikel over de heilige Agatha. Ik discusierde hier al over met Oscar maar hij antwoord niet veel en is wat onduidelijk. Ik weet dat ik normaal de ontsnappingclausule zou moeten opvolgen maar ik ken GEEN adres van een betrouwbare medewerker! Help me alsjeblieft, ik zou graag terug bij dragen aan wikipedia NL onder de naam Mythologica.

Groeten

Ruben alias Mythologica

Wikizine tip
],,. See it live when doing a diff of old revisions. helix84 12:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the tip. For reporting news to Wikizine please do not do it here but on my talk page on Meta --Walter 00:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Bruges burial
Please can you tell me how to find the burial place in Bruges of John Arbuthnott, 8th Viscount of Arbuthnott ? - Kittybrewster 21:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Belgium
Dag Walter,

hier op de Engelstalige Wikipedia werd het dringend tijd dat we er mee begonnen, en dus zou ik je graag uitnodigen voor WikiProject Belgium. Ge hebt het waarschijnlijk razend druk met al uw functies enzo, maar het kan misschien geen kwaad om af en toe eens een kijkje te komen nemen, bovendien zou het leuk zijn voor ons project om iemand als jou er bij te hebben.

vriendelijke groeten, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Say no to fair use
Just cleaning out my watchlist and saw this "Say no to fair use" banner on your talk page. Can you explain what you mean by it? — Omegatron 16:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 * This means that I am totally against the use of anything under the licence "Free use" on this Wikipedia. Greetings, --Walter  Do you have news? Report it to Wikizine 23:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I think you mean "fair use". Why are you against it? — Omegatron 04:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Correct. Because Wikipedia is about creating a free to use and free to distribute encyclopedia. This is the English language wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. Using images who are allowed under American law as Fair Use is highly irresponsible behavior. It makes this Wikipedia less free then it could be. Example; The Adventures of Tintin. Those illustrations are not free but are copyright protected. In the USA the can be used under the Fair Use system but outside the USA that is a clear copyright violation. It is hypocritical to use fair use. Or you respect copyright laws or you do not. The good side it that the last years things are improving. Commons does not allow fair use and slowly the use of Fair use in the EN Wikipedia is losing ground. Some day the EN Wikipedia will also a free wikipedia like the non-English Wikipedia are. --Walter Do you have news? Report it to Wikizine 14:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Some day the EN Wikipedia will also a free wikipedia like the non-English Wikipedia are.

 * I sincerely hope this never happens. That would be a very sad day for the project.

 * Look at The Adventures of Tintin, for example. Those images are not available under a copyleft license and never will be.  If not for the concept of fair use or fair dealing, we would not be able to illustrate that article at all!  Those who hold copyrights could imprison information forever, making it impossible for us to speak freely or spread knowledge.  We could no longer quote people or books without violating copyright and being sued.

 * I fully support copyleft and we should use Free images wherever possible. But when this isn't possible, we should use whatever we legally can.  Our goal of giving everyone in the world access to the sum of human knowledge is the most important goal of all.

 * In the words of Jimbo Wales:
 * "I certainly do not share the attitude that Wikipedia is better than Britannica merely because it is free. It is my intention that we aim at Britannica-or-better quality, period, free or non-free. We should strive to be the best."
 * — Omegatron 16:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A little mistake
Hi, I'm an Italian user that read the wonderful magazine that every Week you release :) But, i've noticed that you've done a mistake in the latest post,

''[Wiki] - It is now offical. "Wiki" is a word - it must be so because it is now in the Oxford English Dictionary.''

Maybe you mean official? :) I know that in this message i've probably written a lot of mistakes but in an official page it's maybe better that there aren't :-) Bye, [  F  i  l  n  i  k  |  Talk!  | Discus ]  17:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Hi, thanks for the feedback. I only now noticed your message here. Yes, it was supposed to be "official". I do not think confusion is likely so I will not include a correction in next Wikizine.
 * Strictly spoken is "official" also not correct. For English is there no institute or government body that defines what English is or not, like exists for several other languages. So a word in English can not have an official status. --Walter (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

About Wikizine
Since Wikipedia is moving towards dual-licensing (GFDL + CC-BY-SA 3.0), will Wikizine be also convert to dual-licenses? Or will it remain GFDL only? OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Since Wikizine CIV is Wikizine dual-licensed. See text at the end of Wikizine. Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html and also the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic License  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/   This was done by request of meta:user:Millosh for use of Wikizine on EN Wikinews. --Walter (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Perhaps if you could add CC-BY-2.5 logo onto the home page, that will clear up any confusion. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I have made some changes to the website about that. Removed the license refference in the left menu. And changed the text of the footer of the website. --Walter (talk) 10:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Your user page
I found your old user page while checking out some old edits. I have history merged it, so that all edits are in one place. Hope you don't mind. Graham 87 14:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikizine
Thanks for your work on Wikizine. I understand why it would be closed but I hope that you and anyone else who worked on Wikizine would consider writing for the Signpost which is very alive and well. --Pine✉ 20:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Hi, thanks for the suggestion. I am very pleased that the Wikipedia Signpost is still doing well. I always used it as a reference point for Wikizine regarding its organisation and quality. The Signpost is very different. Not only in form but also its target audience. It is a local newspaper bringing the local wiki-specific news. Nothing wrong with that. But I do not see what I can do here. --Walter (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

 * You could consider working on the Research, Technical, or "News and Notes" reports. Each of those regularly contains information that's relevant to a variety of languages, chapters, and Wikimedia projects such as MediaWiki. --Pine✉ 00:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

IJsland listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect IJsland. Since you had some involvement with the IJsland redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Walter


text:
Elfstedentocht

The Elfstedentocht (West Frisian: Alvestêdetocht, English: Eleven cities tour) is a long-distance tour skating event on natural ice, almost 200 km long, which is held both as a speed skating competition (with 300 contestants) and a leisure tour (with 16,000 skaters). The Elfstedentocht is the biggest ice-skating tour in the world.

The tour is held in the province of Friesland in the north of the Netherlands, leading past all eleven historical cities of the province. The tour is held at most once a year, only when the natural ice along the entire course is at least 15 cm thick; sometimes on consecutive years, other times with gaps that may exceed 20 years. When the ice is suitable, the tour is announced and starts within 48 hours.

The Elfstedentocht has been declared to be in danger of "extinction" due to climate change. In the past 50 years, the Elfstedentocht has taken place only three times, most recently in 1997.

Course and rules
The tour, almost 200 km (125 miles) in length, follows a closed or circular route along frozen canals, rivers and lakes visiting the eleven historic Frisian cities: Leeuwarden, Sneek, IJlst, Sloten, Stavoren, Hindeloopen, Workum, Bolsward, Harlingen, Franeker, Dokkum, then returning to Leeuwarden. The tour is held only if the ice is, and remains, at least 15 centimetres (6") thick along the entire course as about 15,000 amateur skaters take part, putting high requirements on the quality of the ice. The last tours were held in 1985, 1986 and 1997. All skaters must be members of the Association of the Eleven Frisian Towns. A starting permit and bib is required (€100 in 2017). Skaters must collect a stamp in each city, and at three secret check points, and must finish the course before midnight.

There are often points along the route where the ice is too thin to allow mass skating; they are called "kluning points" (from West Frisian klúnje meaning to run on skates over a carpet ), and the skaters walk on their skates to the next stretch of good ice. In 1997 ice-transplantation was re-introduced to strengthen weak places in the ice, for instance under bridges.

The finishing point of the Elfstedentocht is a canal near Leeuwarden, called the "Bonkevaart", close to the landmark windmill, De Bullemolen, Lekkum.

