text:
Talk:Filename extension

Questions

 * 1) I heard that AutoDesk has recently claimed a trademark of the .dwg file extension.  Can somebody confirm this and maybe add a section to the article about trademarking file extensions?  Have there been any cases of file extension trademarks that were actually held up in court? The Donc (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

 * 1) Thankyou, Hephaestos, that most recent change (restoring the Win 3.x I deleted, but without the implication that it is an operating system) is an improvement.
 * 2) The article currently says 32-bit Windows operating systems include a patch at the interface level which simulates a limit of 256 characters; at the system level, the three-character limitation remains, albeit invisible to most users. This is certainly how VFAT and FAT32 work, but unless my memory is playing me false, NTFS uses "real" long filenames. Someone want to double check me before I make the change?

Tannin 09:22, 16 January 2003 (UTC)

The above don't look like questions; should they be in the comments section below?

Anyway, someone said On systems with interpreter directives, command name extensions have no special significance, and are by standard practice not used, since the primary method to set interpreters for scripts is to start them with an single line specifying the interpreter to use (which could be viewed as a degenerate resource fork). How is metadata in the file (on a Mac, in the file's data fork) like a degenerate resource fork? It doesn't sound any more reasonable than saying the single line is a degenerate extended attribute.

Iain Dalton (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments
Filename extentions originated with dos. Unix doesn't *know* about filenmae extentions, it just happens to accept. as a legal chracter in a filename. (and when people started using linux on x86 a lot, they took their dos habits with them) Officially, unix uses magic numbers to identify file-types.

RISC OS doesn't use filename extentions at all.

So hmm, somehow this article should point this out better I think. - Kim Bruning 10:21, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Officially. Actually not. make depends on extensions to work at all, and compiler front-ends choose the correct back-end by looking at each source file's extension (.c for C, .C for C++, .S for assembler, etc.). And the file utility is required (by the UNIX standard) to tell C source files from English text files - there's no reliable way to do this by looking at the file's contents.

 * The documentation on my system would seem to disagree with you: file uses what it calls "language tests" to determine things like whether or not a text file is C code; at no stage does it parse the filename and examine its "extension". make, on the other hand, does parse filenames, but only as a shortcut - it uses pattern matching (and it needn't just be suffix matching) to "guess" what commands need to be run. So while Kim's comment about Linux users "[bringing] their dos habits with them" is probably a bit off-base historically speaking, the fact remains that UNIX-type systems don't have a formal concept of filename extensions.

"... Once file has determined the character set used in a text-type file, it      will  attempt  to  determine in what language the file is written.  The       language tests look for particular strings (cf names.h) that can appear       anywhere  in  the first few blocks of a file.  For example, the keyword       .br indicates that the file is most likely a troff(1) input file,  just       as  the  keyword  struct  indicates  a C program.  These tests are less       reliable than the previous two groups, so they are performed last.  The       language  test  routines  also test for some miscellany (such as tar(1)       archives). ..."
 * (the "previous two groups" referred to are filesystem tests [to detect special files, symbolic links, empty files, etc] and magic number tests)

"...  "Implicit rules" tell `make' how to use customary techniques so that         you do not have to specify them in detail when you want to use them.         For example, there is an implicit rule for C compilation.  File names         determine which implicit rules are run.  For example, C compilation         typically takes a `.c' file and makes a `.o' file.  So `make' applies         the implicit rule for C compilation when it sees this combination of         file name endings. ..."

 * - IMSoP 20:04, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * File name extensions most definitely did not originate with MS-DOS. Many OSes before MS-DOS had the notion of a file name with multiple components, whether the name was stored in the file system as a string with "."s separating the components or as multiple strings for each of the components.  I think both CTSS and CMS had two-component file names with the components stored separately (and, I think, with a space separating them).  Multics stored file names as strings, and had, by convention in userland, had suffixes for file types with a "." separating the rest of the file name and the suffix.   DEC operating systems such as TOPS-10, various PDP-11 operating systems, and VMS used "." in file names to split the name into the main name and a suffix; I think at least some of them stored the file name in the file system as multiple components.

 * Unix followed in the Multics tradition, in which a file name was an arbitrary string at the file system API layer, but had conventional suffixes for many file types such as source and object files. MS-DOS probably followed CP/M. which followed in the DEC tradition. Guy Harris 00:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Tattoeko (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Please clarify: is the correct naming 'file name extension' or 'file extension'? Which spelling is the correct one: 'filename' or 'file name'? Laufantilope (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

responsibilities of email programs
from the article (emphasis mine):

It is clearly the responsibility of the e-mail program to warn the user of dangerous attachments, or to block their execution altogether, to stop at least the former kind of attack; handling the latter is entirely a matter of education and training, but its impact can be somewhat mitigated with the application of the principle of least privilege (including, but not limited to, sandboxing). Most programs already provide such protection (notably Eudora, which in the latest Windows versions even extends this functionality to the operating system by means of a shell extension).

Using "it is clearly" is usually a flag that warns that the next bit is going to be POV. So let's take a look.

Hmm, this paragraph seems to only hold true on MS windows, for *some* programs (ok, only programs with certain rather broken security features, alright, so only Outlook Express springs readily to mind). I haven't actually encountered the problem at all anywhere else. So it's not clear at all that the email program has to have any responsibility at all.

The prevalent opinion I've come into contact with is that the e-mail program should avoid taking on responsibilities it can't handle (such as determining what to do with attachments, other than saving them to the hard drive).

So perhaps that could use some NPOV-ing.

Kim Bruning 08:38, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * That paragraph may be good or bad. Regardless, I don't think it is relevant to discussion of filename extension. Windows and probably Windows alone uses a filename extension for hits of executable files. It is a problem of executing a malicious program but not of a filename extension. -- Taku 08:46, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Clean
I think the article needs to be cleaned. Especially the part where it lists the file extensions/formats.

I suggest that the list of file extensions is removed, since there is already a separate page for that.

--

Rather than a separate page, I literally came to you for 2-3 links to some of the top-line File Extension list sites. I don't know who is making the rules for what is included, but I think of HTML links as a bibliography. You are citing your sources. Just make sure your sources don't go away. But the top File Extension HTML sites have been there FOREVER!

The first paragraph is factually incorrect. I am referring to "... executables, as permissions are used to decide whether a file is executable." The "magic" isn't just a number. It consists of any unique file header information that is stored in the first part of the file. On many Linux systems those files are in the /usr/share/file folder. You can actually look at the magic and magic.mime files to get an idea. All Unix operating systems first check the magic of the file to determine if a file that is flagged as being executable is in fact really executable. By that I mean the file may be a valid binary file for some system, but not the one you are on. If that fails they look for the first string at the start of the file to determine if some scripting program can interpret the script (run it). Ergo, the end of the first paragraph should be ".. executables. Unix-like systems use a combination of file permissions where a file is flagged as executable for a user, a group, or the world in conjunction with the "magic" of the file to determine whether a program can be run." Alternatively you can chop it even farther back in the paragraph as "... where a suffix is not a separate namespace." Cut the rest. It just confuses rather than enlightens the reader. At least now you know why you are cutting it. hhhobbit 18:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

File extensions in Mac OS X
Somebody should mention that filename extensions are also used by Mac OS X to identify file types. (And Apple's in-progress move to Universal Type Identifiers, but I digress.) æle ✆ 2006-03-28t02:30z

 * That's Uniform Type Identifiers. Guy Harris 21:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the dot part of the extension?
Is the dot part of the extension or not? Softreviewer 19:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

 * "It depends." In many cases, I'd be inclined to say "no" - a table mapping file extensions to file type strings, applications to use on the file, etc. would probably have the name without the dot as the key.  There's no guarantee of that, though. Guy Harris 02:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you. Softreviewer 17:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Windows XP
Windows XP can also use file content to load program. However, I have only found MS office uses this feature. Try yourself: Create a Word Document, rename the file to an unrecognized extension, try to open it. It will still be opened by Word.

contradiction?
"Mac OS X, however, uses filename suffixes as a consequence of being derived from the Unix-like NEXTSTEP operating system, which did not have extension support in its file system."

Wouldn't the lack of support in its ancestor imply that it would NOT support them as a consequence? I'm reverting that line to an earlier version. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filename_extension&oldid=53240996 Andy Christ 18:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

 * The person who "Fixed considerable numbers of conflations of "extension" with "suffix"" "fixed" something that wasn't a conflation of extension with suffix; the version you reverted is the correct version. Guy Harris 22:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OS 9 and prior file type system
Perhaps some information (even a link) should be given about the system as seen in Mac OS 6(?), 7, 8, 9: the system of fourcc-like codes for type and creator (e.x. TEXT for text files, APPL for programs, MACS for system files, etc.). Link to articles: Type code, Creator code, OSType. I'm just not sure where put the details in the article. nneonneo 23:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Opening sentences
"A filename extension is a suffix to the name of a computer file applied to indicate the encoding convention (file format) of its contents. In some operating systems (for example Unix) it is optional, while in some others (such as Windows) it is a requirement."

