text:
List of tallest structures

The tallest structure in the world is the Burj Khalifa skyscraper at 828 m. Listed are guyed masts (such as telecommunication masts), self-supporting towers (such as the CN Tower), skyscrapers (such as the Willis Tower), oil platforms, electricity transmission towers, and bridge support towers. This list is organized by absolute height. See List of tallest buildings and structures, List of tallest freestanding structures and List of tallest buildings and List of tallest towers for additional information about these types of structures.

Terminology
Terminological and listing criteria follow Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat definitions. Guyed masts are differentiated from towers – the latter not featuring any guy wires or other support structures; and buildings are differentiated from towers – the former having at least 50% of occupiable floor space although both are self-supporting structures.

Lists by height
These lists include structures with a minimum height of 500 metres (1640 feet). The lists of tallest structures from 400 to 500 metres and from 300 to 400 metres include shorter structures.

For all structures, the pinnacle height is given, so the height of skyscrapers may differ from the values at List of skyscrapers. Tension-leg platforms are not included.

On hold
Structures that are on hold or have been cancelled.

Current
The following table is a list of the current tallest structures by each continent (listed by geographic size):

All time
The following table is a list of the all time tallest structures by each continent (listed by geographic size):

title: List of tallest structures


text:
Talk:List of tallest structures

World's Tallest Structures
Someone should put the long list of masts in the table in a different article. Right now, it's reduced the presentation and accuracy of the article as many countries have similar masts to ones listed in the table but due to lack of research and published specifications from the respective governments/owners, they may've not been properly represented in such list. Hence, it would appear to some readers that this list may be definitive when it is not. As a reference article, it should remain accurate, impartial and representative of current facts. If facts are incomplete, it shouldn't be posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.71.254 (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Fonzy, this should really be merged with World's tallest structures. This is quite a complex issue and has already been extensively discussed. --Robert Merkel 23:03 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

hmmm, i tkae structures as anything built by man radio masts etc but thsi list WILL get very long which is why i put it on its owbn page.

 * But even the very definition of what constitutes the height of a structure gets confusing. Please at least state the definition you're working off (and be careful that any figures you use are according to the same definition), and try to work with the existing article (which is rather a good one) rather than duplicating it. --Robert Merkel 23:14 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

I am nto dulicating the article i am making alist of tall structures nd yes i am aware of height diff defs.

Emley Moor radio mast in the UK is a 330m tall freestanding structure, and I think that makes it the largest self-supporting structure in Britain. I notice it's not on this list. If this list isn't complete, perhaps it shouldn't be numbered like it is? -Nommo

 * calls it the "tallest television mast in England", and helpfully provides a picture where you can hardly see the damn thing. Anyway, I agree that numbering an incomplete list isn't a good idea, so I'll change them to bullet-points, and I'll add Emley Moor while I'm at it. --Camembert

Why was this list changed from an ordered list to and unordered list? In otherwords there use to be numbers next to each entry now there are just diamond shapes. I thought it looked better with the numbers. -- Popsracer 00:59 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * See the talk about two inches above this ;-) The list is still ordered (inasmuch as the tallest is at the top, the smallest at the bottom), it just isn't numbered. Having numbers suggests that the structure next to the number 123 is the 123rd tallest structure in the world, but as the list isn't complete, that isn't necessarily the case. The numbers are misleading, in other words. --Camembert

This page should be updated using [|this page] which although it is in German at least uses a consistent definition. This list at the top goes be structural top and by the bottom is using antenna heights. Rmhermen 13:40, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC) Our page at List of skyscrapers is a good source too. The German one is very incomplete below 300m. I may get around to this myself. Rmhermen 13:45, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Still too long
This list is very long, so I think that the list should be kept for buildings 450m+, because otherwise it is too long. ~  Ghelæ  talkcontribs 18:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be kept down to 350 metres, because otherwise the list would only contain four structures in Europe and no existing structure in the European Union!

Idea: make two lists. One with structures of any kind taller than 350 metres, which may get long and a second one with buildings and free-standing towers taller than 350 metres.

The long list is therefore sensitive, because it allows many interesting rankings. I do not believe, that it will grow much, although there may be surely some supertall guyed radio towers in Russia and China no data available.

 * Yeah, that's a good idea too. List of tallest structures in the world and List of tallest buildings and free-standing towers. Hm. ~  Ghelæ  talkcontribs 04:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree, make a list for structures taller than 1,476 feet. Bye --Starionwolf 05:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

bgcolor
Is there a reason why three of the entries have a red tint to them? Lovok 11:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Structures taller than 350 metres under construction
There may be still more structures taller than 350 metres under construction. According to the FCC-database, there are many radio masts in the USA planned with pinnacle heights greater than 350 metres. If you know one, that is under construction, then add it to the list under Structures taller than 350 metres under construction

Possible further supertall structures
Find out the height of high-power transmitters used for
 * LORAN-C
 * CHAYKA
 * RSDN-20

If they are taller than 350 metres add them to the list!

300 meter limit
The minimum height limit should be kept at 300m as this could include famous structures which are between 300-350 meters like the Eiffel Tower,Japan's Tokyo Tower, New Zealand's Sky Tower etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.95.231.94 (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

 * Famousness is no subcriteria of Tallness and thus irrelevant for this table. 84.177.150.245 18:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but it does provide a frame of reference for people considering the list. How many times have things of great height been described in terms of Eiffel Towers, Everests or Empire State Buildings? Demi T/C 23:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, all structures taller than 555m are guyed masts or drilling platforms both in the United states. If you perceive "tallest" at such a strict level, only those are relevant. 82.212.63.18 09:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the List of tallest structures should contain no more than 90 entries. 84.177.167.69 08:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why?Spartaz 08:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See Article size 84.177.167.69 13:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

201 kilobytes long is rediculous. I'm cutting it down to only those over 350 meters. Reywas92 Talk 20:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge
This merge will help to keep Wikipedia simpler.--Jorfer 02:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess this is about the merge with list of towers. Simply put impossible. That list alone is already far too long, merging it into this list will result in an unreadable list of literally thousands and thousands of structures. Arnoutf 07:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As if this list isn't long enough already, and it is unlikely (though not impossible) that their are many more structures listed in their then here, but I could be proved wrong.--Jorfer 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest I think it is not a good idea. I have been struggling to keep the list of towers list clean (by removing masts, electric wire pylon, statues etc etc) and it is still a list that (IMHO) is way too long for practical use; for encyclopedic / browsing use. Merging that would only make things worse. To be honest I think the list in this article would benefit from focussing (what's in but especially what's out) rather than expansion. For example you could argue that of each type of structure only the top 10 should be taken in this list (I would be happy for the top 10 towers to be included); with the separate lists developed in their own right.Arnoutf 07:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Moving the full list is not a bad idea, but I am not saying to expand the lists. These lists are so similar that merging pretty much just involves a redirect. Just use Ctrl+F to see how many entries from the masts and towers are already on here.--Jorfer 21:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I began the merge for list of masts due to lack of opposition and the obvious overlapping between them.--Jorfer 15:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I merged List of tallest structures in the world by type of use due to lack of opposition.--Jorfer 14:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw my support to merge list of towers as most of the towers are outside of the height range of this article.--Jorfer 21:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Masts
The following was merged from the List of Masts talk page:

Merger nomination
The table of radio masts in the list of tallest buildings and structures in the world article is not nearly as exhaustive as this one, not even for the ones above 600 meters; however, it's entirely possible some of the masts in that table are not listed here. Therefore, that table should be merged into this one; even to copy the over-600 meter section of this article into the other one would overwhelm what is already a long article. --RBBrittain 06:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that article should be merged into this one so long as each entry is examined first to see that it meets the criteria of this article. Hmains 05:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oldest talk
The text at the top of this page should probably be moved out of this article and into something like mast (tower). —User:Mulad (talk) 03:00, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Please check, if there is not listed any mast of the US under different names!

Try to find out all masts taller than 500 metres!

Emley Moor TV Tower and uperstacks are not guyed and belong to List of towers.

Please put the article on a correct form!