Planning and publicity
Since the Elfstedentocht is such a rare event, its declaration creates excitement all over the country. In the build-up to a possible race in 2012, Mark Rutte, the Dutch Prime Minister remarked "once every fifteen years our country is not governed from The Hague but by twenty-two district heads in Friesland. And our country is in good hands." As soon as a few days pass with below-freezing temperatures, the media start speculating about the chances for an Elfstedentocht. The longer the freezing temperatures stay, the more intense this "Elfstedenkoorts" (eleven cities fever) gets, culminating in a national near-frenzy when it is announced that the tour will actually be held. The day before the tour many Dutch flock to Leeuwarden to enjoy the party atmosphere that surrounds the event; that evening, called the "Nacht van Leeuwarden" (Night of Leeuwarden), becomes a giant street party (Frisians, who have a reputation for surliness, are said to thaw when it freezes).

On the day of the tour many Dutch either stay at home to watch it on television (9.2 million viewers by one estimate ), or find a place along the route to cheer the skaters on, either taking the day off or calling in sick for work. In February 2012, Friesland hotels were fully booked and expecting between 1.5 and 2 million visitors in anticipation of a tour before it was announced, as the weather seemed suitable.

History
There has been mention of skaters visiting all eleven cities of Friesland on one day since 1760. The Elfstedentocht was already part of Frisian tradition when, in 1890, Pim Mulier conceived the idea of an organised tour, which was first held in 1909 when 22 men competed. After this race, the Vereniging De Friesche Elf Steden(nl) (Association of the Eleven Frisian Towns) was established to organise the tours.

In the 1912 edition Jikke Gaastra was the first woman ever who finished the Elfstedentocht, but could not complete the full tour because the ice was not good enough after Sneek. In the 1917 edition Janna van der Weg was the first woman who finished the tour. The winters of 1939/40, 1940/41 and 1941/42 were particularly severe, with the race being run in each of them. The 1940 race, run three months prior to the German invasion of the Netherlands, saw over 3,000 competitors start at 05:00 on 30 January, with the first five finishing at 16:34. The event dominated the front pages of Dutch newspapers.

The Elfstedentocht of 1963 became known as "The hell of '63" when only 69 of the 10,000 participants were able to finish the race, due to the extremely low temperatures of -18 °C (0°F), powder snow and a harsh eastern wind. Conditions were so horrendous that the 1963 winner, Reinier Paping, became a national hero, and the tour itself legendary. Paping could not make out the finishing line as he was snow blind by the end of the race, and many of the contestants had frostbite, broken limbs, and damaged eyes.

The next Elfstedentocht after 1963 was held in 1985; times had changed. Before, one of the best methods to stay warm during the tour was to wear newspapers underneath the clothes. In the 20 years between the tours of 1963 and 1985, clothing, training methods and skates became much more advanced, changing the nature of skating.

The tour of 1985 was terminated prematurely because of thawing; as early as 22:00 in the evening skaters were taken off the ice. In 1986 the current Dutch King (at the time still Crown Prince) Willem-Alexander completed the Elfstedentocht under the name W.A. van Buren, Van Buren being a traditional pseudonym of the Royal House. In 1997 Piet Kleine, who had previously won a gold medal at the Olympics for speed skating was disqualified because he missed getting a stamp at Hindeloopen despite video evidence that he had been there.

Elfstedentocht 2012 – the race that did not happen
The ten-day cold spell in late January and early February 2012, the 33rd such occurrence since 1901 when temperatures as low as -22.9 °C (-9.2°F) were recorded in Lelystad, heightened the expectation of a 2012 Elfstedentocht – the expected day of the event, had it taken place, was Saturday 11 February.

On 2 February 2012, it was reported that 95% of various locks that controlled the water flow in the canals had been adjusted to maximise the ice thickness. On the same day, the Dutch meteorological institute forecast that temperatures would not rise above freezing until Wednesday 8 February at the earliest and that the thickness of the ice would be 15 cm (6") from Tuesday 7 February until Saturday 11 February. On 3 February, the Dutch meteorological institute forecast a probable ice-thickness of 20 (8") on Saturday 11 February and on 5 February they forecast an ice thickness approaching 25 cm (10").

On 6 February it was announced that the committee had met the previous evening for the first time in fifteen years. Although there were areas where the ice was not thick enough for the race to be held, the forecast for continuing freezing weather meant that they were optimistic that the race would be held. A press conference was held at 09:30 CET and the committee was due to meet again on 8 February. At the press conference, it was stated that in north Friesland the ice conditions were suitable to hold the race. In south west Friesland, the conditions were not so good, Stavoren being a particular problem where the ice was only 2 cm (1") thick in places.

On 6 February a prohibition order on navigation on many of the canals in Friesland was extended in order to facilitate the growth of the ice. The following day the Dutch meteorological institute forecast that the cold spell would break on Sunday 12 February or Monday 13 February with the temperature rising above freezing point.

Late afternoon on the 8 February Wiebe Wieling, chairman of the organising committee, said that the race was off – the committee had to be realistic – safety issues had made the race impossible. A ten-day cold spell was insufficient for the event; the 1997 event had taken place at the end of a 12-day cold spell.

Winners
The time taken for the winner to complete the course is given in hours and minutes. Although temperatures were sometimes above freezing on the day of the tour, all tours were preceded by many days of below-freezing temperatures. Women were first allowed to take part in the tour proper in 1985; before then they had to skate with the amateurs and no award was given. The women to cross the finish line first were:

The course can vary slightly from race to race, depending on the quality of the ice. The cumulative distance at each checkpoint in 1997 was:
 * 1940 – Sjoerdtsje Faber
 * 1941 – Wopkje Kooistra
 * 1942 – Antje Schaap
 * 1985 – Lenie van der Hoorn
 * 1986 – Tineke Dijkshoorn
 * 1997 – Klasina Seinstra (7:49.11)

 * 0 km: Leeuwarden
 * 22 km: Sneek (municipality Súdwest-Fryslân)
 * 26 km: IJlst (mun. Súdwest-Fryslân)
 * 40 km: Sloten (mun. De Fryske Marren)
 * 66 km: Stavoren (mun. Súdwest-Fryslân)
 * 77 km: Hindeloopen (mun. Súdwest-Fryslân)
 * 86 km: Workum (mun. Súdwest-Fryslân)
 * 99 km: Bolsward (mun. Súdwest-Fryslân)
 * 116 km: Harlingen
 * 129 km: Franeker (mun. Waadhoeke)
 * 174 km: Dokkum (mun. Noardeast-Fryslân)
 * 199 km: Leeuwarden

Alternative Elfstedentocht
An "alternative Elfstedentocht" has been held every year in January since 1989 on the Weissensee in Carinthia, Austria.

The 930 mAA (3051 ft) lake is 12 km long (7 miles) and around 3000 speed skaters do either the 50, 100 or 200 km (30, 60 or 125 mile) course at what is likely to be the world's largest ice sport event.

The Dutch Speed Skating Championship is part of the event and the fastest competitors do the 200 kilometre (125 mile) course in just over five hours.

Fietselfstedentocht (Eleven towns by bicycle)

The eleven towns cycle race was first held in 1912 and developed in parallel with its skating counterpart, but unlike the skating race, has taken place on almost every year - apart from the 2001 event which was cancelled due to foot and mouth disease and the 2020 event which was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it has taken place on Whit Monday every year since 1947. The event has become immensely popular and as a safety precaution it ceased to be a race but has become a tour with a maximum average speed of 25 km/h (15 mph) between checkpoints.

The tour, which starts and ends in Bolsward rather than Leeuwarden, is currently limited to 15,000 entrants. Between 05:00 and 08:00, entrants leave Bolsward every eight minutes in batches of about 600 and those who complete the 235 km (146 mile) course before midnight receive medals.

In 2013 the organisers banned velomobiles from the event by limiting the event to two-wheeled vehicles propelled by human power.

Zwemelfstedentocht
In 2018, Dutch long-distance swimmer Maarten van der Weijden attempted to swim the entire eleven city tour. This attempt ended due to poor swimming conditions and illness from E. coli. The following summer he successfully completed the route, arriving at the finish in Leeuwarden on June 24, 2019. His effort raised over €6.1 million for cancer research.

Elfstedentriathlon
The Eleven Cities Triathlon was completed for the first time by Frisian triathlete Stefan van der Pal in 2020. Within a week he swam 200 kilometres (125 miles) (five days), then cycled the trip (7 hours) and then ran the route again (32.5 hours). He raised €96000 for a foundation that is committed to research into brain stem cancer in children.