Does this really apply on a modern Windows system? - Rushyo  Talk  11:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's blatantly false: it is possible to create and use a file without a filename extension in Windows. --Keith111 (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

.java and .class
(Moved from my Talk page, as I think User:Oli Filth wants to discuss the article rather than me personally) --Nigelj (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I've just noticed your edit at Filename extension. I have no reason or evidence to dispute you, but the ref you provided (as far as I can see) doesn't indicate that use of these extensions is/was mandatory, and neither does the "Common problems" page that links from it. Are you able to provide a better ref for this?

Best regards, Oli Filth(talk 19:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Oli,

I haven't worked in Java for some years, but there are several points I can make:
 * 1) It's very hard to prove a negative.
 * 2) The tutorial lists only MS Windows versions from W2K onwards (all long-filename-compatible)
 * 3) It says "Be Careful When You Type: Type all code, commands, and file names exactly as shown."
 * 4) With my current javac on this machine, if I name the file 'HelloWorldApp.jav' or 'HelloWorldApp.txt', it will not compile.
 * 5) In the list of options available for the javac program, none mentions allowing other filename extensions
 * 6) In the list of options available for the javac program, there isn't one I can see to stop the compiled file being called 'HelloWorldApp.class'
 * 7) I remember all this being true when I first started messing with javac on Win95 and Win98 machines
 * 8) In those days there was no other way to compile java code besides the Sun-supplied javac program
 * 9) If you 'have no reason or evidence to dispute you', why am I doing all the research?

A non-logged-in user (83.253.140.181) deleted this information earlier this evening, saying it "is simply not true". I didn't write it originally in this article, but I know that it simply is true. Now, the purpose of adding citations is so that any disputable facts can be verified. If you go to the Duck article and read "Duck is the common name for a number of species in the Anatidae family of birds", is it reasonable to start a discussion as to whether ducks really are birds, with no evidence at all to back up that they may not be? If people are going to delete and dispute and discuss every statement, even if they have "no reason or evidence to dispute" them, then it is going to be very hard work getting anywhere around here.

So, how about you go off and find a referenced way to get 'HelloWorldApp.jav' to compile into 'HelloWorldApp.cla', with proof that this technique would have worked circa 1995-1997, then we'll be able to say that there is something to discuss.

Thanks for your interest

--Nigelj (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I guess the issue here is that it has been contested (even if it's by an anonymous IP), and it may be interpreted as some kind of WP:OR. If it is the case (and some primitive experiments with javac on my part seem to confirm this), then it's probably in some language/tools documentation from Sun.  I'll take a look.  Oli Filth(talk 20:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Well found, Oli. is much better than the ref I provided. --Nigelj (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect meaning
Extension is specifically a special portion of file name represented as a separate field inside filesystems that support extensions (FAT, NTFS), so it is not a simple suffix within the file name. Should be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.220.149.228 (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

re:My Page
re:My Page

My Advice:Follow tips below. -Start by writing a draft -Then make a jott list -Proofread and edit -Rewrite draft for final -Reread again 74.240.61.242 (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"There have been instances of malware crafted to exploit vulnerabilities in some Windows applications which could cause a stack-based buffer overflow when opening a file with an overly long, unhandled filename extension."

Is this relevant? Any code whatsoever that's written in C is at risk of being vulnerable to remote code execution attacks. It has nothing to do with whether you're parsing a file name or an OGG container. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.181.247 (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Rimmysingh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.21.104 (talk) 09:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction
The definition in the introduction states "a suffix seperated from the filename by a dot ….", hence the dot is not considered to be part of the extension. Yet all examples include the dot in the extension. 82.75.155.228 (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Suffix, not extension!
The article mixes up the terms of "extension" and "suffix" badly. Generally, things at the end of filenames like ".tar" or ".so" are called filename suffices, which is a different thing from a filename extension. Whereas a suffix is part of the filename string stored in the underlying filesystem's metadata (inode for the most of them), an extension is a separate metadata string, i.e. extension does not consume any portion of the actual filename string and thus does not decrease the maximum filename length.

Most filesystems (e.g. UFS, VxFS, ZFS, XFS) don't have extensions, therefore the ".png" part of a filename like "picture.png" in those filesystems is not an extension and may not be called that, it's just a suffix. A few filesystems though, mostly of Microsoft/IBM/DEC origin (e.g. FAT and NTFS), do have extensions--for them a suffix is also an extension. All in all, an extension is a subset of the suffix term--a specialized (non-common) representation of a suffix hardcoded into the filesystem as a dedicated metadata field. This distinction is important, therefore I propose the article to be renamed to "Filename suffix" and a separate article "Filename extension" be created to detail those select filesystem cases where suffix is made into a separate metadata entry.

Cheers. 176.195.85.75 (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Well, this article definitely covers both cases, and for most purposes I guess the distinction is transparent, explaining why there is only one article.–Jérôme (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * NTFS doesn't have extensions, it just has a file name that's a string, although some layer of NT may prevent files with "." as the last character of the name from being created. VFAT doesn't have extensions, either, just a string, albeit one stored in a somewhat hackish fashion.
 * An "extension" is anything that's stored at the end of the file name following a ".", or along with the rest of the file name, and that is used to indicate a file type, so, for example, a file named "hello.c" with the "Hello, World!" program's C source in it has ".c" as the extension of the file name, regardless of whether it's "HELLO.C" in a non-VFAT FAT (case-insensitive and non-case-preserving) file system on DOS or Windows, or "hello.c" in a UN*X file system or a VFAT/NTFS/ReFS file system on Windows. Guy Harris (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

leadin NPOV
The leading is unnecessarily restrictive. Some systems have extensions that are not separated by space or dos but instead rely on other syntax, e.g., parentheses. I twice attempted to correct it with the text

A filename extension is an identifier specified as a suffix to the name or (separated from the base filename by, e.g., a dot, a space), that indicates, e.g, the encoding (file format), the usage, of a computer file. Examples of filename extensions are,  ,   and  ,. Note that some systems might have multiple types of extension, e.g., in CMS  has two extensions, the filetype EXEC and the filemode A1.

but User:J._M. twice reverted it. He claims that it does not make sense and that thee wa a broken link, but it says almost the same thing as the original sentence and the footnote that I added was resolved with:

== Notes ==

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

 * The primary problem with your edit is its poor quality. And, I don't mean to offend you, but looking at your comment here, I think you could seriously benefit from someone proofreading your edits. Generally, when someone repeatedly points out that your edit is broken, I recommend re-reading it first.

 * Now, for your version:

 * "an identifier specified as a suffix to the name or (separated from the base filename by, e.g., a dot, a space)"

 * Or what? A word is missing. The sentence is broken. Furthermore, the original sentence was straightforward and easy to read. This new version with its extra commas (and a redundant space before one of them) is quite convoluted, difficult to make head or tail of, without adding extra information (you say it says almost the same thing as the original one). So I can't see how this could be an improvement.

 * For the broken link, I meant CMS, which leads to a disambiguation page with 60+ items. How is the reader supposed to know which CMS it is?

 * As for the multiple types of extension, I am not against mentioning them. My concern was that "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article … Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article." I just didn't think the introduction should explain these (in my opinion) rather exotic details, they can be mentioned anywhere else in the article. I don't think the current intro implies there can be only one type of extension.—J. M. (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

 * A link to a disambiguation page is not a broken link.

 * How about:

 * A filename extension is an identifier specified as a suffix to the name by syntax, often separated from the base filename (by, e.g., a dot, a space), that indicates, e.g, the encoding (file format), the usage, of a computer file. Examples of filename extensions are ,  ,  ,  , and  . Note that some systems might have multiple types of extension, e.g., in CMS   has two extensions, the filetype EXEC and the filemode A1.

 * == Notes ==

 * Alternatively how about condensing the leadin and moving the DOS-specific text to Filename extension

 * This one is OK with me. There's still the redundant space in "(file format), the usage" and the missing dot in e.g. ("that indicates, e.g"). But I think this version is better.—J. M. (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(ALAR) text messes up formatting
After the, in , subsequent header lines are treated as subordinate to it. Is the (ALAR) material spam that can be deleted, or does the markup need to be fixed? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Probably spam. I deleted it.—J. M. (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Unix Executables
"Usage: Executable files do not have a standard extension; a magic number at the beginning of the file indicates whether it's executable"

I believe this is only partially correct and serves to confuse the matter because in practise a file is executable according to its permission while a magic number can identify a binary file as executable but it may not be executable on the current platform (i.e. it is targeted at Arm rather than Solaris, for example). Binary executables for ELF (.elf), COFF (.bin) & a.out (.out) all contain extensive header information not just a magic number  tav  12:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 * If you rewrite it, keep shell scripts in mind, which typically begin with a shebang (#!). Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 * And bear in mind that "shell scripts" really means "scripts", as that can be used by any scripting language processor that won't get confused by the first line being "#! {pathname}" (either because "#" is a comment character in the language or because it special-cases shebang lines).