The word "mast" is never used for broadcasting towers in the US or Canada. 18.26.0.18 06:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone should put the long list of masts in the table in a different article. Right now, it's reduced the presentation and accuracy of the article as many countries have similar masts to ones listed in the table but due to lack of research and published specifications from the respective governments/owners, they may've not been properly represented in such list. Hence, it would appear to some readers that this list may be definitive when it is not. As a reference article, it should remain accurate, impartial and representative of current facts. If facts are incomplete, it shouldn't be posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.71.254 (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Shoreview cluster
I'm having difficulty tracking down any heights, but there is a cluster of towers in Shoreview, Minnesota that are very tall. One that collapsed while under construction in 1971 was 1285 feet tall, according to, and one currently in existence is said to be 1400 feet tall, though I'm not sure how precise that height is. —User:Mulad (talk) 01:29, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

List of catastrophic collapses of masts
At transmission tower there is an (incomplete) liste of mast collapse catastrophes. Please make this list complete!
 * That is now on its own page at Radio masts and towers - catastrophic collapses--Spliced 11:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Identity unclear
Masts withe the comment (identity unclear) cannot be found by the help of http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistrationSearch.jsp. Perhaps they are identic with other masts in the table! Check these masts!

Article naming
A lot of these seem to be poorly named. Pinnacle Towers Tower Mooringsport, from what I can tell from google, should probably be Pinnacle Towers tower (Mooringsport), as "Pinnacle Towers Tower Mooringsport" gets no hits, and "Pinnacle Towers Tower" doesn't seem to be a proper name either, just a descriptor for a tower owned by "Pinnacle Towers". ~

Planned towers
I am removing articles on planned towers because wikipedia has a policy that wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dave the Red (talk) 05:51, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

KWTV Mast
Was KWTV Mast rebuilt in 1986? According to http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrResults.jsp?searchType=TRL there is no mast from a height around 480 metres built in 1954!
 * I just noticed two duplicate entries for the KWTV Mast/Griffin Television Tower myself...with differing heights (1576 ft vs 1572 ft) and of course different construction dates. I have not found any evidence (aside from the FCC database) that indicates that it was built in 1986, and I'm not sure what exactly the FCC's date means. Therefore, I deleted one of the duplicate entries on this page. If you'd like to discuss this any further discuss it below or let me know on my talk page. Scootey (talk) 06:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic List!
The list is, I must say very fantastic! I saw never such a detailed list! But please extend the table as follow:

First Column: Name of mast Second Column: Town where mast is Third Column: Country where mast is Fourth Column: Year of Built Fifth Column: Use (longwave, mediumwave, UHF/VHF, meteorological/scientific experiments)

 * Skyguy

Policy discussion on mast articles
A policy discussion has been opened here to examine the question of how best to manage Wikipedia's growing collection of mast articles.

The proposal is to extend the table in this article (List of masts) and merge the information (location, coordinates, owner, purpose) into additional table columns.

Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The policy discussion seems to be leaning heavily towards merging many of the mast articles into the existing table. Several proposed formats for the merged table are being discussed at List of masts/Sample tables. Comments and proposals are encouraged. What do people use these tables for? What are we missing? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 19:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Article format
Hi all.

This article doesn't really follow Wikipedia convention for List of... articles. Usually, such articles have—at most— a couple of paragraphs of introductory material describing the nature of the list. Lengthy descriptive material is most often placed in the main article on the topic. For the List of masts, this material belongs in Radio mast. By merging the content there, we avoid duplicating content and effort between the two articles. Also, this article already has some truly gigantic tables; shortening the list article certainly wouldn't hurt....

If one our resident mast experts would like to merge the content from here over into radio mast, that would be great. If nobody steps up, I'll take a (nonexpert) stab at it myself. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 23:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Further columns
Table contains now columns (town and remarks)

Russian 460 metre mast
Try to find out more about the Russian 460 metre radio mast

Wind turbines
These have been overlooked and need to be added. Sub-200m. Sleigh 23:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Merging
Congratulations and thanks to User:Ksax on finally doing the merge. I would prefer the name List of masts though - it's consistent with other lists in Wikipedia. -- I@n ≡ talk 17:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Dismantled/collapsed masts
Added a new section above, as ex-masts, while interesting (and I'm not suggesting removing them completely) should not be in the main tables. -- I@n ≡ talk 17:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Need a cutoff
It's a nonsense to have a section titled "Masts shorter than 200 meters". That could include every mast ever built. This article desperately needs an overall inclusion criteria. I suggest 300 meters. -- I@n ≡ talk 17:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I've been bold and removed masts less than 300 m -- I@n ≡ talk 12:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you! It was necessary!

Cutoff 200m?
would it be ok if i made the cutoff for 200 meters?

please put planned list back on...with catch
Could you please put the planned tower list back on? Put it on only if it has a license to build approved from the FCC or something of that nature. Thank you!

 * I have no idea what you asking -- I@n ≡ talk 12:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I would like to know which towers are planning to go up, if they are known to be going up by a published source. This is to obey the rule that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

Cannot the complete list be saved?
Is it impossible to save the complete list in a sensitive way? Why not to move it into Wikisource? Would be a good idea!

 * Please note that Wikisource no longer accepts reference data, including tables of data or lists, per its inclusion guidelines. I've deleted a page recently created there with this list. // [ admin ] Pathoschild (talk/map) 10:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Still failing to see the point
There are 14,000 broadcast stations just in the United States, and a good number of them have tall towers. That doesn't make the towers in themselves notable ot encyclopedic. Having a list of them is at least arguable (although you can find them just as easily in ASRS which is not only an official source but in the public domain). As someone who has both seen and written about a lot of broadcast facilities, I don't see the point of dumping all this data into WP without a great deal more editorial effort, even if Wiki is not paper. (And I would note that many of the stubs about U.S. towers were clearly created by someone who had no knowledge of them beyond what is shown in ASRS—might as well just name the articles "Antenna structure number 1023456" and so on—and did not write them in American English.) I believe these articles are forever destined to be of very low average quality. (Speaking only of the U.S. towers as I have no direct knowledge to evaluate the articles about other countries' towers.) 121a0012 08:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I see no reason for these stubs to exist. I can just about see the reason for this list, but the data in the stubs should just be in the list (as I think it is) and the stubs tidied away to the great e-bin. Skittle 22:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Get rid of the stubs. It's eating bandwidth and most of these towers are not notable at all. --Zpb52 05:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've started a "special" AfD for the stubs, using this article as a kind of anchor. This deletion request does 'not include the List of masts article itself.

If we're going to be stuck with all these articles
It would be good if editors familiar with the industry and the areas where these towers are located would fix the article names. Most of them appear to have been made up by whomever started this article, who clearly was not a native English speaker nor a U.S. broadcast engineer. (I would also point out that the "mast versus tower" confusion does not exist among the engineers I know -- they are universally "towers". "Mast" means something else. This and related articles currently privilege civil-engineering jargon over broadcast-engineering jargon, which seems an inappropriate choice to me. [Of course, they also privilege en_GB usage over en_US usage, which is so commonplace in WP as to be hardly noticeable even if still irritating.]) 121a0012 07:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup - Height inaccuracies
Most of the heights given in feet are way off, especially those towards the bottom of the list. Mgiganteus1 13:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC).

Tagged this article for cleanup because of this problem. TRosenbaum 14:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC).

LORAN-C, CHAYKA, RSDN-20
There may be still masts taller than 300 metres used for LORAN-C, CHAYKA and RSDN-20. Fnd out the height of these towers!

Linking
Is there a reason for having these linked when the individual articles are not independently notable and in most cases do not warrant separate articles? —Centrx→talk • 04:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the articles exist, they should be linked. Some are definitely notable, such as the Warsaw Radio Mast. If you don't think they deserve separate articles then AfD them. Mgiganteus1 04:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason I came here is that about thirty of them were just deleted on AfD. I don't know if they were all linked from this list, but the red links here encourage others to create and re-create articles that end up AfDed, and then deleted again after re-creation; duplicate effort. —Centrx→talk • 04:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Make sure
Info from deleted articels is brought here if appropraite. Rich Farmbrough, 11:33 9 January 2007 (GMT).

I find this hard to believe?
The Balashikha Transmission Mast is the tallest mast outside of the USA? There are no other countries in the world with masts higher than 460 m? 141.157.73.48 18:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously yes, although, there may exist some other guyed masts in former Soviet Union or China, which are taller. It would be good to find out the height of as much towers and masts in former Soviet Union as possible.

Kilometer-tall solar tower in Australia
This might be worth keeping an eye on. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/02/66694

There are a few other sources to back this up, though the company itself is still in the preliminary phases. At any rate, it should be quite tall and could very well be taller than The Burj or any guyed mast. 207.43.79.22 18:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Seperate list for Guyed mast UHF/VHF-transmission U.S. (marked amber at this time)
I advocate for putting Guyed mast UHF/VHF-transmission U.S. installations (marked amber) into a seperate table and remove them from this table. Reason: There are too many and they make this list too long, too unreadable and too insignificant. 91.35.152.192 10:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

 * This is POV bias highlighting US-only installations. If you highlight, it should be by type, or country, not just US guyed masts. 70.51.11.203 09:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Add geographical coordnates to all
Add geographical coordinates to all masts and structures in the list. This would allow to have a look at them by Google Maps.