Between June 18th and 25th 2023, Maarten van der Weijden completed the Eleven Cities Triathlon. He raised over 3 million euro for cancer research. Unlike van der Pal, who ran, van der Weijden walked the last part.

title: Elfstedentocht


text:
Jakko Jan Leeuwangh

Jakko Jan Leeuwangh (born 9 September 1972 ) is a former speed skater from the Netherlands. He finished fourth in the 1998 Olympic 1000 m event. In January 2000 he broke the 1500 m world record in Calgary, Canada, holding the record until it was broken by Lee Kyou-hyuk in March 2001.

World records
Source: SpeedSkatingStats.com

Tournament overview
source:

title: Jakko Jan Leeuwangh


text:
Arrhenius equation

In physical chemistry, the Arrhenius equation is a formula for the temperature dependence of reaction rates. The equation was proposed by Svante Arrhenius in 1889, based on the work of Dutch chemist Jacobus Henricus van 't Hoff who had noted in 1884 that the van 't Hoff equation for the temperature dependence of equilibrium constants suggests such a formula for the rates of both forward and reverse reactions. This equation has a vast and important application in determining the rate of chemical reactions and for calculation of energy of activation. Arrhenius provided a physical justification and interpretation for the formula. Currently, it is best seen as an empirical relationship. It can be used to model the temperature variation of diffusion coefficients, population of crystal vacancies, creep rates, and many other thermally induced processes and reactions. The Eyring equation, developed in 1935, also expresses the relationship between rate and energy.

Equation
The Arrhenius equation gives the dependence of the rate constant of a chemical reaction on the absolute temperature as $$k = Ae^\frac{- E_\text{a}}{RT},$$ where
 * $k$ is the rate constant (frequency of collisions resulting in a reaction),
 * $T$ is the absolute temperature,
 * $A$ is the pre-exponential factor or Arrhenius factor or frequency factor. Arrhenius originally considered A to be a temperature-independent constant for each chemical reaction. However more recent treatments include some temperature dependence – see  below.
 * $E_{a}$ is the molar activation energy for the reaction,
 * $R$ is the universal gas constant.

Alternatively, the equation may be expressed as $$k = Ae^\frac{-E_\text{a}}{k_\text{B}T},$$ where
 * $E_{a}$ is the activation energy for the reaction (in the same unit as kBT),
 * $k_{B}$ is the Boltzmann constant.

The only difference is the unit of $E_{a}$: the former form uses energy per mole, which is common in chemistry, while the latter form uses energy per molecule directly, which is common in physics. The different units are accounted for in using either the gas constant, $R$, or the Boltzmann constant, $k_{B}$, as the multiplier of temperature $T$.

The unit of the pre-exponential factor $A$ are identical to those of the rate constant and will vary depending on the order of the reaction. If the reaction is first order it has the unit s−1, and for that reason it is often called the frequency factor or attempt frequency of the reaction. Most simply, $k$ is the number of collisions that result in a reaction per second, $A$ is the number of collisions (leading to a reaction or not) per second occurring with the proper orientation to react and $$e^\frac{- E_\text{a}}{RT}$$ is the probability that any given collision will result in a reaction. It can be seen that either increasing the temperature or decreasing the activation energy (for example through the use of catalysts) will result in an increase in rate of reaction.

Given the small temperature range of kinetic studies, it is reasonable to approximate the activation energy as being independent of the temperature. Similarly, under a wide range of practical conditions, the weak temperature dependence of the pre-exponential factor is negligible compared to the temperature dependence of the factor $e^\frac{- E_\text{a} }{RT}$; except in the case of "barrierless" diffusion-limited reactions, in which case the pre-exponential factor is dominant and is directly observable.

With this equation it can be roughly estimated that the rate of reaction increases by a factor of about 2 to 3 for every 10 °C rise in temperature, for common values of activation energy and temperature range.

The $$e^{\frac{-E_a}{RT}}$$ factor denotes the fraction of molecules with energy greater than or equal to $$E_a$$.

Derivation
Van't Hoff argued that the temperature $$T$$ of a reaction and the standard equilibrium constant $$ k^0_\text{e}$$ exhibit the relation:

where $$\Delta U^0$$ denotes the apposite standard internal energy change value.

Let $$k_\text{f}$$ and $$k_\text{b}$$ respectively denote the forward and backward reaction rates of the reaction of interest, then $$, an equation from which $$ \ln k^0_\text{e} = \ln k_\text{f} - \ln k_\text{b}$$ naturally follows.

Substituting the expression for $$ \ln k^0_\text{e} $$ in eq.($k^0_\text{e} = \frac{k_\text{f} }{k_\text{b} }$), we obtain $$.

The preceding equation can be broken down into the following two equations:

and

where $$E_\text{f}$$ and $$E_\text{b}$$ are the activation energies associated with the forward and backward reactions respectively, with $$ \Delta U^0 = E_\text{f} - E_\text{b} $$.

Experimental findings suggest that the constants in eq.($\frac{d\ln k_\text{f} }{dT} - \frac{d\ln k_\text{b} }{dT} = \frac{\Delta U^0}{RT^2}$) and eq.($$) can be treated as being equal to zero, so that and

Integrating these equations and taking the exponential yields the results $$ and $$, where each pre-exponential factor $$A_\text{f}$$ or $$A_\text{b}$$ is mathematically the exponential of the constant of integration for the respective indefinite integral in question.

Arrhenius plot
Taking the natural logarithm of Arrhenius equation yields: $$\ln k= \ln A - \frac{E_\text{a}}{R} \frac{1}{T}.$$

Rearranging yields: $$\ln k = \frac{-E_\text{a}}{R}\left(\frac{1}{T}\right) + \ln A.$$

This has the same form as an equation for a straight line: $$y = m x + c,$$ where x is the reciprocal of T.

So, when a reaction has a rate constant that obeys the Arrhenius equation, a plot of ln k versus T−1 gives a straight line, whose gradient and intercept can be used to determine Ea and A. This procedure has become so common in experimental chemical kinetics that practitioners have taken to using it to define the activation energy for a reaction. That is, the activation energy is defined to be (−R) times the slope of a plot of ln k vs. (1/T): $$E_\text{a} \equiv -R \left[ \frac{\partial \ln k}{\partial (1/T)} \right]_P.$$

Modified Arrhenius equation
The modified Arrhenius equation makes explicit the temperature dependence of the pre-exponential factor. The modified equation is usually of the form $$k = A T^n e^\frac{- E_\text{a}}{RT}.$$

The original Arrhenius expression above corresponds to n = 0. Fitted rate constants typically lie in the range −1 < n < 1. Theoretical analyses yield various predictions for n. It has been pointed out that "it is not feasible to establish, on the basis of temperature studies of the rate constant, whether the predicted T1/2 dependence of the pre-exponential factor is observed experimentally". However, if additional evidence is available, from theory and/or from experiment (such as density dependence), there is no obstacle to incisive tests of the Arrhenius law.

Another common modification is the stretched exponential form $$k = A \exp \left[-\left(\frac{E_a}{RT}\right)^\beta\right],$$ where β is a dimensionless number of order 1. This is typically regarded as a purely empirical correction or fudge factor to make the model fit the data, but can have theoretical meaning, for example showing the presence of a range of activation energies or in special cases like the Mott variable range hopping.

Arrhenius's concept of activation energy
Arrhenius argued that for reactants to transform into products, they must first acquire a minimum amount of energy, called the activation energy Ea. At an absolute temperature T, the fraction of molecules that have a kinetic energy greater than Ea can be calculated from statistical mechanics. The concept of activation energy explains the exponential nature of the relationship, and in one way or another, it is present in all kinetic theories.

The calculations for reaction rate constants involve an energy averaging over a Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution with $$E_\text{a}$$ as lower bound and so are often of the type of incomplete gamma functions, which turn out to be proportional to $$e^{\frac{-E_\text{a}}{RT}}$$.