 * (Also note that 1) "Arm" and "Solaris" are not alternatives - ARM and SPARC and x86 and... are alternatives, and Linux and Solaris and... are alternatives, but at least at one point in the history of OpenSolaris, there was a Solaris-on-ARM project and 2) there's also Mach-O, which also has a header with a magic number and other information.)

 * (The "Executable files do not have a standard extension" part, of course, is 100% correct.) Guy Harris (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 * As a side note, Multics is simiar to Unix in that execute permission controls whether a segment is executable, not the name. I don't recall whether Multics had a naming convention for scripts. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Use of LLQ in TSO?
Does anybody know whether IBM's use of the low level qualifier (LLQ) in TSO as a file type was inspired by Multics? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPOV The extension is not always separated by a period
The article makes the overly broad claim that the extionsion is separated by a period. In CP-67 and VM it is separated by a space. I corrected that once and user:Daniel.Cardenas removed my correction with the comment Deleted text without a citation:, but in some systems it is separated with spaces. I reverted the deletion and added a citation, and he reverted it with no explanation. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your revert cited a different reason: that is what cn is for. Which is a non excuse.  I reverted and explained that wp:cite says uncited sources can be removed at anytime.  If you don't want your edits reverted, then don't use non excuses in your update summary. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This article should be rewritten from scratch. Thie filename extension looks like a VAX/VMS feature. Its filesystem (Files-11) specifies the "file-type" attribute of up to 38 characters, although most of the default file types have only 3 characters. The file-type must be preceded by a period: node::device:[directory]filename.file-type;version. Since the days of Unix (System V and especially POSIX.1) filenames can contain any character except the directory separator and null character, and there is no explicit filetype extension attribute. --83.137.6.235 (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This article describes filename extensions on multiple operating systems. It speaks of systems where the extension is separate from the name (CTSS, CMS, various DEC operating systems including but not limited to VMS,CP/M, MS-DOS, etc.) and systems where the file name is a string in which "." isn't a special character and, by convention, file names can end with a separator such as a "." followed by an extension (Multics, Unix and Unix-like systems, OS/2 when not using the FAT file system, Windows 9x, Windows NT).  It also discusses the behavior of code above the file system, using the extension to indicate how to process the file.  So, no, it doesn't solely discuss systems where the file name is a string in which "." isn't a special character, but that's not a bug, that's a feature; it does discuss them, just as it discusses systems where the extension is separate from the name. (I.e., this is not an article about UN*X file names, it's an article about file extensions on many different operating systems.) Guy Harris (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Where did the notion of filename extensions originate?
So I came to this article looking for one particular datum, and was disappointed not to find it: What is the *origin* of filename extensions? I know I worked on old DEC operating systems (RSTS, TOPS-10) which had them, and had them baked into the filesystem. For example, the PDP-10 had a 36 bit word, and had a limited character code called 6 bit, where only upper case letters and digits and maybe a little bit more were supported, which allowed them to fit the character into 6 bits, which allowed you to pack six of them in the 36 bit word. So a filename was defined as one word (six 6 bit characters) for the filename proper, and one half-word (three 6 bit characters) for the extension (I think the other half of the word held protection flags or something). RSTS on the PDP-11 used RADIX-50 in a similar manner to get a hard-coded 6+3 filename in a limited character code.

What I *don't* know is if DEC originated this business of filename extensions or if they stole the idea from somewhere else. Perhaps IBM had it first? Perhaps IBM also had it but they too stole it from somewhere? It was obviously an extremely influential idea, given that we're still using extensions today, even when the filesystem doesn't require it; I'm curious to know where it came from.

 * Multics treated a period as just another character and adopted the convention of naming source segments with the language following the last period. Cambridge Monitor System (CMS) on Control Program-67 (CP-67) used an eight character file name and an eight character file type, separated by spaces; both came before the PDP-11. I don't guaranty that they were the first. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The PDP-11 isn't interesting in the history of file name extensions - DEC's operating systems for it probably got their notions of file name extensions from PDP-10 operating systems. And TOPS-10 version was originally the "PDP-6 Multiprogramming Monitor", which according to page 4-10 of the PDP-6 Multiprogramming System Manual, had the same 6.3 file name format.
 * The PDP-6 came out in 1964; the PDP-10 came out in 1966.
 * However, CTSS predated "TOPS-6", as well as CMS and Multics. The Programmer's Guide from 1963 says that "Each of the user's files has two names; commonly the second name is descriptive of the type of file, as "FAP," "DATA," "BSS," etc.".
 * So extensions, in that sense, date back at least to CTSS. DEC may have been the originators of the "extension is separated from the name with a period" convention, adopted by Multics, Unix, DOS, and Windows. Guy Harris (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed move to File Extension.
I would like to move this page to "file extension". The shorter title is more natural and not ambiguous. It is also the more common name used. Also, delete the redirect at file extension because it has edit history and I cannot move the page myself. HappyMouse2 (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Filename extension


text:
Capital of the Netherlands

In the Netherlands, the Constitution refers to Amsterdam as the capital city. However, since 1588, the States General and the Executive Branch, along with the Supreme Court and the Council of State, have been situated in The Hague as the seat of government. Since the 1983 revision of the Constitution of the Netherlands, Article 32 mentions that "the King shall be sworn in and inaugurated as soon as possible in the capital city, Amsterdam". It is the only reference in the document stating that Amsterdam is the capital. In contrast, The Hague is customarily called the residentie ("residence").

Only once during its history was Amsterdam both "capital" and seat of government. Between 1808 and 1810, during the Kingdom of Holland, King Louis Napoleon resided in Amsterdam and declared the city capital of his kingdom and seat of government. To accommodate the king, the grand seventeenth-century Town Hall of Amsterdam, a prime example of the republican values that were prevalent for so long in the Netherlands, was converted into a Royal Palace.

In 1810, the Netherlands was annexed by the French Empire and King Louis Napoleon was replaced by a French governor, who took up residence in the Royal Palace in Amsterdam. From 1810 to 1813, Amsterdam kept its position of capital city somewhat, as Emperor Napoleon declared the city to be the third city of the Empire (after Paris and Rome) and an imperial residence. In December 1813, after the fall of Napoleon and the accession of Prince William VI of Orange as Sovereign of the Netherlands, The Hague was restored as the seat of government.

Historical background
Although the proper legal status of Amsterdam as capital of the Netherlands is of recent date, the city has been recognized as the capital since 1814. In that year Willem Frederik, Prince of Orange and Nassau, was proclaimed Sovereign Prince of the United Netherlands and invested as such on 30 March 1814 in the Nieuwe Kerk in Amsterdam. This is partly because it is a Royal City, used not only for the inauguration of kings, but also for royal weddings (note though that royal burials take place in Delft), and also because of its dominant position in Dutch history. From the end of the 16th century, the city grew rapidly to become the largest and most powerful city in the Netherlands and the main centre of trade, commerce, finance and culture.

The origins of the split between Amsterdam as capital city and The Hague as seat of government lay in the peculiar Dutch constitutional history. From the middle-ages to the sixteenth century, The Hague had been the seat of government of the County of Holland and residence of the Counts of Holland. Amsterdam in the meantime was growing to be a more important city. After the establishment of the Republic of the United Netherlands in 1572/1581, Dordrecht briefly became the seat of government of the United Provinces, residence of the States General, the Council of State and the Prince of Orange as Prince Stadtholder. In 1588, these central governmental institutions were moved to The Hague, which, from that point onwards, kept the position of seat of government for the whole republic. Amsterdam remained loyal to the Spanish/Burgundian empire until relatively late in the Eighty Years War, which allowed the city a lot of trade opportunities, but made it unsuitable for the seat of government of the emerging 'rebel' state.

Before the institution of the Batavian Republic of 1795, the Netherlands was not a unitary state, but more of a confederation in which the independent provinces and the larger cities and towns were very much politically autonomous. During the seventeenth century, the Prince Stadtholder as official of the States of Holland clashed several times with the city government of Amsterdam about policy, up to the point that the city was beleaguered by the army. Up to 1795 there remained a strong animosity between the Orange faction and the republican faction in Dutch politics. The former supported the idea of hereditary political leadership vested in the princes of Orange as Stadtholders, and had its powerbase in The Hague and the rural areas. The latter supported civic independence and found its support mainly in the cities and towns of Holland, with Amsterdam as its progenitor and most outspoken representative.

When in 1814 the new kingdom was formed, the appointment of Amsterdam, still the most prominent city in the kingdom, as capital city was also very much a conciliatory gesture of the Orange faction towards the town, and a recognition of the strong civic and republican basis of the new kingdom.

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

title: Capital of the Netherlands


text:
Talk:Flexography

Discussion
A negative film is used n flexography, not a positive. TV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.202.48 (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like how newspapers are printed (I went on a tour of a newspaper place a few years ago); Each page is rendered onto a plastic-y negative sheet and then rolled out as described in the article. Is this the same process? If it is, it should be mentioned. The current article says it's mostly used for packaging. -- Merphant

It's known as flexo outside of North America too; at the very least, the term is used in the printing industry in the UK. And, yes, it's used for newspapers; in the UK the Daily Mail (and I believe other Associated Newspapers papers, at the very least those printed in London) is Flexo printed, at Harmsworth Quays. However, most newspapers are offset litho, not flexo.