Coordinates are available in the FCC-database. For most other structures, they are in the articles.

 * Coordinates are available in strctrure's artile. I do not think it it wise to have it all here. --Jklamo 00:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion of mast stubs
Would it not be possible to undelete the deleted mast articles and put them in a chapter to the community where the mast stands? Especially for the masts in North America this would be a great idea!

KCPT Tower in Kansas City
The KCPT tower is not guyed. It is a 4 sided free standing structure.

KCPT Tower is 317.6 metres tall. The 372 metres tall tower at Kansas City, Missouri with FCC-Entry http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=617913 at 39°4'58"N 94°28'50"W is a guyed mast. See on http://www.wikimapia.org/5165414/Kansas_City_Public_Broadcasting_Tower.

Again a reason why coordinates should be added!

Add coordinates
Please add the geographical coordinates to all structures, if available. For radio masts and radio towers in USA you can find them in the FCC-database. For other structures extract them their article or Wikimapia.

 * Ok, i am repating again:

Coordinates are available in strctrure's artile. I do not think it it wise to have it all here. Article is too big without them, place for coors is in each strctrure's artile. I am commenting them, until consensus reached about adding them. --Jklamo 14:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

But not for all structures exist an article any more!
 * Possibility 1: Undelete of all articles.
 * Possibility 2: Adding coordinates to list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.121.9 (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Do not blame this article about wikipedia deletion policy. List is too big now, coors can be found at List of tallest structures in the United States or List of tallest structures in the United States by height. --Jklamo 18:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Images
The only images in this article should be of truly important structures around the world. This article is about the tallest in the world and not a list of the tallest structures by city. Therfore, an image of a building in Las Vegas should not be included. --Leitmanp 03:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Jklamo 23:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is extremely long. The addition of images will make it even longer and slower to load. There should only be one image, and it should be of the tallest man-made structure in history. The inclusion of a gallery is not what this page is about. It is a list of the structures, and not a gallery of them. Also, if people want a picture of a specific structure, they can select the link to the article and find some pictures. --Leitmanp 21:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

cutoff proposal
Because artile is 143 kb long, so it has problems described at Article size, i think that it must be divided up. My proposal is to use 400 m limit and move 400-less content to another article. Share your opinion. --Jklamo (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

 * That is a great idea. The article is too long and shortening it would be the best thing to do. --Leitmanp (talk|contributions) 05:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Burj Dubai as of March 1, 2008
The Burj Dubai is now 611.3 meters tall as of March 1, 2008. Look at Burj Dubai Skyscraper.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldek (talk • contribs) 01:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

 * But, that it not a trustworthy source. The developer (Emaar) has not made any official statements regarding the Burj Dubai's status since 5 February 2008. I have reverted your edits because we should only base the current height of the Burj Dubai on official sources. Do not change the height back without discussing it here on the talk page, or without checking the height listed at www.burjdubai.com. For more information about this, please see Talk:Burj Dubai. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 05:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Section organization by height
Maldek has been insisting that the first section that lists structures should be renamed from "Structures (past or present) taller than 600 m (1,969 ft)" to "Structures (past or present) between 600 and 650 m (1,968.503 ft and 2,132.545 ft)." The reasoning according to Maldek is that we need to maintain consistency among all the sections and that the Burj Dubai will soon be taller than 650 m and it should be put in its own section. Jklamo and I have reverted these changes. I cannot speak for Jklamo, but I think there is no reason to create a new section if only one structure will be in it. I would rather keep one section for structures greater than 600 m until there are enough structures greater than 650 m to create a new section. I would like to know what other editors think about this subject. I would rather create consensus on the talk page than continuing an edit war. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above, it's pointless having a section with one entry in, and even more pointless to start that section when the entry concerned is not even tall enough yet to qualify.Chillysnow (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong agree with both of the above. Reywas92 Talk  21:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply, i agree. --Jklamo (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support. I will change it back. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 * think you misunderstood what I was trying to do. Below I have given my response and below that is your response that you previously gave me. I think there is misunderstanding.

 * -There is not only one structure taller than 600 meters. There are atleast 10 or 20 structues in the category. You misunderstand, I am not creating a whole new section for buildings greater than 650 meters. I am creating a category for structures BETWEEN 600 AND 650 METERS. There already exists atleast 20 structures that are between 600 and 650 meters. I am just keeping with the pattern, by saying 600 to 650 meters instead of over 600 meters. I am not talking about buildings greater than 650 meters. I am talking about structures between 600 and 650 meters.

 * You said: Maldek, the reason I reverted you edit is because it would be really wierd to only have one building in a section. There is no point to create a whole new section for structures greater than 650 m if there is only one. Once there is a reasonble number of buildings greater than 600 m, then we can create a "Greater tan 650 m" section. Also, the Burj Dubai has not even risen above 650 m yet, so there is no point to get the section titles ready for that yet. I will open a discussion about this at Talk:List of tallest structures in the world so other users can voice their opinion. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) -Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Leitmanp"

 * Maldek (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Maldek, I think you were in fact talking about the Burj Dubai and creating a new category for that building. You made this edit and said "Maintain the pattern. So when the Burj Dubai is over 650 meters it will be put in another category. Why disrupte pattern?" Also, there is no purpose to limit a section to only 50 m if it includes the tallest in the world. Limiting a section to 600-650 m would just be foolish. I will change it back. If you still want it to be 600-650 m, then discuss it here and do not change it back. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Burj Dubai Category
Fine if you won't give Burj Dubai it's own category and acknowlege its acheivement of being taller than the other buildings than no building will be acknowleged. By this reasoning there should not be any categories. If you don't want to keep with the pattern of 50 meter categories than we can't have any categories. All of them will now be over 400 meters because it is not fair if you don't give Burj Dubai it's own category. Thus all of the Buildings will just say over 400 Meters. You are advocating double standards that you are not playing by your own rules. Okay fine, you can have it your way, now all buildings will be over 400 Meters. You can't have it both ways. Either you choose to make different categories for every 50 meters or you just make all you buildings over a certain height. It seems to me that you would rather have all buildings over a certain height instead of different categories as you state imaginary rules that one building can't be in a category but you fail to show me where it states that. So I will go along with you and make all buildings into one category over 400 meters to stop the fight. Thank You.Maldek (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I disagree. My opinion is to keep headlines (categories) as they were in article for more than one year, thus is consensus about them and you need found consesnus about changing them. So Maledek, please stop your reverts. --Jklamo (talk) 08:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes!!! Merge it! --70.146.127.147 (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Maldek, let me try and explain this in clear language. I accept your point that if we are to split the page up into 50m categories, then logically Burj Dubai would, when it qualifies, be put into the next 650-700m category. Indeed, this 50m policy was arrived at by consensus. However, another policy that has been arrived at by consensus is that there needs to be sufficient entries in any new category before it merits being created. Furthermore, the "sufficient entries" policy overrides the "50m" policy, again by consensus. Therefore, logically, we keep the existing 50m categories except where there are insufficient entries to merit creating the next highest category, in which case the topmost category just contains all entries above a certain level. Hopefully this should now be clear.Chillysnow (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge with List of supertall structures
You should merge it because it is the same list. --65.2.36.252 (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, problem is the size of both list, this article is 86 kilobytes long, List of supertall structures is 58 kilobytes long. Per Article size > 100 KB is unacceptable size, that is why i split old list and create these articles. --Jklamo (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Problem: 'supertall' isn't a common word, and there's no way someone would search for 'List of supertall structures' - and they especially wouldn't expect to find a list of structures which are explicitly not the tallest. I think it would be better if, instead of having such a long worldwide list that it has to be divided over two pages, we had a shorter worldwide list and then a set of lists by continent or similar. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I think List of supertall structures should be renamed to List of tallest structures - part 2. It's presented as such in the text. Would such a move be reasonable? --Alvestrand (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I was bold and renamed the second half to List of tallest structures in the world - 300 to 400 metres. While I was at it, I also split off List of tallest structures in the world - 400 to 500 metres, which reduced the main article to a less unreasonable 49 Kbytes. (The split-off was 55 Kbytes, and what's now "part 3" is 68 Kbytes). If the list grows, we can split again. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

KEDB Tower
I was randomly visiting masts via Google Earth, and the KEDB tower, listed as dismantled (no date given) is still present in Google Earth. (Jan 26 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.246.45.199 (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Kingkey Finance Tower
It is not on the list of buildings under construction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingkey_Finance_Tower —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.246.45.199 (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The image on this article should be of the Burj Dubai
If there is just one picture in this article, it should be of the tallest man made structure, that is the Burj Dubai. Current picture is from the Warsawa Radio Mast in Poland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.52.215.30 (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me or is this EXTREMELY lacking?
There are TONS of antenna towers over 500 meters not listed here. How can this be? Or is there something I don't know; like that these were measured in some way that doesn't count: WVIA-TV and WNEP-TV Daniel Christensen (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

 * They are not mentioned by their actual height in the articles; they were listed by their HAAT; which is total garbage. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Is this also the case with the WJZY Transmitter, listed as being "2,000 feet tall" in the article? --Cruncher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC).