Collision theory
One approach is the collision theory of chemical reactions, developed by Max Trautz and William Lewis in the years 1916–18. In this theory, molecules are supposed to react if they collide with a relative kinetic energy along their line of centers that exceeds Ea. The number of binary collisions between two unlike molecules per second per unit volume is found to be $$ z_{AB} = N_\text{A} d_{AB}^2 \sqrt\frac{8 \pi k_\text{B}T}{ \mu_{AB}} ,$$ where NA is the Avogadro constant, dAB is the average diameter of A and B, T is the temperature which is multiplied by the Boltzmann constant kB to convert to energy, and μAB is the reduced mass.

The rate constant is then calculated as $$, so that the collision theory predicts that the pre-exponential factor is equal to the collision number zAB. However for many reactions this agrees poorly with experiment, so the rate constant is written instead as $k_\text{f} = A_\text{f}e^{-E_\text{f}/RT}$. Here $$\rho$$ is an empirical steric factor, often much less than 1.00, which is interpreted as the fraction of sufficiently energetic collisions in which the two molecules have the correct mutual orientation to react.

Transition state theory
The Eyring equation, another Arrhenius-like expression, appears in the "transition state theory" of chemical reactions, formulated by Eugene Wigner, Henry Eyring, Michael Polanyi and M. G. Evans in the 1930s. The Eyring equation can be written: $$k = \frac{k_\text{B}T}{h} e^{-\frac{\Delta G^\ddagger}{RT}} = \frac{k_\text{B}T}{h} e^{\frac{\Delta S^\ddagger}{R}}e^{-\frac{\Delta H^\ddagger}{RT}},$$ where $$\Delta G^\ddagger$$ is the Gibbs energy of activation, $$\Delta S^\ddagger$$ is the entropy of activation, $$\Delta H^\ddagger$$ is the enthalpy of activation, $$k_\text{B}$$ is the Boltzmann constant, and $$h$$ is the Planck constant.

At first sight this looks like an exponential multiplied by a factor that is linear in temperature. However, free energy is itself a temperature dependent quantity. The free energy of activation $$\Delta G^\ddagger = \Delta H^\ddagger - T\Delta S^\ddagger$$ is the difference of an enthalpy term and an entropy term multiplied by the absolute temperature. The pre-exponential factor depends primarily on the entropy of activation. The overall expression again takes the form of an Arrhenius exponential (of enthalpy rather than energy) multiplied by a slowly varying function of T. The precise form of the temperature dependence depends upon the reaction, and can be calculated using formulas from statistical mechanics involving the partition functions of the reactants and of the activated complex.

Limitations of the idea of Arrhenius activation energy
Both the Arrhenius activation energy and the rate constant k are experimentally determined, and represent macroscopic reaction-specific parameters that are not simply related to threshold energies and the success of individual collisions at the molecular level. Consider a particular collision (an elementary reaction) between molecules A and B. The collision angle, the relative translational energy, the internal (particularly vibrational) energy will all determine the chance that the collision will produce a product molecule AB. Macroscopic measurements of E and k are the result of many individual collisions with differing collision parameters. To probe reaction rates at molecular level, experiments are conducted under near-collisional conditions and this subject is often called molecular reaction dynamics.

Another situation where the explanation of the Arrhenius equation parameters falls short is in heterogeneous catalysis, especially for reactions that show Langmuir-Hinshelwood kinetics. Clearly, molecules on surfaces do not "collide" directly, and a simple molecular cross-section does not apply here. Instead, the pre-exponential factor reflects the travel across the surface towards the active site.

There are deviations from the Arrhenius law during the glass transition in all classes of glass-forming matter. The Arrhenius law predicts that the motion of the structural units (atoms, molecules, ions, etc.) should slow down at a slower rate through the glass transition than is experimentally observed. In other words, the structural units slow down at a faster rate than is predicted by the Arrhenius law. This observation is made reasonable assuming that the units must overcome an energy barrier by means of a thermal activation energy. The thermal energy must be high enough to allow for translational motion of the units which leads to viscous flow of the material.

title: Arrhenius equation


text:
Peering

In computer networking, peering is a voluntary interconnection of administratively separate Internet networks for the purpose of exchanging traffic between the "down-stream" users of each network. Peering is settlement-free, also known as "bill-and-keep" or "sender keeps all", meaning that neither party pays the other in association with the exchange of traffic; instead, each derives and retains revenue from its own customers.

An agreement by two or more networks to peer is instantiated by a physical interconnection of the networks, an exchange of routing information through the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) routing protocol, tacit agreement to norms of conduct and, in some extraordinarily rare cases (0.07%), a formalized contractual document.

In 0.02% of cases the word "peering" is used to describe situations where there is some settlement involved. Because these outliers can be viewed as creating ambiguity, the phrase "settlement-free peering" is sometimes used to explicitly denote normal cost-free peering.

History
The first Internet exchange point was the Commercial Internet eXchange (CIX), formed by Alternet/UUNET (now Verizon Business), PSI, and CERFNET to exchange traffic without regard for whether the traffic complied with the acceptable use policy (AUP) of the NSFNet or ANS' interconnection policy. The CIX infrastructure consisted of a single router, managed by PSI, and was initially located in Santa Clara, California. Paying CIX members were allowed to attach to the router directly or via leased lines. After some time, the router was also attached to the Pacific Bell SMDS cloud. The router was later moved to the Palo Alto Internet Exchange, or PAIX, which was developed and operated by Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC). Because the CIX operated at OSI layer 3, rather than OSI layer 2, and because it was not neutral, in the sense that it was operated by one of its participants rather than by all of them collectively, and it conducted lobbying activities supported by some of its participants and not by others, it would not today be considered an Internet exchange point. Nonetheless, it was the first thing to bear that name.

The first exchange point to resemble modern, neutral, Ethernet-based exchanges was the Metropolitan Area Ethernet, or MAE, in Tysons Corner, Virginia. When the United States government de-funded the NSFNET backbone, Internet exchange points were needed to replace its function, and initial governmental funding was used to aid the preexisting MAE and bootstrap three other exchanges, which they dubbed NAPs, or "Network Access Points," in accordance with the terminology of the National Information Infrastructure document. All four are now defunct or no longer functioning as Internet exchange points:

 * MAE-East – Located in Tysons Corner, Virginia, and later relocated to Ashburn, Virginia
 * Chicago NAP – Operated by Ameritech and located in Chicago, Illinois
 * New York NAP – Operated by Sprint and located in Pennsauken, New Jersey
 * San Francisco NAP – Operated by PacBell and located in the Bay Area

As the Internet grew, and traffic levels increased, these NAPs became a network bottleneck. Most of the early NAPs utilized FDDI technology, which provided only 100 Mbit/s of capacity to each participant. Some of these exchanges upgraded to ATM technology, which provided OC-3 (155 Mbit/s) and OC-12 (622 Mbit/s) of capacity.

Other prospective exchange point operators moved directly into offering Ethernet technology, such as gigabit Ethernet (1,000 Mbit/s), which quickly became the predominant choice for Internet exchange points due to the reduced cost and increased capacity offered. Today, almost all significant exchange points operate solely over Ethernet, and most of the largest exchange points offer 10, 40, and even 100 gigabit service.

During the dot-com boom, many exchange point and carrier-neutral colocation providers had plans to build as many as 50 locations to promote carrier interconnection in the United States alone. Essentially all of these plans were abandoned following the dot-com bust, and today it is considered both economically and technically infeasible to support this level of interconnection among even the largest of networks.

How peering works
The Internet is a collection of separate and distinct networks referred to as autonomous systems, each one consisting of a set of globally unique IP addresses and a unique global BGP routing policy.

The interconnection relationships between Autonomous Systems are of exactly two types:

 * Peering - Two networks exchange traffic between their users freely, and for mutual benefit.
 * Transit – One network pays another network for access to the Internet.

Therefore, in order for a network to reach any specific other network on the Internet, it must either:

 * Sell transit service to that network or a chain of resellers ending at that network (making them a 'customer'),
 * Peer with that network or with a network which sells transit service to that network, or
 * Buy transit service from any other network (which is then responsible for providing interconnection to the rest of the Internet).