Flexo is arguably a better technology than offset litho; it can print onto a broader range of materials, produces better colours, and wastes less ink. Its printing plates are more expensive, however.

DrPizza 01:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I once read somewhere that flexo is often used to print mass-market paperbacks. The paper is similar to newsprint, so this would make some sense, but I can't cite a reference. One advantage is that it can use water-based ink, which causes less air pollution than the solvent-based inks used for litho. Rbean 18:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Lithographic (litho) inks are most often described as oil based inks. Solvent based inks are those composed of alcohols,acetates, ketones and the like, often used for some type of flexographic and rotogravure inks. Water based inks are not necessarily less polluting than oil based inks ; in many cases they contain significant quantities of alcohol, ammonia and other volatiles compounds. Litho inks generally have very low volatility with only small quantities of low boiling point solvents (exception would be heat set litho inks). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inkman (talk • contribs) 14:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Fake history?
This Peter Balanger, "Jesus of Flexography" story about the origin of this printing system seems very weird, somehow. Is this true? Wikipedia is the only place I could find associating the history of flexography to him. There is a teacher with this name (living, currently) that teaches flexography. That Kelly Fotinos is also a teacher at Gordon Graydon Memorial Secondary School, where both of them work. Maybe this whole thing is fake? --Henrique (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That information is not currently in the article, so the problem has been fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Education section
The entire Education section should be cut. It contains no relevant information about the flexographic process, and a lot of irrelevant and gratuitous plugs for Carolina high schools and colleges. Flexographic printing is not a recondite practice requiring specialized education at a few elite schools: it is relatively straightforward, inexpensive, and in common use with small art and letterpress printers. Wabernat 04:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wabernat (talk • contribs)
 * I agree and I removed the section. Johnuniq (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the same thing as offset
This article is very vague about what the specific differences are between flexo and litho processes. They are both applied using rollers, both use etched plates, they both use fountain solution, so... looks like pretty much the same thing? DMahalko (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Flexographic and Offset (Lithographic Printing) are not the same. Lithographic (Offset) printing is based on the principle that oil and water do not mix. A lithographic plate is flat, where as a Flexo plate has a raised printing surface. A lithographic plate has non the printing area's sliliconized or "greasy" and the printing area's are electrostatic treated to attract ink. (water and oil don't mix). A flexo press with its raised plate uses a Doctor blade and Anilox Roll to meter the ink.A Lithograhic press uses a ink fountain with keys and a ductor roller to meter ink  They are totally different printing techniques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.45.141 (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flexography. 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/20100724201824/http://www.wmich.edu/pci/flexo/pp1.htm to http://www.wmich.edu/pci/flexo/pp1.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://http//glossary.ippaper.com/default.asp?req=knowledge%2Farticle%2F151

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) 08:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Flexography


text:
Solomon Airlines

Solomon Airlines is the flag carrier of Solomon Islands, based in Honiara.

History
Solomon Airlines was established in 1962 as a charter airline by Laurie Crowley. Crowley had a charter operation in Papua New Guinea with occasional charter flights to the Solomons using a single Piper Aztec. As no commercial aircraft were based in Solomon Islands, Crowley decided to start an airline and called it Megapode Airlines.

Papua New Guinea-based Macair purchased Megapode in 1968, and changed the airline's name to Solomon Islands Airways, with the acronym of SOLAIR, and changed the operation from a charter airline to a regular schedule. Under Macair, SOLAIR served the island of Bougainville, Papua New Guinea, with two De Havilland Doves and two Beechcraft Barons.

In 1975, Macair (including its SOLAIR subsidiary) were bought by Dennis Buchanan, owner of Talair in Papua New Guinea, and in 1976, the airline received two Beechcraft Queen Air 80 airplanes. At the time, the Solomon Islands Government bought 49 percent of the airline's shares and with rights to purchase the remaining 51 percent by the next five years.

For the next five years, growth was slow but steady. A brand new Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner was bought, and services were established to Vanuatu.

In 1984 the Government decided to purchase all of the airline's remaining shares, and two De Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otters and one Embraer EMB 110 Bandeirante were leased from Talair. Soon after full Government take-over, the three leased planes were returned. In 1987, the sale of the airline and its assets Pacific Car Rental (a subsidiary of Avis) and the tour company Hunts of the Pacific, were completed.

The new ownership was met with skepticism and distrust by airline workers, and many trained personnel left the company, including some on the managerial level. The government was faced with the task of rebuilding the airline, and it started doing so by investing 2 million dollars to buy two DHC-6-300 Twin Otters. Soon, a new livery was introduced, and the name was changed to "Solomon Airlines" officially.

A joint venture with Qantas followed, and then Solomon Airlines entered the jet age by leasing a Boeing 737 from Air Pacific. Solomon Airlines and Air Pacific soon also made a joint venture, but when Air Pacific announced in 1989 it was planning to substitute its Boeing 737 with a Boeing 767 to upgrade international services, Solomon Airlines was forced to lease one from another company, and so it decided on leasing a 737 owned by International Lease Finance Corporation. Since then, the airline has operated with leased 737s alongside its own turbo-props.

In 1999, after ethnic violence broke out in the Solomons, the United Nations imposed sanctions which severely damaged the airline's international operations, and at one point, the airline was forced to retain only is scheduled services to Brisbane. Since the end of the conflict, the airline has reestablished its international network.

In November 2006, Solomon Airlines obtained a Boeing B737-300 aircraft including pilots and cabin crew, leased by the Spanish AirClass Airways.

For the months of January and February 2009, Solomon Airlines leased a De Havilland Canada Dash 8 seating 40, from Vincent Aviation of Wellington, New Zealand while one of its Twin Otter aircraft was undergoing heavy maintenance at Honiara.

In August 2009, Solomon Airlines obtained an Airbus A320-200 aircraft including pilots, leased by Strategic Airlines. When the lease with Strategic Airlines expired Solomon Airlines acquired an Airbus A320-211 and obtained its own Air Operators Certificate.

On 7 June 2016 Solomon Airlines suspended all operations, including international and domestic flights and ground operations, stranding passengers at Honiara. The airline's CEO, Ron Sum Sum, said that the grounding was caused by the government's failure to pay millions of dollars in arrears. The airline resumed operations two days later.

On 12 May 2023, CEO Gus Kraus confirmed that the airline was looking to acquire a second A320-200 to expand services and cater to an expected increase in demand from the 2023 Pacific Games to be held in Honiara later in the year.

On 22 May 2024, Solomon Airlines began launching weekly direct flights between Auckland, New Zealand and Port Villa, Vanuatu to fill the gap caused by the bankruptcy of Vanuatuan national carrier, Air Vanuatu. New Zealand has several Vanuatuan RSE (Recognised Seasonal Employer) workers who were stranded because of Air Vanuatu's liquidation.

Destinations
Solomon Airlines currently operates regular return services from Honiara to Brisbane-Australia, Nadi-Fiji (own aircraft & codeshare), Port Vila, Vanuatu (own aircraft & codeshare), Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea (codeshare only), and Tarawa, Kiribati.

Solomon Airlines also operates an extensive domestic network around Solomon Islands.

Livery
The airline's original livery consisted of an overall white fuselage, with a cheatline extending up onto the vertical fin in colours mirroring those of the national flag. The vertical fin was mainly royal blue, with five white stars prominently displayed. The single word "Solomons" was carried above the window line forward, along with the national flag.

With the acquisition of the Airbus A320 in 2011 a decision was made to "refresh" the livery. The new livery consists of an all-white fuselage with the single word "Solomons" carried above the forward windows and "Spirit of Solomons" in grey below the forward window line. The tail and winglets have a stylised version of the national flag. The underside of the fuselage has a large white flysolomons.com on a blue background.

Fleet
, Solomon Airlines operates the following aircraft:

Historical fleet
In the past, Solomon Airlines operated:
 * Boeing 737-200
 * Boeing 737-300
 * Boeing 737-400
 * Embraer E170

Codeshare agreements
Solomon Airlines has codeshare agreements with the following airlines:

 * Air Kiribati
 * Air Niugini
 * Air Vanuatu
 * Fiji Airways
 * Qantas

Accidents
Solomon Airlines have lost two aircraft during their history. These were a BN-2A Islander in 1978 near Bellona Island and a DH6 Twin Otter in 1991 over Guadalcanal, resulting in 26 fatalities.

title: Solomon Airlines


text:
Wikipedia:Press releases/January 2003

"It seems surprising that it works, but it does"

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, reaches its 100,000th article
January 21, 2003 (The Internet): Wikipedia ( http://www.wikipedia.org ), a community-built multilingual encyclopedia, is announcing that the English edition of the project has reached a milestone of 100,000 articles in development. In addition, the project itself has celebrated its two-year anniversary on January 15. But not just the English version has grown impressively: More than 37,000 articles are now being worked on in the non-English editions of Wikipedia. On December 12 last year, the Wikipedia team also launched a sister project called Wiktionary ( http://www.wiktionary.org ), a free multilingual dictionary and thesaurus.