'Planned' Structures
The article itself mentions, right before the list, that "Structures under construction are included in main list if its current height is over 500 metres (1,640 ft)." Hence, 'planned' structures should not be included; I have corrected three entries listed as 'planned'; acquiring a permit for construction does NOT mean a building will see completion. The three entries I corrected: Granted, I recognize some of the caveats over relying on satellite imagery that can be years outdated, however the mentioned items in the list are themselves based on years-old data, and inclusion is all about verifiability. Hence, structures where at least a marginal amount of verifiability can be achieved is better than none, and those with none must be removed, regardless of whether it's actually true or not. Nottheking (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Pegasus Broadcasting Tower: Apparently completed. FCC registry still lists the status as "application granted," though a look at the location given shows there is indeed a rather tall mast there; given by the shadows compared to the nearby building, I'm removing the 'planned' tag, though it'd be better if there was better verification of it being completed.
 * CBC Real Estate Tower Auburn: Accoding to the FAA registry, the registration for this mast has been canceled. And a look at the map Shows that at the location, there's only one mast: the already-built WNCN Tower.
 * Beasley Tower: Possibly under construction or completed. A look at its location reveals that last time it was photographed, there was what very much looks like a mast construction site. However, because there's absolutely zero verifiable source to show that it HAS reached the requisite 500 meters in height, it's removed from the list. Contrast this to the Pegasus Tower, where the included Geohack link can at least show an image of it completed.

World's tallest "fill in blank"
These lists are obvious redundant since Burj Khalifa is on every single list. All of these lists need reconsideration. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 16:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

bgcolor=#cedff2
Is there a valid reason why United States entries have bgcolor=#cedff2 for each entry? If not I will remove. Thanks. Zarcadia (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorting
Why don't all of the fields in the tables sort correctly? Ardric47 (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

American Towers Tower Randleman
American Towers Tower Randleman has the wrong coordinates which point to the WFMY Tower across the lake. The correct coordinates are: N 35 52' 2.6" W 79 49' 25.4" http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=621217 166.248.129.195 (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)stargate

Oceania or Australia
A recent edit added the Lualualei VLF transmitter to the current list by continent. The edit leaves that table listing both Lualualei in Oceania and VLF Transmitter Woodside in Australia. I thought Australia was in Oceania, while on the other hand I don't ever recall seeing Hawaii described as being in Oceania but instead part of North America by virtue of Hawaii being one of the 50 United States of America. So what to do: Remove Woodside since it is shorter than Lualualei, or remove Lualualei since it is not in Oceania?

Looking deeper, I see the Oceania article says it includes Hawaii, as does List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Oceania, yet List of Oceanian countries by population doesn't mention Hawaii at all. Astronaut (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Template produces poor PDF (print) output
PDF output using Google Chrome's built-in distiller produces poor results with this page. (Use the Ctrl P command in Chrome to preview). Issue may be with the template used or (more likely) the the way content was entered (coded) into the template and saved by the contributor. For example, when printing this article with Google's PDF printer, the font size is scaled down too much. Note that the font size should not dynamically scale up or down to fit a page; font size of the main-body text content should be about 12 points on outputted PDF page(s); it is the images and table cells that should dynamically scale up or down to fit the info box and template in order to maintain the two-column Wikipedia layout. The offending elements appear to be caused by the separation of the tables and images. Refer to this Wikipedia (list-type) article for a proper printer-friendly layout using tables with images -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_German_Navy_ships Printchecker (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of tallest bridges in the world which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Centralized page move discussion
There is a centralized discussion about whether or not to remove "in the world" from this and roughly fifteen other articles.

Please comment here: Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 52

Thank you,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Oil platforms
Is there a reason why some oil platforms are included on the list, but not tension-leg platforms? Guinness World Records considers the Magnolia ETLP to be the world's tallest structure, but it's not present in this list. 2601:644:1:B7CB:DD1C:ACA3:5314:CD70 (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Petronius Platform location
The article described the location as "High Seas (US Exclusive Economic Zone)" however these terms are contradictory. See International Waters for details. Checking the location co-ordinates in the article shows that it is indeed well within the US EEZ, although outside of territorial waters. On the basis of those co-ordinates, I have removed the apparently erroneous reference to "High Seas". US EEZ seems to be the best description of its location for the purpose of the table. 203.213.126.226 (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Tallest structures in the universe?
89.245.157.175 (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:List of tallest structures


text:
User talk:172/Talk bloc 1

---

Hello and welcome to userland 172! --mav

Hello. 194.117.133.118 11:05 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

Minguy is pretty unfriendly, no?Vera Cruz

What are they saying you removed anyways? I don't see why they are making such a big deal out of it, it's not like we can't revert anything anyways. Most of these talk pages are a mess and need cleaning. Vera Cruz

I think quotes from the Washington Times and other POV sources do belong in NPOV articles. It's very informative to know what the POVs on different topics are. Vera Cruz

172, let's not get into a misunderstanding here. I would be the last person to call you a communist. Prior to your arrival, a good many of the history pages were rather shallow things, and showed little understanding of the interrelationship between history (in the traditional "kings and queens of England" sense) and the broad flow of economic change that underpins and (in general) controls the actions of statesmen, generals and inventors. You certainly do not fall into that trap! Your contributions have made significant inroads into the task of describing history as an interacting whole. Several others here have objected to what they see as a "communist bias" in your writing. In large part, these objections stem from two things:
 * 1) Many people here have spent a lifetime steeped in a rather one-sided view of history - I'm talking about the sort of history that describes the Battle of the Bulge or Second Alamain in loving detail, but relegates Stalingrad to a footnote and doesn't even bother to mention Kursk; the sort of history that thinks Jethro Tull invented the seed drill and therefore we had an Industrial Revolution - and on reading the sort of thing that you write, they (very naturally) tend to say oh, this isn't what I'm used to seeing, therefore it must be wrong.
 * 2) You tend to write large slabs of text which is perfectly comprehensible if one concentrates but far from easy reading, particularly as it is liberally laced with the jargon of political economy. Many people see key words or phrases like "bourgeoise", "hegemony", or "accumulation of surplus" and (a) don't really understand them, and (b) assume that because the two or three Marxist or Leninist tracts they happen to have glanced at are filled with these same words, that the present work is more of the same.

As I see it, the challenge is not to write long entries that are technically correct but so complex, wordy, and jargon-filled that no-one reads them (any fool with half an education can do that), but to translate the specialised jargon of Marxian political economy and materialistic history into terms that that are readily accessable to the ordinary, non-specialist reader, and in doing so to bear in mind that any given article should not aim at detailed perfection at some far off future time to the exclusion of readability and usefulness at the present time - changes should, in other words, be sufficiently incremental that the article as a whole remains useful in the meantime.

There. It's said. Now is there anyone I haven't' offended yet? Tannin

 * Bah. If you can't see that it's POV to write things like, "Mao sure pulled China together and gave the people more freedom than they've ever known before!", then you and 172 deserve each other. --Len

(I loathe Mao, and did not write such a sentence. But one could make a very strong case for that statement.)

 * One can pull individual POV statements out of anyone's contributions - you and me included. I am talking about the bulk of 172's work, not every single sentence as if it were Holy Writ. I assume that the quotation above has already (and quite properly) been edited into shape - but with the massive slabs of text 172 submits, this is no easy task! Tannin

Quite so, 172. The 172.X user I reverted was obviously nothing to do with you, just one of those rather sad little people with a self-image problem that go about making up imaginary countries with three citizens and a modem for their Yahoo Groups account, and casting themselves in the role of King Mucho Stupido the 2nd. After I reverted his nonsense a few times, he deleted my user page. Shrug. Tannin

I worked hard on that description of the derivation of the term imperialism. You deleted it from here, but, judging from your response in my talk page, you didn't read it, or at least did not understand it. They didn't call it new imperialism at the time, they called it a new word, imperialism. Why? Because it was a new phenomenon, not a new version of an old phenomenon. If it had been colonialism or mercantilism, they'd have called it that. As you yourself said on my talk page:
 * the era between 1871 and 1914 was notable in itself due to the an increased drive toward formal colonialism. Ironic once again though, since this distinction is noted in the first paragraph.