The Internet is based on the principle of global or end-to-end reachability, which means that any Internet user can transparently exchange traffic with any other Internet user. Therefore, a network is connected to the Internet if and only if it buys transit, or peers with every other network which also does not purchase transit (which together constitute a "default free zone" or "DFZ").

Motivations for peering
Peering involves two networks coming together to exchange traffic with each other freely, and for mutual benefit. This 'mutual benefit' is most often the motivation behind peering, which is often described solely by "reduced costs for transit services". Other less tangible motivations can include:

 * Increased redundancy (by reducing dependence on one or more transit providers).
 * Increased capacity for extremely large amounts of traffic (distributing traffic across many networks).
 * Increased routing control over one's traffic.
 * Improved performance (attempting to bypass potential bottlenecks with a "direct" path).
 * Improved perception of one's network (being able to claim a "higher tier").
 * Ease of requesting for emergency aid (from friendly peers).

Physical interconnections for peering

The physical interconnections used for peering are categorized into two types:

 * Public peering – Interconnection utilizing a multi-party shared switch fabric such as an Ethernet switch.
 * Private peering – Interconnection utilizing a point-to-point link between two parties.

Public peering
Public peering is accomplished across a Layer 2 access technology, generally called a shared fabric. At these locations, multiple carriers interconnect with one or more other carriers across a single physical port. Historically, public peering locations were known as network access points (NAPs). Today they are most often called exchange points or Internet exchanges ("IXP"). Many of the largest exchange points in the world can have hundreds of participants, and some span multiple buildings and colocation facilities across a city.

Since public peering allows networks interested in peering to interconnect with many other networks through a single port, it is often considered to offer "less capacity" than private peering, but to a larger number of networks. Many smaller networks, or networks which are just beginning to peer, find that public peering exchange points provide an excellent way to meet and interconnect with other networks which may be open to peering with them. Some larger networks utilize public peering as a way to aggregate a large number of "smaller peers", or as a location for conducting low-cost "trial peering" without the expense of provisioning private peering on a temporary basis, while other larger networks are not willing to participate at public exchanges at all.

A few exchange points, particularly in the United States, are operated by commercial carrier-neutral third parties, which are critical for achieving cost-effective data center connectivity.

Private peering
Private peering is the direct interconnection between only two networks, across a Layer 1 or 2 medium that offers dedicated capacity that is not shared by any other parties. Early in the history of the Internet, many private peers occurred across "telco" provisioned SONET circuits between individual carrier-owned facilities. Today, most private interconnections occur at carrier hotels or carrier neutral colocation facilities, where a direct crossconnect can be provisioned between participants within the same building, usually for a much lower cost than telco circuits.

Most of the traffic on the Internet, especially traffic between the largest networks, occurs via private peering. However, because of the resources required to provision each private peer, many networks are unwilling to provide private peering to "small" networks, or to "new" networks which have not yet proven that they will provide a mutual benefit.

Peering agreement
Throughout the history of the Internet, there have been a spectrum of kinds of agreements between peers, ranging from handshake agreements to written contracts as required by one or more parties. Such agreements set forth the details of how traffic is to be exchanged, along with a list of expected activities which may be necessary to maintain the peering relationship, a list of activities which may be considered abusive and result in termination of the relationship, and details concerning how the relationship can be terminated. Detailed contracts of this type are typically used between the largest ISPs, as well as the ones operating in the most heavily regulated economies. As of 2011, such contracts account for less than 0.5% of all peering agreements.

Depeering
By definition, peering is the voluntary and free exchange of traffic between two networks, for mutual benefit. If one or both networks believes that there is no longer a mutual benefit, they may decide to cease peering: this is known as depeering. Some of the reasons why one network may wish to depeer another include:

 * A desire that the other network pay settlement, either in exchange for continued peering or for transit services.
 * A belief that the other network is "profiting unduly" from the no-settlement interconnection.
 * Concern over traffic ratios, which is related to the fair sharing of cost for the interconnection.
 * A desire to peer with the upstream transit provider of the peered network.
 * Abuse of the interconnection by the other party, such as pointing default or utilizing the peer for transit.
 * Instability of the peered network, repeated routing leaks, lack of response to network abuse issues, etc.
 * The inability or unwillingness of the peered network to provision additional capacity for peering.
 * The belief that the peered network is unduly peering with one's customers.
 * Various external political factors (including personal conflicts between individuals at each network).

In some situations, networks which are being depeered have been known to attempt to fight to keep the peering by intentionally breaking the connectivity between the two networks when the peer is removed, either through a deliberate act or an act of omission. The goal is to force the depeering network to have so many customer complaints that they are willing to restore peering. Examples of this include forcing traffic via a path that does not have enough capacity to handle the load, or intentionally blocking alternate routes to or from the other network. Some notable examples of these situations have included:

 * BBN Planet vs Exodus Communications
 * PSINet vs Cable & Wireless
 * AOL Transit Data Network (ATDN) vs Cogent Communications
 * Teleglobe vs Cogent Communications
 * France Telecom vs Cogent Communications
 * France Telecom (Wanadoo) vs Proxad (Free)
 * Level 3 Communications vs XO Communications
 * Level 3 Communications vs Cogent Communications
 * Telecom/Telefónica/Impsat/Prima vs CABASE (Argentina)
 * Cogent Communications vs TeliaSonera
 * Sprint-Nextel vs Cogent Communications
 * SFR vs OVH
 * The French ISP 'Free' vs YouTube

Donut peering model
The "donut peering" model describes the intensive interconnection of small and medium-sized regional networks that make up much of the Internet. Traffic between these regional networks can be modeled as a toroid, with a core "donut hole" that is poorly interconnected to the networks around it.

As detailed above, some carriers attempted to form a cartel of self-described Tier 1 networks, nominally refusing to peer with any networks outside the oligopoly. Seeking to reduce transit costs, connections between regional networks bypass those "core" networks. Data takes a more direct path, reducing latency and packet loss. This also improves resiliency between consumers and content providers via multiple connections in many locations around the world, in particular during business disputes between the core transit providers.

Multilateral peering
The majority of BGP AS-AS adjacencies are the product of multilateral peering agreements, or MLPAs. In multilateral peering, an unlimited number of parties agree to exchange traffic on common terms, using a single agreement to which they each accede. The multilateral peering is typically technically instantiated in a route server or route reflector (which differ from looking glasses in that they serve routes back out to participants, rather than just listening to inbound routes) to redistribute routes via a BGP hub-and-spoke topology, rather than a partial-mesh topology. The two primary criticisms of multilateral peering are that it breaks the shared fate of the forwarding and routing planes, since the layer-2 connection between two participants could hypothetically fail while their layer-2 connections with the route server remained up, and that they force all participants to treat each other with the same, undifferentiated, routing policy. The primary benefit of multilateral peering is that it minimizes configuration for each peer, while maximizing the efficiency with which new peers can begin contributing routes to the exchange. While optional multilateral peering agreements and route servers are now widely acknowledged to be a good practice, mandatory multilateral peering agreements (MMLPAs) have long been agreed to not be a good practice.

Peering locations
The modern Internet operates with significantly more peering locations than at any time in the past, resulting in improved performance and better routing for the majority of the traffic on the Internet. However, in the interests of reducing costs and improving efficiency, most networks have attempted to standardize on relatively few locations within these individual regions where they will be able to quickly and efficiently interconnect with their peering partners.

Exchange points
As of 2021, the largest exchange points in the world are Ponto de Troca de Tráfego Metro São Paulo, in São Paulo, with 2,289 peering networks; OpenIXP in Jakarta, with 1,097 peering networks; and DE-CIX in Frankfurt, with 1,050 peering networks. The United States, with a historically larger focus on private peering and commercial public peering, has much less traffic visible on public peering switch-fabrics compared to other regions that are dominated by non-profit membership exchange points. Collectively, the many exchange points operated by Equinix are generally considered to be the largest, though traffic figures are not generally published. Other important but smaller exchange points include AMS-IX in Amsterdam, LINX and LONAP in London, and NYIIX in New York.