Wikipedia is a public WikiWikiWeb, a website where anyone can edit any article at any time. Users build upon each other's edits, and vandalized articles are quickly repaired by restoring an older version. In Wikipedia's second year, thousands of volunteer editors from around the world have added 80,000 entries to the English version and 33,000 more to the other language editions of Wikipedia. This surge in growth has made Wikipedia the world's largest and fastest growing open content encyclopedia and the largest WikiWikiWeb. "What got me hooked was probably the ease of joining and contributing to the project, without having to register as a user," notes Wikipedian "Mic", who joined the project in late 2002.

Wikipedia has been the subject of articles in The New York Times, The New York Times Magazine, and MIT's highly-respected Technology Review, as well as high profile technology news websites such as Slashdot and Kuro5hin. But most new authors join the project after stumbling upon an article in a search engine, and suddenly noticing that it is editable.

The project was founded by Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger. Wales' Bomis.com search engine has supplied the financial backing and other support for the project, and Sanger led the project during its first year as a full-time paid editor of Wikipedia. They both attribute Wikipedia's success to the presence of a strong core group of well-educated and articulate contributors from around the world who together maintain community standards of quality and neutrality. "Participants all keep a watchful eye over the 'Recent Changes' page," Wales said. "They edit each others' work constantly. It seems surprising that it works very well, but it does."

From the beginning, Wales and Sanger believed that it was absolutely necessary that all participants be committed to what they call "neutral point of view": rather than taking stands on issues of controversy, participants work together to prepare descriptions of the controversy that are fair to all points of view. Sanger explains: "If we were to permit Wikipedia to take controversial stands, it would be virtually impossible for people of many different viewpoints to collaborate. Because of the neutrality policy, we have partisans working together on the same articles.  It's quite remarkable."

Wikipedia content is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, which ensures that anyone may reuse the entries on the site in any way they wish, including commercially, as long as they too preserve that right in their own versions and credit Wikipedia as the source.

With edits being made 24 hours a day, seven days a week, it is impossible to predict where the project will be one year from now. Thanks to the GNU license, one thing is certain: The content will remain free.

Additional information
For questions and interviews, please contact:

Jimmy Wales Phone: (+1)-727-527-9776 Email: [mailto:jwales@bomis.com jwales@bomis.com]

For further background information, please see:

 * http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Wikipedia's article about Wikipedia
 * http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AOur_Replies_to_Our_Critics Some responses to common criticisms of the Wikipedia concept
 * http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ABrilliant_prose Selected Articles that are considered to be well written and researched

title: Wikipedia:Press releases/January 2003


text:
Wikipedia talk:Press releases/January 2003

Put in articles here

Heise (German) http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/anw-21.01.03-003/

Gnuheter (Swedish) http://www.gnuheter.com/article.php?sid=2172&mode=&order=0&thold=0

Slashdot (English) http://slashdot.org/articles/03/01/22/0258226.shtml?tid=

Wired (English) http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,57364,00.html

Is it possible to say exactly which article is the 100.000th?

I am a journalist and have a question: You need hardware and lots of traffic. Who pays for it today? When will Wikipedia reach the border?

 * The owner the server is Bomis, a small dot com company run by Jimbo Wales. The bandwidth and servers are essentially paid for through his generosity.  Jimbo has stated that, at least with current levels of usage, he is quite happy to continue funding it this way.  For the longer term, there are serious proposals for a not-for-profit foundation to be set up to help.  If you have any more questions, feel free to post them at the Village pump or the Wikipedia mailing lists. Enchanter

For starters, for some inane reason people put new text on the bottom, which is stupid because on a long talk page you have to wait for the whole document to load, but anyways. Wikipedia is run, as far as I can tell, entirely by Jimbo Wales and I have no idea what equipment or funds he has. I saw a picture of him on a boat and he hasnt been asking for donations, so I assume he is well off. Vera Cruz
 * On talk pages, it makes sense to add to the bottom because people can read through the discussion and follow it through logically. After all, on normal article pages, it's good to have a record of the various debates that have helped form how the page looks today. --Sam

We do not know if we will be able to determine which article is the 100,000th. Vera Cruz
 * I think we can; check the mailing lists, I think someone there said which it is. -- Sam

Thanks for your answers.

How can something that is GNU be used commercially? Vera Cruz

Print it out and sell it, put it on a CD and sell it etc.; the GNU FDL does not prohibit this. +Eloquence

I see, so I could walk around saying, "hey d0000dz, u wantz sum wiki mon?" and if they were dumb enough I could make some $ huh...niz Vera Cruz

 * Someone actually did something similar. There was a site that copied all the Wikipedia contents and plastered huge banners all over the place. However, the FDL license always remains the same, so no commercial user can sue you for copying Wikipedia. -Eloquence

Please add to and copyedit the text on this page so that it will be ready when the English Wikipedia reaches the 100,000 article milestone. The first paragraph is below and can be worked-on separately for submission to [http:slashdot.org Slashdot] and Kuro5hin. But since we don't have any money to properly publish this press release all references and links to the press release should point to this article.

I'll be out of town for the next several days so I will not be able to submit anything to Slashdot or Kuro5hin if we hit the 100,000 mark while I am gone. But Slashdot at least, tends to respond to several different people submitting similar stories (hint ;-) --mav 09:57 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

Suggested text to send to Slashdot and Kuro5hin (please edit this text directly):
 * With more than 135,000 articles spread across 28 languages, Wikipedia, a community-created free content encyclopedia, is celebrating its second anniversary ("Wikipedia Day," January 15) by announcing that the English edition of the project has reached its 100,000 article milestone. Wikipedia is run as a WikiWikiWeb on free software, meaning that anyone can edit any article at any time. All articles in Wikipedia are licensed under terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

Kuro5hin doesn't publish press releases, and certainly not one-paragraph-summaries, but Slashdot might take it. K5 has already discussed Wikipedia to death so I'm not sure submitting anything there is a good idea. --Eloquence 10:00 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

May be a good idea to broadcast it further. Bad? Too much PR, too much overload?---Sv

Also, when the hour of the 100,000 article arrives, could somebody replace the Wikipedia Day link on the Main Page with a link to this press release? --mav

Does it seem like the lead sentence, is a run on? It also seems to be saying two different things- 135K articles and 100k aritcles. I think the 135 should be in the follow up. Like:

 * Wikipedia, (http://www.wikipedia.org), a community-created open content encyclopedia, is celebrating its second anniversary ("Wikipedia Day," January 15) by announcing that the English edition of the project has reached its 100,000 article milestone. Wikipedia is a public WikiWikiWeb, meaning that anyone can log in and edit any article at any time.

 * With more than 135,000 articles spread across 28 languages...

--Sv

I dont care about posting to online sources, but somebody should send a copy to the New York Times and MIT since they have previously covered wikipedia. Vera Cruz

made my edits on Press Release 2003 (2), theres a smoother lead, second paragraph. the part about larrys ohio phd is removed, (seemed out of scope).

what about the relations between Wikipedia and gnupedia?

 * The impression I get from http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/ is that GNUpedia as a project was pretty much stillborn, and was deprecated in favor first of Nupedia and then of Wikipedia. --Brion 10:27 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

In addition to English, there are 28 other languages with more than 35,000 articles of their own I count 31 Wikipedias. See The provisional portal of Wikipedia at the bothem of the page. I have looked at all those Wikipedias. There are 13 Wikipedias whit some activity but I would not call them a community. (sh, ru, fi, af, ca, cs, et, eu, no, fy, zh, sh, la). There are 11 real Wikipedias, whit a community (pt, nl, eo, es, de, en, da, fr, it, pl, sv). Would it not more correct to only speak of those Wikipedias who are alive, who have a active community? giskart 13:52 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree. --mav

If this is to be a press release, doesn't it need to be public domain rather than GFDL?

 * I'm not sure why that would be useful. Anybody is free to copy the text without having to ask first and a press release is not a press release if downstream licensees change the text. --mav

Maybe this has been discussed on the mailing list already; if so, I apologize. I don't think sending out a press release is such a hot idea. It makes it sound as if we have 100,000 complete articles, which we don't. Also, over 30,000 of those articles are not much more than census data for US towns. Using the "100,000 articles" line is setting people up for disappointment, as they will be expecting 100,000 good articles. Bad press may follow. -- Stephen Gilbert 22:30 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't recall bad press from the first Press Release - and that was the whole nine yards with a full mention on Yahoo. This is mostly for Slashdot ect. --mav
 * I don't recall bad press either, but I agree with Stephen. The "article" designation is arbitrary at best: doesn't it still just check for a comma or some certain size in bytes?  At the very least maybe we could wait until we have, say, a bit over 100k articles.  Currently I think we're getting so many new contributors that community norms are going out the window.  Koyaanis Qatsi

There was not bad press the first time, but we weren't claiming to have more articles than Britannica or Encarta, either. Really, things have been going basically the same as they were last year: more material, more contributors, overall improvement. We don't have anything more to say that "Wiki encyclopedia still running, more articles in progress!" In other words, good stuff, but not newsworthy or revolutionary.