Ironic indeed, since my now-deleted suggested paragraph made precisely that point, and further noted that since this new phenomenon was so powerful, it had been applied retrospectively to the past and continued to be applied to the future. It isn't a question of like or dislike, it's what makes a good encyclopedia article. I think that knowing the way words have changed is an aid to understanding. Ortolan88

 * Ah, but you see, 172 didn't write it, therefore it wasn't worth keeping. -- Zoe

---

I’m familiar with the origins of the word “imperialism”; that’s why I keep deleting that explanation on my talk page. But it has come into common usage since then. Look up any dictionary definition. For instance, mercantilism is now considered one form of imperialism in particular. New Imperialism is now considered an era of imperialism between 1871-1914.

I don’t know why this is such a contentious issue for you. The term “New Imperialism” is so common because this field of history has been so controversial and the focal point of a rich tradition of historical literature and theory. New Imperialist historiography has in large part been devoted to what role the over-accumulation of surplus capital by the rich played in this phenomenon, and what role New Imperialism played in spurring World War I. To imperial critic J.A. Hobson’s credit, his controversial charges have spurred a great deal of theories and studies regarding this era. The study of New Imperialism has been essential to Lenin’s critique of capitalism, and critiques of his analysis of the amalgamation of industry have been central to the work of many anti-Marxian historians. One of the most prominent to these anti-Marxian historians was William L. Langer, who emphasized the role of mass-psychology earlier in the twentieth century. He uses the term "New Imperialism" as well.

172

 * What I believe: I believe that it is both interesting and important that the word imperialism was invented in the 19th century to describe a new phenomenon, a new phenomenon that proved so all-pervasive that the term invented in the 19th century still lives today despite greatly changed conditions, and has even been applied backwards to describe previous phenomena that were not called imperialism until the emergence of imperialism revealed their true nature.  I find that fascinating.  It is all about how words work, and what makes a good encyclopedia article, that is, one that explains its terms.

 * What is so hard to understand about this point that I have now made four times in four different ways? I am confident that I  made it clear each time.  In addition to being interesting and important, it explains why the article is called New Imperialism and not Imperialism, even though the phenomenon being described was specifically called imperialism (without the qualifier) for the entire length of its sway.  I guess a non-ideological point is hard for an ideologue to understand, even when it fundamentally supports what the ideologue is trying to say.   Ortolan88

 * I have not changed my mind. I have stated the same thing over and over, and, in fact, just put the original paragraph into the article.  As to what kind of ideologue I think you are, I believe you are a Kimjongiliast.  Ortolan88

'I'm tired of all of this. Can I make peace with both of you?'' - Not so long as you continue to revert any and all changes to articles you consider as your personal property. -- Zoe

--- I tear that baseless charge above on Zoe's userpage.

''I do no such thing; I revert articles to improve them, just like everyone else. You're just looking at me through a biased guise.'' - Really? I spent half an hour doing modifications to New Imperialism which consisted of nothing but markup corrections -- adding links, changing the headings to match Wikipedia's manual of style. And you reverted them without considering their worth with, "Mine looks better." You refuse to allow anyone to make any changes to what you consider your work, even your former ally Vera Cruz is tired of it. Why do you think that EricD, AnnieKat, Ortolan, myself and others are tired of it all? Because you refuse to work with anyone.

You continue to copy huge blocks of text from article to article, making those new articles worthless.

''I doubt that I will contribute anything else to Wikipedia. I'll be going back to work anyway next week. That’s a loss, as I am an actual PhD historian. I do, however, want to maintain my former contributions.''

PhD in history. That makes sense. Most PhDs I know have no grasp of interpersonal communications. You never did address the questions I asked, which had nothing to do with bias, but which you sniffed at as beneath your contempt. You never addressed the issue of copyright violation. Your articles are not your personal property, and they will be modified somewhere, sometime down the road. You have no way to "maintain" your contributions. They don't belong to you. -- Zoe

 * Zoe, I put some markup fixes back in the new imperialism article. I imagine they were the same ones you did. Ortolan88

- "Can I make peace with both of you ?"

172 I feel tired to.

Well, but :

"I do, however, want to maintain my former contributions." Your text will be modified by writing in Wikipedia you wite all your rights. If you don't like in don't write in Wikipedia.

You cut and paste the same text everywhere. Why ? Links exists after all. You qualify people as ignorants.

You use technical language in a text that is supposed to be understand by the was majority.

You mix technical language and non-neutral judgement. Infamous is non-neutral it's better to convice people that it was infamous using facts than to say it was infamous.

You tend use an attitute like everybody know that except ignorant when your writing are controversial.

I refered somewhere my contribution about the infamous (no kidding I'm neutral) Le Pen Compare :

"He practiced torture in Algeria." with a comment in the talk page "Everybody know that except ignorants that never read "Le Canard Enchainé"

 * and :

"It is also etablished that he practiced torture in Algeria. This fact was published by "Le Canard Enchainé" and "Libération" and by Michel Rocard (ex-prime minister) on TV (TF-1 1993). Le Pen sued the papers and Michel Rocard. This affair ended in 2000 when the "Cour de cassation" (French supreme jurisdiction) concluded that it was legitimate to remember this fact. War crimes committed during the Algerian War of Independence are amnestied in France so there should be no further judicial issues."

Which one is the less controversial ? Which one has some chance to stay in the article ? If the response is not obvious to you I will believe you lacjk some common sense.

I wish you become more positive and we can make peace. User:Ericd:Ericd

---

Ericd:

Your're probably detecting this bias laced in technical language because of language difficulties. I can understand how that's possible, since I speak French and Spanish as non-native languages. I sometimes have a hard time picking up subteties.

172

Sure, move the derivation of imperialism up in the article. I wrote it mainly because it made it clearer to me. Ortolan88

title: User talk:172/Talk bloc 1


text:
Talk:Muslim Brotherhood

Democratic faction
While MB has many members with radical views, it has also been described in some Cases as holding "Islamic Democratic" views. Some members even self-indentify as "Islamic Democrats" or following "Islamic Democracy". 2A02:8108:1640:5282:7D38:C805:60A9:8DAA (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Misspelling of the word violence
"The group's founder accepted the utility of political violance" Violence is not spelled that way. Sdp29 (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Fixed. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2023
Literetarure: Hussein Solomon, and Arno Tausch. „The Demise of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab World?.“ Jewish Political Studies Review 31.1/2 (2020): 171–209. https://jcpa.org/article/the-demise-of-the-muslim-brotherhood-in-the-arab-world/ Austrian political observer (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Brendan  ❯❯❯  Talk  04:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Template
Maybe there should be Navbox listing all the organizations Braganza (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

List of Members
as cohesive as the "presence outside of Egypt" section is, I think a list would be a better way to convey member organizations; sorted by country etc Castroonthemoon (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Muslim Brotherhood


text:
Talk:Ulama

Good Work
this article is improving rapidly - good work! some link to Muslim Brotherhood, tarika, and Taliban is probably required, as the disenfranchised ulema in Egypt, Turkey, Afghanistan, etc., played some role in the rise social and political groups.

Incorrect Translation!
Ulama (Plural), Alim (Singular), and all its derivatives with different transliterations and spellings mean Scientist(s) in Arabic. They come from the root: 'ilm', meaning Knowledge. 'Iloom' is then derived from that, which means Science; 'Pursuit of Knowledge'. 'Alim' is then composed of that which means Scientist (Male singular), be advised there is also 'Alimah' which also means Scientist but is in the female singular form. Ulama is then composed of those, and it means Scientists, the final plural form.

These words do not imply in any way shape or form a reference to only Muslim "scholars". How this article derived only the meaning of 'Muslim Scholar of Islam' out of the above Arabic words is far fetched. As a Muslim and Arab who natively speaks Arabic and English, this is a grave mistake. Ulama can be used to refer to any Scientists of any religion or background as it is simply the Arabic word for Scientists. Is anyone editing this article a native speaker of Arabic and English? (Meaning on a native-level.)