URLs to some public traffic statistics of exchange points include:

 * AMS-IX
 * DE-CIX

 * LINX
 * MSK-IX

 * TORIX
 * NYIIX

 * LAIIX
 * TOP-IX

 * Netnod
 * Mix Milano

 * ix.br SP

Peering and BGP
A great deal of the complexity in the BGP routing protocol exists to aid the enforcement and fine-tuning of peering and transit agreements. BGP allows operators to define a policy that determines where traffic is routed. Three things commonly used to determine routing are local-preference, multi exit discriminators (MEDs) and AS-Path. Local-preference is used internally within a network to differentiate classes of networks. For example, a particular network will have a higher preference set on internal and customer advertisements. Settlement free peering is then configured to be preferred over paid IP transit.

Networks that speak BGP to each other can engage in multi exit discriminator exchange with each other, although most do not. When networks interconnect in several locations, MEDs can be used to reference that network's interior gateway protocol cost. This results in both networks sharing the burden of transporting each other's traffic on their own network (or cold potato). Hot-potato or nearest-exit routing, which is typically the normal behavior on the Internet, is where traffic destined to another network is delivered to the closest interconnection point.

Law and policy
Internet interconnection is not regulated in the same way that public telephone network interconnection is regulated. Nevertheless, Internet interconnection has been the subject of several areas of federal policy in the United States. Perhaps the most dramatic example of this is the attempted MCI Worldcom/Sprint merger. In this case, the Department of Justice blocked the merger specifically because of the impact of the merger on the Internet backbone market (thereby requiring MCI to divest itself of its successful "internetMCI" business to gain approval). In 2001, the Federal Communications Commission's advisory committee, the Network Reliability and Interoperability Council recommended that Internet backbones publish their peering policies, something that they had been hesitant to do beforehand. The FCC has also reviewed competition in the backbone market in its Section 706 proceedings which review whether advanced telecommunications are being provided to all Americans in a reasonable and timely manner.

Finally, Internet interconnection has become an issue in the international arena under something known as the International Charging Arrangements for Internet Services (ICAIS). In the ICAIS debate, countries underserved by Internet backbones have complained that it is unfair that they must pay the full cost of connecting to an Internet exchange point in a different country, frequently the United States. These advocates argue that Internet interconnection should work like international telephone interconnection, with each party paying half of the cost. Those who argue against ICAIS point out that much of the problem would be solved by building local exchange points. A significant amount of the traffic, it is argued, that is brought to the US and exchanged then leaves the US, using US exchange points as switching offices but not terminating in the US. In some worst-case scenarios, traffic from one side of a street is brought all the way to a distant exchange point in a foreign country, exchanged, and then returned to another side of the street. Countries with liberalized telecommunications and open markets, where competition between backbone providers occurs, tend to oppose ICAIS.

title: Peering


text:
Free World

The Free World is a propaganda term, primarily used during the Cold War from 1945 to 1991, to refer to the Western Bloc and aligned countries.

The term refers more broadly to all liberal democracies collectively, as opposed to authoritarian regimes such as socialist states. It has traditionally primarily been used to refer to the countries allied and aligned with the United States, the European Union and NATO. The term "leader of the free world" has been used to imply a symbolic and moral leadership, and was mostly used during the Cold War in reference to the President of the United States.

Origins
During World War II, the Allied powers viewed themselves as opposing the oppression and fascism of the Axis powers, thus making them "free". Following the end of World War II, the Cold War conception of the "Free World" included only anti-Soviet states as being "free", particularly democratically elected states with free speech, a free press, freedom of assembly and freedom of association.

During the Cold War, many neutral countries, either those in what is considered the Third World, or those having no formal alliance with either the United States or the Soviet Union, viewed the claim of "Free World" leadership by the United States as grandiose and illegitimate.

One of the earliest uses of the term Free World as a politically significant term occurs in Frank Capra's World War II propaganda film series Why We Fight. In Prelude to War, the first film of that series, the "free world" is portrayed as a white planet, directly contrasted with the black planet called the "slave world". The film depicts the free world as the Western Hemisphere, led by the United States and Western Europe, and the slave world as the Eastern Hemisphere, dominated by Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and the Japanese Empire.

21st century usage
While "Free World" had its origins in the Cold War, the phrase is still used after the end of the Cold War and during the Global War on Terrorism. Samuel P. Huntington said the term has been replaced by the concept of the international community, which, he argued, "has become the euphemistic collective noun (replacing "the Free World") to give global legitimacy to actions reflecting the interests of the United States and other Western powers."

United States
The "Leader of the Free World" was a colloquialism, first used during the Cold War, to describe either the United States or, more commonly, the President of the United States. The term when used in this context suggested that the United States was the principal democratic superpower, and the US president was by extension the leader of the world's democratic states, i.e. the "Free World".

The phrase has its origin in the 1940s during the Second World War, especially through the anti-fascist Free World magazine and the US propaganda film series Why We Fight. At this time, the term was criticized for including the Soviet Union (USSR), which critics saw as a totalitarian dictatorship. However, the term became more widely used against the USSR and its allies during the 1950s in the Cold War era (in the wake of Truman Doctrine), when the US depicted a foreign policy based on a struggle between "a democratic alliance and a communist realm set on world domination", according to The Atlantic. The term here was criticised again for including right-wing dictatorships such as Francoist Spain, and Nikita Khrushchev said in the 21st Congress of the Soviet Communist Party that "the so-called free world constitutes the kingdom of the dollar".

Although in decline after the mid-1970s, the term was heavily referenced in US foreign policy up until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991. After the presidency of George H. W. Bush the term has largely fallen out of use, in part for its usage in rhetoric critical of US policy.

Terms implying a leadership role in the "free world" later came to be used for other persons, places, or states.

European Union
On 6 May 2010, upon an address to the plenary chamber of the European Parliament, the then US Vice President Joe Biden, stated that Brussels had a "legitimate claim" to the title of "capital of the free world", normally a title reserved for Washington. He added that Brussels is a "great city which boasts 1,000 years of history and serves as capital of Belgium, the home of many of the institutions of the European Union and the headquarters of the NATO alliance."

Germany
When Time declared the German Chancellor Angela Merkel Time Person of the Year for 2015, they referred to her as "Europe's most powerful leader", and the cover bore the title "Chancellor of the Free World". Following the election of Donald Trump to the US presidency in November 2016, The New York Times called Merkel "the Liberal West's Last Defender", and a number of commentators called her "the next leader of the free world". Merkel herself rejected the description. An article by James Rubin in Politico about a White House meeting between Merkel and Trump was ironically titled "The Leader of the Free World Meets Donald Trump".

German commentators agreed with Merkel's assessment, and Friedrich Merz, a CDU politician, said that a German chancellor could never be "leader of the free world". In April 2017, columnist James Kirchick stressed the importance of the German elections (on which "the future of the free world" depended) since America had "abdicated its traditional role as leader of the free world by electing Trump, the United Kingdom was turning inward after the referendum decision to leave the European Union, and France was also traditionally unilateralist and now had an inexperienced president"; he called Merkel "something less than leader of the free world ... but something greater than the leader of just another random country". References to America's abdication of its role as leader of the free world continued or increased after Donald Trump questioned the unconditional defence of NATO partners and the Paris climate accord.

Jagoda Marinić, writing for The New York Times, noted that "Barack Obama all but literally passed on the mantle of 'leader of the free world' to Ms. Merkel (and not Mr. Trump), and most Germans feel empowered by that new responsibility" and that Germany "is coming to understand its role in standing up for liberal democracy in a world turning more and more authoritarian."

Other commentators—in the United States and Europe—rejected the appellation "Leader of the Free World": some argued that there is no single leader of the 'free world';  others queried whether Merkel remained the "leader of the free world" and the champion of liberal values. Questioned about Merkel's standing following her performance in the German elections in September 2017, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton opined that Merkel was "the most important leader in the free world". However, after Merkel's party suffered losses in the 2017 election and there were delays in forming a government, the claim that Merkel is the true leader of the free world was referred to as a "joke", described as a media phenomenon, and otherwise called into question.