I guess I'm wondering what the purpose of this press release really is. I think people will look at it, be blown away by the claim of 100,000 articles, find that most of those articles are not so great, and write off Wikipedia as nothing but hype.

Anyway, if I can't convince you to scrap the press release idea, I do have two other requests: Could this be moved to the meta so Wikipedians from the other language projects can participate? And please, please, please don't send it to Kuro5hin. -- Stephen Gilbert 02:25 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

 * Perhaps more cautionary wording is needed then - like on the current Main Page. It is a factual statement that we are working on about 100,000 articles. The actual length and quality of our articles is about the same as any concise encyclopedia so I really don't see that point (we are also not claiming any specific numeric superiority to any other encyclopedia). I've already mentioned on the mailing list that we should have a more conservative article count by adding a 500 byte minimum to the criteria - but nothing came of that idea. That leaves us with only the current count to measure our progress - and that is the reason why the press release is important. I also see little point in moving this to meta since the whole purpose of the press release is focused on the article count on the English Wikipedia - each other language is more than welcome to prepare press releases of their own when they reach their own milestones. I also think you underestimate the average quality of our articles - we should be proud of their quality and not try to hide it for fear of bad press. --mav

I disagree with very few of your statements, and I'm not ashamed of Wikipedia's quality. I just don't think that 100,000 articles is newsworthy with general agreement that our method of counting articles is quite lacking and 30,000 of our articles being bot-imported from census data. I don't begrudge the existence of these rambot articles, but I do think that a press release proclaiming 100,000 articles is little more than advertising, and will not reflect well on the project.

As for moving it to the meta (or not): I think we need to shift away from thinking in terms of the English Wikipedia, the French Wikipedia, etc., and see them more as the same project working in different languages. However, since I'm not in favour of a press release, I won't push the "move it to meta" argument. :) -- Stephen Gilbert 21:09 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

 * Is the current version better? It now mentions "articles in development" - which is always going to be true no matter how good or complete they are. --mav

Yes, it's better. Really though, I'm not going to be satisfied until you say, "Yes Stephen, I can now see how a press release is a bad idea, and I think we should scrap the idea." :) -- Stephen Gilbert 19:41 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC) (who is now ducking out)

Removed:
 * The project has been the subject of articles in The New York Times, The New York Times Magazine, and MIT's highly-respected Technology Review, as well as technology news websites such as Slashdot and Kuro5hin.

The articles cited here are pretty old (mostly from 2001). Wikipedia has changed and grown a lot since then, so unless we can cite something more recent and relevant I think it's best to leave it out. Enchanter 20:59 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

 * Yeah - we are much better know. The above is still a factual statement and is for people who may think we have not received any noteworthy praise. I say it should go back in. --mav

 * Hearing no response, I'm putting it back in. --mav

 * I have an argument for those references being taken out: their an Appeal to authority. Your target audience may not recognize that authority (not unlikely if that audience is a competitor of the publications mentioned).

 * As for wether it is a good idea to mention the number of articles or not: I think it is. So what if a user stumbles on a page that is far from being finished? Is that Edit button so hard to reach? No article is ever finished. 2003/22/02:10 UTC branko

 * That is not an appeal to authority since we do not ascribe any value to the fact that Wikipedia was in those publications. We only reported the fact that they had articles on us - we do not say that "since the NY-Times covered us, we are a very good encyclopedia." If we did /appeal/ to the /authority/ of the NY-Times in stating that we are a good encyclopedia, then that would be an appeal to authority - but we didn't do that. --mav

 * I respectfully disagree. The fact that we put those references in means that we ascribe authority to them. I don't think those references would have been included if they had refered to the parish broad sheet or the elementary school news paper. Undoubtedly you could find numerous examples of the latter type of publication having written about Wikipedia, but we do not mention them. Why not? Because we do not grant them as much authority as we do the New York Times. The references to the articles in the NYT add no value to the press release whatsoever.

 * But perhaps I am wrong. Why are there references to news paper articles in the press release? branko

 * ? Press releases are all about media exposure - it is perfectly fine to state, within that context, previous media exposure. --dan

I think the main difference between 2001 and 2002 for the Wikipedia project is the fact that there are now other, active, real Wikipedias. Wikipedia is not anymore equal to Wikipedia EN. giskart 21:43 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

 * Then please add a sentence or tow more to reflect this. --mav

I'm a little uneasy about the opening "is celebrating its second anniversary (January 15) by announcing that the English edition of the project has reached a milestone of 100,000 articles in development" - it appears to be saying that we reached 100,000 articles by Jan 15, which we didn't. Maybe it's nothing really, but I don't think it would be good if it was perceived we were lying. There must be some way to get across the two things (two years old and 100,000 articles) without apparently tying them together in this way (I'm too tired/lazy to think of one myself, however). --Camembert

 * Well it could be read either way but I made some changes so that the text is very clear. --mav

 * Thanks mav. --Camembert

I have done some editing to make the whole thing more readable and a little more original. One thing that is still entirely missing are examples for the kind of articles we publish. We could add something from brilliant prose, or we could try to be quick and write something about the 100,000th article once it is actually written. --Eloquence 13:03 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Is this going to the BBC? I emailed the Beeb about Wikipedia in September but received no reply. Maybe because they are behind h2g2. Mintguy

 * There does not seem to be an organized effort to send it anywhere, so just e-mail it wherever you want. --Eloquence 09:38 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

 * h2g2 has several articles about Wikipedia itself. 2003/22/02:10 UTC branko
 * That's a good article they have here. Koyaanis Qatsi

- Ok mav, I take it back. :) Response on Slashdot has been mainly positive (with a lot of people claiming they've never heard of Wikipedia before), and with Wikipedians there explaining how 100,000 Wikipedia articles differ from 100,000 traditional encyclopedia articles, I can't see any fallout occuring. So, to sum up: you were right, I was wrong. -- Stephen Gilbert 15:46 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

 * Well there is a first time for everything. ;-) BTW, very nice save with Walt Whitman. --mav
 * Yes, it's been an amazingly positive reception (much better than last time), and an influx of helpful friendly people (much better than last time). And, yes, that was a good save on Whitman.  :-)  Koyaanis Qatsi

Take a look at our visitor stats -- a li'l bit of extra traffic lately. :) --Brion 04:38 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

Can we protect the article now? It makes little sense to improve a press release once it has been released. --Eloquence 09:33 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree. --mav

 * Done. --mav

- It's been a week and a half now. Should we take down the press release from the Main Page? --mav 10:00 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

nl link
Would like to add an interwiki link to the NL press release for 100,000 articles, but the article is protected. nl:Wikipedia:Persbericht 2005 - 100000ste artikel. Ellywa 23:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Eugenics Board of North Carolina

The Eugenics Board of North Carolina (EBNC) was a State Board of the U.S. state of North Carolina formed in July 1933 by the North Carolina State Legislature by the passage of House Bill 1013, entitled "An Act to Amend Chapter 34 of the Public Laws of 1929 of North Carolina Relating to the Sterilization of Persons Mentally Defective". This Bill formally repealed a 1929 law, which had been ruled as unconstitutional by the North Carolina Supreme Court earlier in the year.

Over time, the Board shifted their focus to include sterilizations. Their original purpose was to oversee the practice of sterilization as it pertained to inmates or patients of public-funded institutions that were judged to be 'mentally defective or feeble-minded' by authorities. The majority of these sterilizations were coerced. Academic sources have observed that this was not only an ableist and classist project but also a racist one, as Black people were disproportionately targeted. Of the 7,686 people who were sterilized in North Carolina after 1933, 5,000 were Black. American Civil Liberties Union attorney Brenda Feign Fasteau said of the situation, "As far as I can determine, the statistics reveal that since 1964, approximately 65 percent of the women sterilized in North Carolina were Black and approximately 35 percent were White."

In contrast to other eugenics programs across the United States, the North Carolina Board enabled county departments of public welfare to petition for the sterilization of their clients. The Board remained in operation until 1977. During its existence thousands of individuals were sterilized. In 1977 the N.C. General Assembly repealed the laws authorizing its existence, though it would not be until 2003 that the involuntary sterilization laws that underpinned the Board's operations were repealed.

Today the Board's work is repudiated by people across the political, scientific and private spectrum. In 2013, North Carolina passed legislation to compensate those sterilized under the Board's jurisdiction.

Structure
The board was made up of five members:

 * The Commissioner of Public Welfare of North Carolina.
 * The Secretary of the State Board of Health of North Carolina.
 * The Chief Medical Officer of "An institute for the feebleminded or insane" of the State of North Carolina not located in Raleigh.
 * The Chief Medical Officer of the State Hospital at Raleigh.
 * The Attorney General of the State of North Carolina.