If these words are being used specifically in the context of Shi'a Islam to mean different things then it should be stated in the beginning paragraph of the Article. But those words are Arabic and their meanings are Scientist(s), possibly Scholar(s), certainly not 'Muslim Scholars of Islamic Studies'. Unless Wikipedia aims to change the Arabic language, taking Arabic words which mean something quite generally and declaring that it means only one very specific diverging thing is wholly incorrect. Please address this or I will. Thank you. 72.145.129.154 (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Links
I added them since it enlighted how the Jurist work, one desribed it regardin one issue, the other critizised them --Striver 03:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Transliterations
In a recent version of the article, some symbols in the words ulema and Shia did not display properly in my browser. I assume that may be the case with other users, so I have changed to the spelling to an easier transliteration. My apologies to those who wished to improve the transliteration of those words. Pecher Talk 22:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Update: the same was the case with some other words, like sharia, so I have simplified the spelling throughout. Pecher Talk 22:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * These symbols are from the insert section at the bottom of the composition page. I have therefore restored them because they are part of the standard set used on Wikipedia. em zilch 03:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * @ 2603:90D8:2F0:A30:EDA1:10C1:14CD:C868 (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Y'know, I'm not sure that this is fair to our readers. Ulema, without any special characters, is widely used in academic and popular literature. One could probably consider it an English word. Insisting on used the word in characters that mean nothing to 99.9% of the readers is showing off, don't you think? If we had a little box in which we gave it in various characters (Arabic, Persian modified Arabic, Turkish, and transliterations) just ONCE, then any people who were fluent in those languages AND English could check our translation. But for actually finding out who and what the ulema are, "ulema" is just fine. Zora 03:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See, I can see the basis for your argument there, whereas "I can't see Wikipedia's compositional character set" just isn't an effective comment.

Requested move (2006)

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

move to/keep at Ulema. — Nightst a  llion  (?) 10:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move (2006)
Ulema → Ulama – Ulama is a more common transliteration.

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~

 * Support as nominator. Although it remains dubious whether ulama really is the more common transliteration, I'm going to go out on a limb as say it is (with Google results backing that up). joturner 02:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral but "ulema" is not only a Turkish form as stated below. South Asia and Southeast Asia (with far more Moslems than the Middle East) also use that form. AjaxSmack 19:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Ulema is much more widely used in English and the subject has already been discussed on the talk page below. Pecher Talk 20:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * ''Add any additional comments'

Muslim Islamic jurists
This article should be named "Muslim Islamic jurists". Here is my arguments:

 * Ulema is not a good english article name, this is english Wikipedia.
 * Islamic jurists is no good, since a non-Muslim Islamic jursit are not "Ulema"
 * Muslim jurists are not "Ulema", this they can be a jurist in Swedish law and know nothing about Hanbali law.
 * Muslim Islamic jurists is the correct title, since it must be a Muslim that is engaged in Islamic Jurisprudence.

Comments? --Striver 20:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Anyone who is reading about Islam runs across the word "ulema". It is as useful as hadith, sira, caliph, waqf, and other technical terms. The reader is much more likely to be looking for information on ulema (having encountered it in reading) than for any other term.

 * I do not believe that jurist is a good translation of alim, since jurisprudence is a translation of fiqh. The ulema have to study kalam, tafsir, and ulum as well as fiqh. Possibly other matters as well -- these are the ones I know.

 * Islamic jurists would imply ulema who specialize in fiqh. It's not the right translation for ulema.

 * Muslim Islamic jurists is silly, utterly silly. It is not necessary to specify that an alim is Muslim, any more than it is to specify that a cardinal is Roman Catholic or a rabbi is Jewish. You want articles on Jewish rabbis and non-Jewish rabbis? Zora 22:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Im convinced by your argument, you are right that they are not only specialist in Fiqh. Thanks for a good comment. Peace! --Striver 01:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Let us remember that we are not here to do original research. Just because a phrase can be used doesn't mean it is.  "Muslim Islamic jurists" is not used and therefore we should not attempt to use it.  Muslim jurists as you describe is Striver are just jurists in a certain type of law.  Therefore, the fact that they are Muslim really doesn't matter so much and there is no reason to discuss it as a subject. gren グレン 13:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"Ulema" seems OK as an article title. The word has been used in English for 237 years (source: Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster). Encyclopedia Britannica and the Library of Congress catalog spell it differently (as "ulama"), but they don't replace it with some other phrase. --Hoziron 14:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ulema/ulama
Somehow Wikipedia seems to have started off with the Turkish term for the clergy -- influence of Bernard Lewis? The Arabic term, ulama, is probably more widespread. However, changing ulema to ulama in every article where it is found is going to be a big job. Is there consensus for a change to the Arabic form, and are there any editors who would help do this? Zora 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm sure this could be done fairly easily using a bot and/or the Auto Wiki Browser:
 * And on another note, why does Talk:Ulema redirect to Talk:Muslim Islamic jurists. Pepsidrinka 00:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Because Striver had the bright idea, at one point, to move Ulema to Muslim Islamic jurists, without consulting anyone else. Someone handled this by redirecting the article back to Ulema, which didn't take care of the talk page.

If we decide to change to ulama, someone with mighty admin powers is going to have to straighten out the tangle.

We need to get input from the other editors working on Islam-related articles, lest we be seen as pulling a Striver :) Zora 01:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ulema/Ulama...
There is no need to change 'Ulema' to 'Ulama'. 'Ulama' is the more proper Arabic pronunciation and spelling, but it isn't used at all as much as 'ulema' in English, as 'Ulema' is the Turkish, Persian and Urdu versions of the word predominant throughout Turkey, Iran, Indian subcontinent, Central Asia, South East Asia etc. and as most Muslims are from these parts of the world, 'ulema' is a lot more commonly used than 'ulama'. As well as this, even some Arabs (Yemenis, North Africans) pronounce 'Ulama' as 'Ulema', so even Arabs use 'ulema', so clearly there is no need to change anything, as both are just as correct. Besides, one is more likely to come across 'Ulema' than 'ulama'. As for 'Muslim Islamic Jurists' - that's just silly, I'm not even gonna bother with that one... (Tanzeel 21:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

 * Sounds like you know what you're talking about, Tanzeel, and I'm willing to trust you unless we hear a chorus of voices for a change to ulama. Zora 21:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Blatant Islamisation of Wikipedia
I was most distressed to find yet another article so effectively Islamised (and by the same culprit Jagged 85). This article provides an obscenely large, but irrelevant section on what is purported to be the history of the 'Ulama/Muslim clerics and scientists. As far as I can make out, it repeats many of the tired, uncorroborated outside of a small circle of academics, claims about the Islamic origins of common and civil law. Now, were this confined to the Wikis on Common Law and Civil law, it wouldn't be so bad. Yet, here, we have a section supposedly about the historic development of the cleric in Islamic history; instead, we get information on the putative Islamic origins of components of both common and civil law. Yes Makdisi is a reputable academic, but should his infinitesimaly small, minority viewpoint on the origins of common law be displayed here? The answer is no - the section on History of the 'Ulama should either contain information strictly about the 'Ulama or should be removed!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.236.9.80 (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Layout
Can we start with etymology of the word, than a history of the concept, etc etc? Faro0485 (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Move to Ulama (March 2010)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ron h jones (Talk) 21:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ulema → Ulama — Yes, I see there was already a discussion about this archived below, but the vote was
 * 2 support
 * 3 neutral
 * 2 oppose

Of the two who oppose, both assert (without any support) 'that ulema'' is more common in English. Except it isn't.' The Library of Congress and the Encyclopaedia Britannica both use ulama''. Google pulls 3.78m for ulama -wiki versus 2.78m for ulema -wiki. The results show exactly what one would expect: ulema is a regional Turkish and Pakistani use; ulama is the proper Arabic term, more common in English, and used in organizations even in Indonesia, Pakistan, and Turkey.

You'd think the idea of ulema as proper English comes from use under the British Raj or possibly British dealings with Ottoman Turkey, but google.co.uk gives 36,900 pages in the UK for ulama -wiki and only half as may (18k) for ulema -wiki. The page is in the wrong place. -LlywelynII (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

 * There's a general move away from non-standard transliterations related to this topic even in general sources. Chances are, if there's an e or an o in it, it's not standard. Support the proposed move per WP:UCN.  —   AjaxSmack   02:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Comment. There is already a dab page at Ulama. Would this be considered the primary topic for Ulama? If so, that page should be moved to Ulama (disambiguation); otherwise, this should be moved to Ulama (scholar) or something like that. Ucucha 14:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the primary topic. Only one other page, Ulama (game) ("a ball game played in a few communities in the Mexican state of Sinaloa"), is actually called Ulama.  Therefore, the dab page should be moved to Ulama (disambiguation) as you note.  —   AjaxSmack   16:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removed POV pushing in "History" section
Jagged85, the person who put the problematic material in, has been RFCed and inshallah, will not be disrupting Wikipedia in the future.