When Merkel retired as Chancellor, Hillary Clinton wrote that "she led Europe through difficult times with steadiness and bravery, and for four long years, she was the leader of the free world."

title: Free World


text:
Metric time

Metric time is the measure of time intervals using the metric system. The modern SI system defines the second as the base unit of time, and forms multiples and submultiples with metric prefixes such as kiloseconds and milliseconds. Other units of time – minute, hour, and day – are accepted for use with SI, but are not part of it. Metric time is a measure of time intervals, while decimal time is a means of recording time of day.

History
The second derives its name from the sexagesimal system, which originated with the Sumerians and Babylonians. This system divides a base unit into sixty minutes, each minute into sixty seconds, and each second into sixty tierces. The word "minute" comes from the Latin pars minuta prima, meaning "first small part", and "second" from pars minuta secunda or "second small part". Angular measure also uses sexagesimal units; there, it is the degree that is subdivided into minutes and seconds, while in time, it is the hour.

In 1790, French diplomat Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord proposed that the fundamental unit of length for the metric system should be the length of a pendulum with a one-second period, measured at sea level on the 45th parallel (50 grades in the new angular measures), thus basing the metric system on the value of the second. A Commission of Weights and Measures was formed within the French Academy of Sciences to develop the system. The commission rejected the seconds-pendulum definition of the metre the following year because the second of time was an arbitrary period equal to 1/86,400 day, rather than a decimal fraction of a natural unit. Instead, the metre would be defined as a decimal fraction of the length of the Paris Meridian between the equator and the North Pole.

The commission initially proposed the decimal time units later enacted as part of the new Republican calendar. In January, 1791, Jean-Charles de Borda commissioned Louis Berthoud to manufacture a decimal chronometer displaying these units. On March 28, 1794, the commission's president, Joseph Louis Lagrange, proposed using the day (French jour) as the base unit of time, with divisions déci-jour and centi-jour, and suggested representing 4 déci-jours and 5 centi-jours as "4,5", "4/5", or just "45". The final system, as introduced in 1795, included units for length, area, dry volume, liquid capacity, weight or mass, and currency, but not time. Decimal time of day had been introduced in France two years earlier, but mandatory use was suspended at the same time the metric system was inaugurated, and did not follow the metric pattern of a base unit and prefixed units.

Base units equivalent to decimal divisions of the day, such as 1/10, 1/100, 1/1,000, or 1/100,000 day, or other divisions of the day, such as 1/20 or 1/40 day, have also been proposed, with various names. Such alternative units did not gain any notable acceptance. In China, during the Song Dynasty, a day was divided into smaller units, called kè. One kè was usually defined as $1/undefined$ of a day until 1628, though there were short periods before then where days had 96, 108 or 120 kè. A kè is about 14.4 minutes, or 14 minutes 24 seconds. In the 19th century, Joseph Charles François de Rey-Pailhade endorsed Lagrange’s proposal of using centijours, but abbreviated cé, and divided into 10 decicés, 100 centicés, 1,000 millicés, and 10,000 dimicés.

James Clerk Maxwell and Elihu Thomson (through the British Association for the Advancement of Science, or BAAS) introduced the Centimetre gram second system of units in 1874 to derive electric and magnetic metric units, following the recommendation of Carl Friedrich Gauss in 1832.

In 1897, the Commission de décimalisation du temps was created by the French Bureau of Longitude, with the mathematician Henri Poincaré as secretary. The commission proposed making the standard hour the base unit of metric time, but the proposal did not gain acceptance and was eventually abandoned.

When the modern SI system was defined at the 10th General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) in 1954, the ephemeris second (1/86400 of a mean solar day) was made one of the system's base units. Because the Earth's rotation is slowly decelerating at an irregular rate and was thus unsuitable as a reference point for precise measurements, the SI second was later redefined more precisely as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. The international standard atomic clocks use caesium-133 measurements as their main benchmark.

In computing
In computing, at least internally, metric time gained widespread use for ease of computation. Unix time gives date and time as the number of seconds since January 1, 1970, and Microsoft's NTFS FILETIME as multiples of 100 ns since January 1, 1601. VAX/VMS uses the number of 100 ns since November 17, 1858, and RISC OS the number of centiseconds since January 1, 1900. Microsoft Excel uses number of days (with decimals, floating point) since January 1, 1900.

All these systems present time for the user using traditional units. None of these systems is strictly linear, as they each have discontinuities at leap seconds.

Prefixes
Metric prefixes for subdivisions of a second are commonly used in science and technology. Milliseconds and microseconds are particularly common. Prefixes for multiples of a second are rarely used:

title: Metric time


text:
Talk:Free World

Untitled
The capital letters in (F)ree (W)orld are there intentionally to avoid confusion of this special term with what an average man would think of when hearing the words ``free world''.

This page is politically loaded, not NPOV. There are plenty of people who do not accept the term "Free World", except as part of American political and journalistic rhetoric. Hotlorp 11:50 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

 * This is in contrast with so-called Iron Curtain countries and other dictatorships which impose internal travel restrictions or restrict overseas and emigration.

This description is highly inaccurate. In most European communist countries (I'm speaking mostly about Poland except during martial state, but many others were similar) there weren't any significant internal travel restrictions. There were some restrictions on international travel - it was more difficult to get a passport than it is today - but it wasn't like someone who wanted to emigrate couldn't do that. Taw 20:30, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've made a little change to make the article more NPOV. Leminh91 (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge request
I think the article Free World (World War II) is totally redundant and doesn't deserve its own article. It should simply be merged into this article, with all its contents transferred here.--Hibernian (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I see no reason to maintain that small page of closely related content separately. Cnilep (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Stfg (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Leader of the Free World
The page Leader of the Free World was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was to redirect the page to Free World.

During deletion discussion, several editors suggested merging content from that page to this one, though some other editors objected. Content from Leader of the Free World may be accessed from its page history and added to Free World as appropriate. Cnilep (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hearing no objections, I merged much of the content to this page. Cnilep (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Leader of the Free World is President of the United States Donald J. Trump.210.3.211.202 (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal
The article Free country (politics) seems to be yet another mostly redundant page whose non-redundant bits can easily be fit inside here. Choor monster (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Consider this a weak objection: Free World is, to a great extent, a case of WP:WORDISSUBJECT. In other words, the topic of the article is the rhetoric, particularly during the Cold War, of Western liberal countries that labeled themselves "The Free World". Free country (politics) seems to be about the political position ("a political and ideological concept", as the lead puts it) rather than the rhetoric surrounding that political position. Of course, as a political position there is a very real risk that the article will be either POV or insufficiently worldwide. In that case, it might be best to merge just the non-offending bits of Free country (politics) into Free World. Cnilep (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally, I understand "Free country" and "Free World" to be two ways of saying the same thing, and both are from US Cold War propaganda. Is there really this objectively used term out there, "free country", that has morphed into "Free World" propaganda?  Meanwhile, there certainly were tremendous differences between us and them, and I'm personally thankful my ancestors got out from under the tsar, but the part of the "us vs them" story told in a jingoistic way deserves just one article.  I don't see Free country (politics) as being part of the non-jingoistic story.
 * I write this knowing I could be wrong, but I would want to see evidence. Choor monster (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Since no one other than User:Choor monster and me seem to have an opinion on this issue, I would suggest going ahead with a merger of "the non-offending bits" – that is, any parts of Free country (politics) that satisfy WP:NPOV and other Wikipedia policies. Cnilep (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a hard time seeing what qualifies as non-offending. Everything is supposed to satisfy WP:NPOV, here and in the other article.  That does not mean we do not have articles on propaganda.  We simply do not take sides, and we report on what all the sources say.
 * I repeat my question. Is there really this objectively used term out there, "free country", that has morphed into "Free World" propaganda?  If so, then the division you suggest is a good one.  If not, it makes no sense.  When our major reference is an organization, and not political science journals, I suspect it's the latter. Choor monster (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how specific you want the answer to that question to be. Since the article is only three paragraphs long, I'll give my personal opinion on each one (which is tantamount to doing the merge myself, but never mind). First, since none of the paragraphs cite any sources, that might disqualify all of them per WP:V. On the assumption that the material should be kept and tagged as needing citation, what is neutral and what is biased? (1) The first paragraph defines "free" as featuring democracy, trade unions, and independent press. Since some countries that lack one or more of these features object to that definition, I would say that without a specific attribution, that definition is biased. (2) The second paragraph specifically describes the position of the Allies during World War II. That needs a source (I think there are already some relevant ones cited on Free World), but as it is specific and doesn't make claims to universality, I would call it acceptably neutral. (3) The third paragraph is attributed to Freedom House. A more specific attribution – a specific publication, say – should be added, but since it is a description of Freedom House's conclusion, rather than the conclusion of some Wikipedian, again I would say that it is acceptably neutral. Since the truth value of "Person says, 'FOO'" is independent of the truth value of "FOO", I think that claims properly attributed to third-party sources face a lower bar for acceptability. Opinions may vary, but that is my position. Cnilep (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the three paragraphs:
 * It isn't a question of whether the definition is biased or badly sourced, it's a question of whether this deserves a separate article.
 * It is neutral, but I didn't see why it needs a separate article. You helped merge this here before, right?
 * I'm happy with Freedom House being overtly quoted.
 * My question boils down to why can't all this be in with the other article? An article can mix the neutral story with the biased takes, and I simply don't see what the gain is if the itty bitty neutral part is kept in one article while the POV-pushers are sourced and quoted in a different article. Choor monster (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