1919
The State of North Carolina first enacted sterilization legislation in 1919. The 1919 law was the first foray for North Carolina into eugenics; this law, entitled "An Act to Benefit the Moral, Mental, or Physical Conditions of Inmates of Penal and Charitable Institutions" was quite brief, encompassing only four sections. Provision was made for creation of a Board of Consultation, made up of a member of the medical staff of any of the penal or charitable State institutions, and a representative of the State Board of Health, to oversee sterilization that was to be undertaken when "in the judgement of the board hereby created, said operation would be for the improvement of the mental, moral or physical conditions of any inmate of any of the said institutions". The Board of Consultation would have reported to both the Governor and the Secretary of the State Board of Health. No sterilizations were performed under the provisions of this law, though its structure was to guide following legislation.

1929
In 1929, two years after the landmark US Supreme Court ruling of Buck v. Bell in which sterilization was ruled permissible under the U.S. Constitution, North Carolina passed an updated law that formally laid down rules for the sterilization of citizens. This law, entitled "An Act to Provide For the Sterilization of the Mentally Defective and Feeble-Minded Inmates of Charitable and Penal Institutions of the State of North Carolina", was similar to the law which preceded it, although this new Act contained several new provisions.

In contrast to the 1919 law, which had mandated sterilization for the "improvement of the mental, moral or physical condition of any inmate", the new law added a new and far-reaching condition: "Or for the public good." This condition, expanding beyond the individual to greater considerations of society, would be built on in the ensuing years.

The 1929 law also expanded the review process to four reviewers, namely: The Commissioner of Charities and Public Welfare of North Carolina, The Secretary of the State Board of Health of North Carolina, and the Chief Medical Officers of any two institutions for the "feeble-minded or insane" for the State of North Carolina.

Lastly, the new law also explicitly stated that sterilization, where performed under the Act's guidelines, would be lawful and that any persons who requested, authorized or directed proceedings would not be held criminally or civilly liable for actions taken. Under the 1929 law, 49 recorded cases took place in which sterilization was performed.

1933–1971
In 1933, the North Carolina State Supreme Court heard Brewer v. Valk, an appeal from Forsyth County Superior Court, in which the Supreme Court upheld that the 1929 law violated both the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment and Article 1, Section 17 of the 1868 North Carolina State Constitution. The Supreme Court noted that property rights required due process, specifically a mechanism by which notice of action could be given, and hearing rights established so that somebody subject to the sterilization law had the opportunity to appeal their case. Under both the U.S. Constitution and the N.C. State Constitution in place at the time, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1929 law was unconstitutional as no such provisions existed in the law as written.

The North Carolina General Assembly went on in the wake of Brewer v. Valk to enact House Bill 1013, removing the constitutional objections to the law, thereby forming the Eugenics Board and creating the framework which would remain in force for over thirty years. The Board was granted authority over all sterilization proceedings undertaken in the State, which had previously been devolved to various governing bodies or heads of penal and charitable institutions supported in whole or in part by the State.

A study from Gregory N. Price, William Darity Jr., and Rhonda V. Sharpe argues that from 1958 to 1968, sterilization in North Carolina was specifically targeted towards Black Americans, with the intended effect of racial eugenics. Sharpe, of the Women's Institute for Science, Equity, and Race, argues that this is an example of the need to disaggregate data that might otherwise overlook the experiences of Black women.

1971–1977
In the 1970s the Eugenics Board was moved around from department to department, as sterilization operations declined in the state. In 1971, an act of the legislature transferred the EBNC to the then newly created Department of Human Resources (DHR), and the secretary of that department was given managerial and executive authority over the board.

Under a 1973 law, the Eugenics Board was transformed into the Eugenics Commission. Members of the commission were appointed by the governor, and included the director of the Division of Social and Rehabilitative Services of the DHR, the director of Health Services, the chief medical officer of a state institution for the feeble-minded or insane, the chief medical officer of the DHR in the area of mental health services, and the state attorney general.

In 1974 the legislature transferred to the judicial system the responsibility for any proceedings.

1976 brought a new challenge to the law with the case of In re Sterilization of Joseph Lee Moore in which an appeal was heard by the North Carolina Supreme Court. The petitioner's case was that the court had not appointed counsel at State expense to advise him of his rights prior to sterilization being performed. While the court noted that there was discretion within the law to approve a fee for the service of an expert, it was not constitutionally required. The court went on to declare that the involuntary sterilization of citizens for the public good was a legitimate use of the police power of the state, further noting that "The people of North Carolina have a right to prevent the procreation of children who will become a burden on the state." The ruling upholding the constitutionality was notable in both its relatively late date (many other States had ceased performing sterilization operations shortly after WWII) and its language justifying state intervention on the grounds of children being a potential burden to the public.

The Eugenics Commission was formally abolished by the legislature in 1977.

2000-present
In 2003, the N.C. General Assembly formally repealed the last involuntary sterilization law, replacing it with one that authorizes sterilization of individuals unable to give informed consent only in the case of medical necessity. The law explicitly ruled out sterilizations "solely for the purpose of sterilization or for hygiene or convenience."

Legal

At the time of the Board's formation there was a body of thought that viewed the practice of eugenics as both necessary for the public good and for the private citizen. Following Buck v. Bell, the Supreme Court was often cited both domestically and internationally as a foundation for eugenics policies.

In Buck v. Bell Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, in support of eugenics policy, that

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes."

Despite the Supreme Court rulings in support of eugenics as constitutionally permitted, even as late as 1950 some physicians in North Carolina were still concerned about the legality of sterilization. Efforts were made to reassure the medical community that the laws were both constitutionally sound and specifically exempting physicians from liability.

Public good
Framing eugenics as supporting the public good was fundamental to how the law was written. It was argued that both for the benefit of the private citizen, and for the costs to society of future possible childbirths, eugenics were a sound and moral way to proceed. This was stated in the Board's manual of policies and procedures, in which the practice was justified:
 * Sterilization has one effect only—it prevents parenthood.
 * It is not a punishment; it is a protection; and therefore carries no stigma or humiliation.
 * It in no way unsexes the party sterilized.
 * Sterilization is approved by the families and friends of the sterilized.
 * It is approved by medical staffs, probation officers, and social workers generally wherever they have come in contact with patients who have been sterilized.
 * It permits patients, who would otherwise be confined to institutions during the fertile period of life, to return to their homes and friends.
 * The records show that many moron girls paroled from institutions after sterilization have married and are happy and succeeding fairly well. They could never have managed and cared for children, to say nothing of the possible inheritance and fate of such children.
 * Homes are kept together by sterilization of husband or wife in many mild cases of mental disease, thus removing the dread by the normal spouse of the procreation of a defective child and permitting normal marital companionship.
 * There is no discovery Vitally affecting the life, happiness and well-being of the human race in the last quarter of a century about which intelligent people know less than they know about modern sterilization. The operation is simple; it removes no organ or tissue of the body. It has no effect on the patient except to prevent parenthood. Under conservative laws, sanely and equitably administered, these discoveries developed by the medical profession now offer to the mentally ill, feeble-minded, and epileptic the protection of sterilization.

In the press, opinion articles were published arguing for a greater use of eugenics, in which many of the reasons above were cited as justification. Even the Winston-Salem Journal, which would be a significant force in illuminating North Carolina's past eugenics abuses in the modern era, was not immune. In 1948 the newspaper published an editorial entitled "The Case for Sterilization - Quantity vs. Quality" that went into great detail extolling the virtues of 'breeding' for the general public good.

Proponents of eugenics did not restrict its use to the 'feeble-minded'. In many cases, more ardent authors included the blind, deaf-mutes, and people with diseases like heart disease or cancer in the general category of those who should be sterilized. The argument was twofold; that parents likely to give birth to 'defective' children should not allow it, and that healthy children borne to 'defective' parents would be doomed to an 'undesirable environment'.

Wallace Kuralt, Mecklenburg County's welfare director from 1945 to 1972, was a leader in transitioning the work of state eugenics from looking only at medical conditions to considering poverty as a justification for state sterilization. Under Kuralt's tenure, Mecklenburg county became far and away the largest source of sterilizations in the state. He supported this throughout his life in his writings and interviews, where he made plain his conviction that sterilization was a force for good in fighting poverty. In a 1964 interview with the Charlotte Observer, Kuralt said:

"When we stop to reflect upon the thousands of physical, mental and social misfits in our midst, the thousands of families which are too large for the family to support, the one-tenth of our children born to an unmarried mother, the hoard of children rejected by parents, is there any doubt that health, welfare and education agencies need to redouble their efforts to prevent these conditions which are so costly to society?"

Among public and private groups that published articles advocating for eugenics, the Human Betterment League was a significant advocate for the procedure within North Carolina. This organization, founded by Procter & Gamble heir Clarence Gamble, provided experts, written material and monetary support to the eugenics movement. Many pamphlets and publications were created by the league advocating the group's position which were then distributed throughout the state. One pamphlet entitled "You Wouldn't Expect ..." laid out a series of rhetorical questions to argue the point that those considered 'defective' were unable to be good parents.