Move? (July 2010)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 13:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ulama → — Relisted.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 22:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Ulama is a plural word. The corresponding singular is Alim. 06:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)—  Hamza  [ talk ]
 * Comment that may be the case in Arabic, but what is it in English? 76.66.193.119 (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support The Encyclopedia of the Middle East seems pretty certain that the English word is Alim, as its description is An alim (Arabic: عالِ "Ahleem") is a Muslim scholar. It is the singular form of Ulema.  Encyclopaedia Britannica, although not having an article on Alim, does have one on Ulama, in which it refers to the term entirely in the plural: the learned of Islam, those who possess the quality of ʿilm, “learning,” in its widest sense. From the ʿulamāʾ, who are versed theoretically and practically in the Muslim sciences, come the religious teachers of the Islamic community—theologians (mutakallimun), canon lawyers (muftis), judges (qadis), professors—and high state religious officials like the shaikh al-Islām. In a narrower sense, ʿulamāʾ may refer to a council of learned men holding government appointments in a Muslim state.  Skinsmoke (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose per WP:UE/WP:UCN. English does not always translate singulars/plurals well but common usage is usually preferred even if the term is a plural in another language (cf. panini, mujahideen, Taliban, zucchini, fedayeen).  And, as User:Skinsmoke notes, Britannica uses "ulama" too.  —   AjaxSmack   04:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Support The common usage is, in fact, Alim. But mostly the term is substituted with Islamic Scholar in general conversation in English.—  Hamza  [ talk ]  23:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose Our article here (like the Britannica article) describes a class or social group, not an individual member of that group. As such, I think the usage appears to be in favor of Ulama.  An few analogies could be made, ie. an Alim is to the Ulama as an Academic is to Academia, or a Priest is to the Clergy.  Or in another direction, think of the members of some sports teams, like the Yankees: a single member of the team is called "a Yankee", a group of such members are called "Yankees", and this is also the name of the group as a whole.Erudy (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No hierarchy
"Ulama in contemporary usage by Muslims refers to the religious elite of scholars at the top of the sectarian hierarchy" – the preceding statement is false. there is no hierarchy, and there is no sectarian fellowship in Islam, this is a biddah and not consistent with the sunnah of Prophet Muhammad According to Muhammad Asad, (1934) a Jewish-born Austro-Hungarian born journalist who reverted to Islam, who wrote extensively in the area of comparative religion, Asad says "it is westerners who identify "theocracy" with the political power exercised by an established church-organization -in their case, the medieval Christian Church and its priestly hierarchy. Islam, on the other hand, does not admit of any "priesthood" or "clergy" and, therefore, of any institution comparable to the Christian Church" (Asad, M., (1934) Islam at the Cross Roads, Arafat Publications, Delhi),. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kali20805 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 21 April 2015

 * Re-adding "hierarchy", sourcing with (Hanif. Islam and Modernity. p. 318.) c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  16:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

 * In Islam, Islamic scholars have the practical role of clergy whatever you choose to call them. Also while the Koran ironically refers to Christians and Jews as seeing their rabbis and priests as God, if anything Muslims are deferential and worshipful of the Ulama to an almost absurd degreed, the Ulama abuse this respect to seize political authority and set up petty dictatorships. In Christianity and Judaism we're allowed to have our own opinions, the rabbi and priests opinion is merely advisory, we're not expected to be subservient in all things, especially in political matters which they are usually wise enough to butt their noses out of. Nor do they condemn us as heretics and apostates deserving death and the slightest disagreement. The only figure in Christianity treated with as much exuberant reverence and subservience as the average Ulama is in Islam, is maybe the Pope. And the Pope is wise enough to stick to non-political matters and is more of a spiritual figure than someone you are ordered to blindly follow.

 * The Ulama are basically deferred to in all respects regarding what is the Divine Will, and people are commanded to not think for themselves and to just follow the Divine Will at all times, it's almost a totalitarian system. But they abuse this and substitute in their own will, and take on the power of the Prophet for themselves to impalement their own ignorant and irrationalist political will. They just waltz around giving uneducated, bigoted, and intolerant opinions, declaring it the divine will and commanding the death of anyone who disagrees. It's a truly toxic relationship. Islam is not the religion of Muhammad, it's the religion of the scholars, they manufactured the Hadith, and the Koranic chronology which underlies the doctrine of abrogation, in the 2nd century after his death to reform the religion into something that would place everyone subservient to them. They manufactured the intolerant, ignorant religion of they desired in retrospect, picking what they wish and abrogating what they did not, manufacturing isnad and chronology and condemning to death rationalists with their ignorant Hanbali mobs.

 * I'd also like to point out that the devolved notion of the Ulama in Sunni Islam is only really the case since the fall of the Ottoman caliph, before that the Ottoman caliph more or less organized Sunni Islam and had a hierarchy of Ulama, which he himself abused to declare his own will the Divine will. In Twelver Shia Islam in contrast things are much more organized because religious authority never devolved in the way it did in Sunni Islam.

 * BTW, anytime someone says "just the sunnah and koran", reminder that you are speaking to a Salafist and to implicitly insert "Ibn Taymiyyah" and "al-Wahabbi" into that list. The Salafists are ignorant bullies who abuse injuctions against sects and the myth of a single united Islam as a bludgeon to force everybody to bow down before their extremely deviant and innovative sect which has numerous reactionary and bigoted opinions never before seen in the history of Islam. It is depressing to what degree they have been successful. The Prophet of Salafists is not Muhammad, it's Ibn Taymiyyah, the way they waltz around screeching about how they're the only true followers of the Sunnah and everyone else is an apostate kafir worthy of death blindly following traditional madhab, while they themselves bow their heads low to Ibn Taymiyyah in all matters, citing his Fatwah with greater authority than Koran, is truly a joke.2601:140:8900:61D0:7D5D:5138:8396:3B07 (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Improving the article.
Hi, I have tried to improve the article. Considering the disputable POVs, I have presented information in a neutral way. The main issue was of the definition of Ulama itself so I have created an "Etymology" section which is the most appropriate section and quite helpful for definitions of the word upon which the entire article is based. Here I have presented both the Arabic as well as the widely interpreted meaning of the term. The connection to religion within the Arabic term and the other term not confined to religion and only based on science is focused. At the last section, "Controversial aspects," I have also explained that it is equally important to check the context in which the term 'ulama' is being used because that defines the word itself. Other editors are encourage to provide other reliable sources and content to improve the article. Should you feel the need to discuss for change or improvement please reach me on my talk page. Pixarh (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

p.s. "History" and "Functions and requirements" can be worked upon to improve better. Pixarh (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

 * You cannot add original research to wikipedia. Your cited source made no mention of this difference in the religious/scientific definition of the word alim. c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  17:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

 * Hello. Very logical. This is why the concluding lines were summarizing what was listed above anyway. Nothing new was added there. Pixarh (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Those lines were not summarizing the material cited. c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  16:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

2017
Let's try and improve this article. Even if I took the hypothetical viewpoint of an Islamic scholar, I would consider large parts of the article as representing blatant, uninformed propaganda. In its current form, it is a disgrace to a community which, over the centuries, has contributed far more to the advancement of science and education than we may imagine from what is going on in many countries today, and from what is sometimes written in Wikipedia. From my point of view, the article has to be rewritten almost from scratch, and furnished with reliable and relevant information. Any of those who discussed this ten years ago still alive and kicking?--HajjiBaba (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Usage of the word ‘alīm in the Quran
This section does not provide any information about the usage of the word in the Quran. There is no quotation provided. Instead, the modern interpretation of the word "alim" is discussed i.e., that a modern definition of "alim" might include other scholars and scientists as well. How could this help our understanding of the ulama? I've therefore deleted the section.--HajjiBaba (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Philosophy
There's a case for mentioning some philosophical controversies as they impacted the ulama, but we shouldn't give the impression that the term ulama normally includes the falasifa. In particular, Hourani doesn't include philosophers in the chapter The Culture of The Ulama. Lapidus' A History of Islamic Societies has a good discussion of the differences between the cultural milieus represented by the ulama and philosophers. Eperoton (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 * I take your point, Eperoton and btw thank you kindly for your edits. Actually, I have relied largely on Hourani (2013 pb. ed., section "The part of reason", p. 75 as cited in the references). Admitted that the philosophers' and ulama's social and intellectual milieus were only partially overlapping. However, a brief look at the reception of Aristotlean and neo-platonic philosophy by Islamic scholars (who, for most parts, had gone through the traditional alim's education) will help understanding al-Ghazali and his influence on Islamic scholarly reasoning (his "restoring of the faith") after 1200 AD. However, I'll try and adapt the section.--HajjiBaba (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes, al-Ghazali is quite relevant here (for his influence on the attitude among later ulema both to philosophy and to Sufism). One could say that Ibn Rushd and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi straddled both worlds, and of course Hellenistic philosophy had further reverberations among Shia thinkers. We just want to keep things in perspective. Eperoton (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 * By your edits, you've found an excellent way of solving the issue you've raised earlier. Thanks!--HajjiBaba (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