 * The point is not which article should get the biased content. Non-neutral or non-verifiable content doesn't belong in any Wikipedia article. Besides, the usual upshot of a merge is that only one article remains; the other title becomes a redirect. I have merged from 'Free country (politics)' to 'Free World' those portions that (1) are not overly biased, (2) are potentially verifiable (though none cite sources at this time), and (3) are not already described in the article. It amounts to four sentences plus two external links. The rest is [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_country_(politics)&action=history article history]. Cnilep (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Biased content is allowed, so long as it is relevant and clearly sourced. We quote Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein when informative to do so, not because they said something neutral.  Same with Cold War jingoism.  Anyway, thanks! Choor monster (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant map?
I'm just wondering whether the current map used on the page (Freedom House's Freedom Index) should be replaced by one that is more relevant. The page (with the exception of one small paragraph) refers to the "Free World" as the Western/NATO Bloc, so the map is essentially irrelevant. I think it should be replaced by something more relevant, perhaps with a map of the NATO and Warsaw Pact Blocs Jacob Cutts (talk) 05:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

Recent additions and reverts
This article treats political propaganda and so is particularly prone to problems with neutral point of view. I would therefore appreciate opinions regarding these recent changes.

 * In January 2016 User:Fireflyfanboy added reference to Time magazine calling Angela Merkel "Chancellor of the Free World" (diff).
 * In November 2016 User:Tataral added two news op-ed pieces comparing Merkel and Donald Trump as "leader of the free world" (diff).
 * In January 2017 User:Denarivs removed that paragraph noting, "undo weight for a fringe POV" (diff).
 * I (Cnilep) undid that edit noting, "Might be pov, but that of the cited sources, not the WP editor" (diff). Denarvis and I then both edited the article, keeping the sources.
 * A few days later User:Tataral edited the article, making it more similar to the November 2016 version (diff).
 * In February an anonymous user at removed the entire paragraph (diff). I reverted those edits noting, "Removed cited content; possible pov", and the anonymous user undid the revert noting, "removed opinion pieces" (diff).

I hope other editors as well as those mentioned above will comment so we can try to reach the most appropriate content. Cnilep (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support a sentence along the lines of "The term is not exclusive to American leaders, with Angela Merkel also listed as a contender for the title." But it's clear to me that the vast majority of the usage of the term over decades is with respect to the President of the United States, so anything other than a passing mention to other world leaders would be undue weight. Denarivs (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've restored the quote specifically about Merkel, and deleted any reference to Trump. I think that's a very easy compromise, and 's edits should not be taken seriously as they are an unregistered editor/only made 4 previous edits to Wikipedia.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that works well. Denarivs (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought this was more or less settled, but perhaps I was overly optimistic. I have asked for assistance at Dispute resolution noticeboard. Cnilep (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The attempt to simply remove the fact that the term is widely used with reference to Merkel by reliable sources is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (perhaps combined with US centrism which refuses to acknowledge that the term is used for any other people than the US president). It it without doubt reliably sourced (and vast amounts of additional sources could be added) and there is no question of its relevance in this article. In fact, since this was first discussed, the term has become even more prevalent in reliable sources than before - Merkel is the person most commonly described as the "leader of the free world" by reliable sources now (as James Rubin, former US Assistant Secretary of State, recently wrote: The Leader of the Free World Meets Donald Trump). And many of the sources ascribing Merkel this title are in fact American. --Tataral (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

By this point (June 2 2017) references to Angela Merkel as "Leader of the Free World" are so ubiquitous that journalists will use that term in reference to Merkel without additional explanation of who they're describing, such as The Most Cringe-Worthy Moments From Trump’s First International Trip with a paragraph heading reading "Macron greets leader of free world first" with no prior reference to Merkel (nor the use of her name for several more lines. This implies that authors are at the point where they can use the expression comfortably in the belief that their readers will already recognize that they're speaking about Angela Merkel without prior explanation.  Others use expressions like "Angela Merkel – or “leader of the free world” as she is now to be known" - implying that they are not themselves naming Angela Merkel the 'leader of the free world' but reflecting on the social reality that she is now widely known by this term Angela Merkel shows how the leader of the free world should act. N0thingbetter (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Merkel pic as non-NPOV seems unjustified;  No other current world leader is mentioned listed in the article text, so having a Merkel pic just reflects the current balance of the article. Additionaly, in future other pics could be added for more balance, instead of purging the Merkel pic from the article. We could add an Eisenhower pic or pics of other individuals to whom the title has been ascribed. Darmokand (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

"non-communist countries" and cold war
I'm not clear if the "Free World" ever referred to all of the non-communist countries, or that it originated in the cold war rather than WWII. The first sentence of this article is "The Free World is a term for the non-communist countries of the world that originated in the Cold War–era" without citation, yet, the first citation in this article is to a source describing the "free world" as the opponents of Nazi Germany during WWII and later the article states that the phrase has its origins in the 1940s during WWII from the anti-fascist Free World magazine and included both the US and Soviet Union (to some criticism). So, the claim in the first sentences of the article is contradicted by later information in the article. Further, the references to the cold war use of the term "free world" in the quote from the Atlantic makes it sound as if it referred specifically to the democratic non-communist countries, not to all of the non-communist countries. As for how the term is used today, it seems relatively clear that the term does not refer to every country that is non-communist but to the nominally liberal democracies; Russia, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and so on are all non-communist countries today but I don't think anyone using the term 'free world' would expect to include those illiberal or dictatorial countries. I would suggest that unless someone has a good citation the term "non-communist" in the first sentence be changed to "liberal democratic" but non-communist be retained in the second sentence N0thingbetter (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Article content is POV
The whole article is written with only Western knowledge of history and values.

E.g. the Communist movement mobilizing millions viewed themselves as freedom fighters against western 'imperialism', they highlighted values like job for everyone, health care, education and summer camps to everyone, forcing press to publish 'quality' information etc. as tools to liberate people from material misery.

Islamic countries see themselves as resisting western culture's lust and greed, which also chains persons.

I personally consider the West's view limiting liberty to the intellectual field as arbitrarily narrow, while disregarding need for material help to start achieving. N.11.6 (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Truman Doctrine
Isn't the Truman Doctrine worthy of mention in the article? The Truman Doctrine was formed at the same time as the Free World concept, and promoted the same ideals.

title: Talk:Free World