"Partly aristocratic"
The designation makes some sense in the Ottoman context, which perhaps influenced the word choice used in the source, but as a general statement I believe it's misleading and doesn't reflect the vast majority of RSs. To the extent that the author meant it as a general statement, I would argue that it is WP:UNDUE. Eperoton (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

For the definition, I think we should give substantial weight to standard academic references:

 * The Ulama entry in EI2, which says that the term "denotes scholars of almost all disciplines ( lug̲h̲a, bayān , ḥisāb , etc. [q.vv.]). However, the term refers more specifically to the scholars of the religious sciences ( faḳīh , mufassir , muftī , muḥaddit̲h̲ , mutakallim , ḳāriʾ etc. [q.vv.])"
 * The Ulama entry in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, which is cited, but not really reflected: "The Arabic term ulama [...] refers to Muslims scholars specializing in the Islamic religious sciences."
 * The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World: "By implication, one is an ʿālim on account of particular religious knowledge (the Qurʿān, the ḥadīth, and fiqh or religious law) [...] This textual background has always connoted specifically religious knowledge, either in the sense of gnosis or in the sense of knowledge of exoteric religious law."

Currently, we're giving excessive weight to rather marginal sources, e.g., the Rowman Altamira encyclopedia, which is written by a single author with no academic credentials, the book Islam and Modernity, whose author and publisher I'm not familiar with, and the paper on Ottoman ulema where the tagged expression comes from. Eperoton (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 * Parts of the article are still as they were (and have remained so for almost ten years...) before we started our edits from this version. As the re-edit goes on, I plan to include more appropriate references. The sentence about ulama being the "aristocracy" of Islamic society does not even make sense for the Ottoman Askerî, so I've deleted it without further ado. The introduction, in particular, awaits a thorough re-edit. So far, I've only deleted some parts of the text which did not make sense and rearranged the rest to create some text which is readable and not altogether wrong.--HajjiBaba (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Sounds good, thanks. Eperoton (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ulama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607054813/http://www.anayasa.gov.tr/images/loaded/pdf_dosyalari/THE_CONSTITUTION_OF_THE_REPUBLIC_OF_TURKEY.pdf to http://www.anayasa.gov.tr/images/loaded/pdf_dosyalari/THE_CONSTITUTION_OF_THE_REPUBLIC_OF_TURKEY.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Independent legal reasoning in Islamic law which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ulama


text:
Dietrich of Nieheim

Dietrich of Nieheim (Niem or Nyem) (c. 1345 – 22 March 1418), medieval historian, was born at Nieheim, a small town subject to the see of Paderborn.

Life
Nothing is known about his family, and but little about his life previous to his entry into the service of the papal Curia. He spent some time in Italy in the study of law, but never obtained the degree of Doctor. He became a notary of the papal court of the rota at Avignon, to keep which he had to take orders, if he had not already done so. When Pope Gregory XI returned to Rome in 1377, Dietrich accompanied him.

Urban VI here took particular notice of him, made him an abbreviator to the papal chancery, and in 1383 took him with him in his visit to Charles III of Naples at Naples, an expedition which led to many unpleasant adventures, from which he escaped in 1385 by leaving the Curia. In 1387 he is again found among the abbreviators, and in 1395 Pope Boniface IX appointed him to the Prince-Bishopric of Verden. His attempt to take possession of the see, however, met with successful opposition. About Easter, 1401, Dietrich was at Erfurt in Germany, where he matriculated at the university.

Towards the end of the fourteenth century Johann Peters of Dordrecht had founded at Rome a hospital for German pilgrims, known as Santa Maria dell' Anima, still in existence and united with the German national church at Rome. Dietrich was an energetic promoter of the new foundation, to such an extent that after Peters he deserves to be considered its chief founder.

He had to resume his work in the chancery, where his name again appears in 1403. Dietrich had begun to write a chronicle, of which only fragments are extant. His chief importance, however, lies in the part he took in the controversies arising out of the Great Schism. He accompanied Gregory XII to Lucca in May 1408. He took no part in the Council of Pisa itself, being then in Germany, but he adhered to the pope elected by the council of Pisa (Alexander V) and to his successor, Antipope Pope John XXIII resuming his place at the Curia. In view of the increasing confusion in the Church, however, he became one of the most ardent advocates of the appeal to a general council. He was present at the council of Constance as adviser to the German "nation." He died at Maastricht on 22 March 1418.

Dietrich wrote about events in which he either had an intimate personal share or of which he was in an excellent position to obtain accurate information. His most important works are the Nemus unionis and the De schismate. Of these the first, compiled at Lucca after the breach with Gregory XII, is a collection of documents which had fallen into his hands during the negotiations for union: papal pronouncements, pamphlets, letters written and received by himself, and the like.

The De schismate libri III, completed on 25 May 1410, describes the history of events since 1376 as he had seen them. It was continued in the Historia de vita Johannis XXIII. The abundance of its materials makes this work one of the most important authorities for the last stages of the schism. His judgments, however, concerning persons and facts must be taken with caution, Dietrich being strongly partisan.

Works
Other works are:
 * De bono regimine Rom. pontificis, dedicated to the new [anti-]pope (John XXIII)
 * De modis uniendiae reformandi ecclesiam and De difficultate reformationis in concilia universali, advocating the convocation of a council, to which the pope is to bow
 * Contra dampnatos Wiclivitas Pragae, against the Hussites
 * Jura ad privilegia imperil, a glorification of the empire in view of the convocation of the council of Constance
 * Avisamenta pelcherrima de unions et reformatione membrorum et capitis fienda, a programme of church reform based on his experiences of the evils of the papal system.
 * De shismate libri III, A.D. 1411 "When the existence of the Church is threatened, she is released from the commandments of morality. With unity as the end, the use of every means is sanctified, even cunning, treachery, violence, simony, prison, death. For all order is for the sake of the community, and the individual must be sacraficed to the common good."

Appearances in fiction
A passage from Dietrich of Nieheim's De schismate libri III is used as an epigraph at the beginning of the second chapter of Arthur Koestler's novel, Darkness at Noon: When the existence of the Church is threatened, she is released from the commandments of morality. With unity as the end, the use of every means is sanctified, even deceit, treachery, violence, usury, prison, and death. Because order serves the good of the community, the individual must be sacrificed for the common good.

However, this is actually a paraphrase of Dietrich's position in the treatise De modis, as expressed by the German historian Ludwig von Pastor, in his book Geschichte der Päpste seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters (History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages), vol. 1, p. 149. De modis is credited in German editions of Darkness at Noon, but von Pastor is not. The paraphrase is about how Dietrich wanted the Holy Roman Emperor to call a General Council, the Pope to bow to the will of Emperor and Council, and for Emperor and Council to do whatever they felt necessary to end the antipope schism.

Here is the actual quote from De Modis, from the section 'De modis, loco trium malorum Pontificum, unum bonum eligendi, in Universalis Concilio Constantienst':

Therefore, pay attention, o faithful. For obeying such quarrelers, and supporting those dividing the Church, we see as sinning most gravely and mortally -- dividing, I say, the Body of Christ among their wickednesses and sins. For I believe you have been freed from these tyrannical lordships already, if your obedience were not cherished.

But if these two or three [popes and antipopes] will not concede voluntarily, it remains to proceed to stronger remedies. That is, overthrowing them and segregating them from the community of the Church, and, as I said before, taking away obedience from them.

Then, if the Church will not be able to accomplish it in this way, then by way of deceit, fraud, arms, violence, power, promises, gifts and money, and finally, prison and death, it is appropriate to procure in any way whatever the most holy union and conjoining of the Church.

Close to what was said by Tullius Cicero in De Officiis [III v 23]: 'This is what the laws look for, this is what they will: [the city] to be conjoined safely. So those who break the laws are punished by death, exile, chains, and fines.'

title: Dietrich of Nieheim


text:
Talk:Wildfowl

Seems to be the result of a merge -- the intro contradicts itself: first "not for hunting", then later one type is "reared for hunting" -- Tarquin 23:32 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

Name change?
I move that we should rename this article "waterfowl." That is the North American name, and even if it is not used in Britain (I don't know, is it?), it should at least be easily understandable. To me, the name "wildfowl" suggests any kid of wild bird, whereas "waterfowl" clearly suggests only those birds that live in wetland areas. Funnyhat 20:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I am conducting that move now.PDXblazers 05:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wildfowl