Number of operations

While it is not known exactly how many people were sterilized during the lifetime of the law, the Task Force established by Governor Beverly Perdue estimated the total at around 7,500. They provided a summary of the estimated number of operations broken down by time period. This does not include sterilizations that may have occurred at a local level by doctors and hospitals.

The report went on to provide a breakdown by county. There were no counties in North Carolina that performed no operations, though the spread was marked, going from as few as 4 in Tyrrell county, to 485 in Mecklenburg county.

Some research into the historical data in North Carolina has drawn links between race and sterilization rates. One study performed in 2010 by Gregory Price and William Darity Jr described the practice as "racially biased and genocidal". In the study, the researchers showed that as the black population of a county increased, the number of sterilizations increased disproportionately; that black citizens were more likely, all things being equal, to being recommended for sterilization than whites.

Poverty and sterilization were also closely bound. Since social workers concerned themselves with those accepting welfare and other public assistance, there was a strong impetus to recommending sterilization to families as a means of controlling their economic situation. This was sometimes done under duress, when benefits were threatened as a condition of undergoing the surgery.

What made the picture more complicated was the fact that in some cases, individuals sought out sterilization. Since those in poverty had fewer choices for birth control, having a state-funded procedure to guarantee no further children was attractive to some mothers. Given the structure of the process however, women found themselves needing to be described as unfit mothers or welfare burdens in order to qualify for the program, rather than simply asserting reproductive control.

Personal stories
Many stories from those directly affected by the Board's work have come to light over the past several years. During the hearings from the NC Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation many family members and individuals personally testified to the impact that the procedures had had on them.

Elaine Riddick Jessie
Elaine Riddick was born in Perquimans County, North Carolina. Born into a poor family, one of seven children, the family was split up by the County Welfare department after her parents were deemed to be unfit. Elaine and one sister were sent to live with her grandmother, while the remaining five were sent to an orphanage. It was shortly after this family upheaval, when Elaine was 13, that she was raped by a 20-year-old man with a history of assault and incarceration. Elaine subsequently became pregnant.

When the social worker, Marion Payne, assigned to the Riddick family found out that Elaine was pregnant, she pressured Elaine's grandmother into signing a consent form for sterilization (Riddick's grandmother, being illiterate, signed the form with a simple 'X' symbol). On March 5, 1968, when Elaine was 14 years old, she was sterilized by Dr. William Wylie Bindeman Jr, under the authority of the board. The procedure took place hours after Elaine had given birth to a son. Riddick learned only years later the extent of the procedure, testifying to its effect over her life in a lawsuit brought against the state of North Carolina with the assistance of the ACLU in 1974. She cited failed relationships, physical pain and suffering, and psychological trauma. Riddick's lawsuit did not end in success; a jury found against her, and the United States Supreme Court refused to hear her case. It would not be until the hearings of the NC Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation that her story was to be widely heard once more.

Junius Wilson
Junius Wilson was born in 1908 in North Carolina and grew up near Wilmington. In 1916 he was sent to the North Carolina School for the Colored Deaf and the Blind, a segregated state school in Raleigh that was the first southern school for black deaf children. Since this was a segregated school, students there were not given the resources of other schools. They were not taught American Sign Language and developed their own system of communication. This worked within the institution, but because it was their own, it did not travel, and so students and deaf from other schools were unable to understand them.

Wilson stayed there for six years, learning rudimentary sign language, until a minor infraction lead to his expulsion. While at home in Castle Hayne, Wilson came to the attention of the legal system when he was accused of the attempted rape of a relative. It is unclear whether the charge had merit—biographers speculated that his misunderstood behavior stemming from communication difficulties may have led to the situation—but what is not in doubt is that in 1925 Wilson was declared legally insane by a court and committed to the state Hospital for the Colored Insane in Goldsboro, North Carolina, which became Cherry Hospital in 1959. In 1932 he was surgically castrated under the provisions of the eugenics laws in place.

Wilson would remain committed to the state facility for decades. In 1990, he was given a new social worker, John Wasson. Wasson came to find out that not only was Wilson not mentally disabled, but that the hospital staff had known for years that he was not. To compound the situation, the legal charges against Wilson dating back to 1925 had been dismissed in 1970; for twenty years he had been committed to the hospital without legal justification. In interviews with hospital staff, Wasson found that it had been considered the most 'benevolent' course of action, since Wilson was thoroughly institutionalized at that point, with many of the same difficulties in learning and communication that had been his burden since birth.

Wasson instigated the legal challenge to Wilson's incarceration. In 1992 Wilson was formally declared a free man. Since he had no close relatives or family members able to care for him in his advanced age, a cottage was found for him on the grounds of Cherry Hospital. Wilson would live there until his death in 2001.

Mary English
Not all who testified before the committee were sterilized by the Eugenics Board directly. In many cases people who were sterilized were operated on by local clinics and doctors. It was argued that in many of these cases patients were not fully educated as to the nature of the procedure and were urged into it by doctors or social workers who were making judgements based upon their patients' economic situation. Young women of limited means who had multiple children were specifically targeted for sterilization by many case workers.

Mary English was one such case. In her personal testimony she explained that in 1972, she had been newly divorced with three children. She went to see a doctor at a Fayetteville OB/GYN clinic for some medical complaints. The doctor offered her entry into a program that would negate any need for future birth control. English signed the required paperwork, and was sterilized after the birth of her third child. It was years later, when she went back to the doctor to have the procedure reversed, that she found out it was permanent.

English went on to detail her struggles with depression and retold experiences of friends and neighbors who had gone through similar situations at the hands of their own doctors. As for the clinic at which English was sterilized, she claimed that it was still operating, though declined to name it, or the doctor responsible for her sterilization.

Restitution
The Winston-Salem Journal 's "Against Their Will" documentary, released in 2002, based in part on Joanna Schoen's research of the North Carolina Eugenics program, is credited with spurring public interest and demands for action to repeal laws and explore the possibility of compensation for affected people. This five-part series gave extensive background to the work of the Eugenics Board, with detailed statistics, victim's stories, and historical information on the broader Eugenics movement in the United States in the Post-WWII era.

Then-Governor Mike Easley offered an apology to victims of the policy in 2002. At the time, North Carolina was the third State in the nation to officially apologize for eugenics practices, following behind Virginia and Oregon though North Carolina was the first State to go beyond a formal apology to actively considering compensation in some form. Easley set up a committee to study the history of the Eugenics Board with instructions to provide recommendations on how to handle what it termed 'program survivors'. The committee recommended five specific steps:

 * Establishment of a Nonprofit foundation to help find and support survivors
 * Institute an outreach program from state Department of Health and Human Services to assist in encouraging
 * Create a panel to adjudicate any claims to ensure that applicants were indeed affected by the program
 * Create a fund to provide healthcare for certified survivors
 * Provide educational benefits through the North Carolina University and Community College system to survivors and survivors' caretakers

The recommendations lay dormant in the North Carolina Legislature until 2008, when a study committee was appointed. The House Committee gave its own recommendations which in large part mirrored Easley's committee's findings though it went further, in establishing a suggested dollar figure of $20,000 compensation per surviving victim. The House committee also recommended training, the creation of memorials, and documenting survivor experiences, and the creation of a database to store sterilization records for future research. While the House committee recommended setting funds aside for these purposes, the Legislature did not grant funding in 2008. The house committee was co-chaired by State Representative Larry Womble, who has been a public advocate in the state house for victim's compensation. Womble announced he would be stepping down and not seek re-election after a serious car crash in late 2011.

In 2008, Beverley Perdue was elected Governor of North Carolina. As part of her platform she pledged to take up the sterilization situation. In 2010 Perdue issued an executive order that formed the North Carolina Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation (NCJSVF).

The Task Force was made up of the following:
 * Dr. Laura Gerald MD MPH (Chair)
 * Fetzer 'Frank' Mills JD, retired Superior Court judge
 * Phoebe Zerwick MS, lecturer at Wake Forest University
 * Lenwood G. Davis PHD, Professor of History at Winston-Salem State University
 * Demetrius Worley Berry JD, Attorney, Brotherton Ford Yeoman Berry & Weaver, PLLC

The Foundation recommended that compensation be raised to $50,000 per victim, in a 3–2 vote. They also voted for funds for mental health services and historical displays and exhibits documenting the history of sterilization in the state. It is not yet clear how many victims will be satisfied by the amount; many have granted detailed interviews that documented their severe emotional trauma in the wake of the procedures, and have been outspoken in demanding higher sums.

On April 25, 2012, North Carolina's Gov. Perdue announced that she will put $10.3 million in her budget proposal to allocate towards issues surrounding eugenics. The funds are intended to aid with $50,000 payments to verified North Carolina eugenics victims. The remainder of the monies will be used to support the continued efforts of the NC Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation as they provide outreach and clearinghouse services to help Eugenics victims. Governor Perdue stated,

"We cannot change the terrible things that happened to so many of our most vulnerable citizens, but we can take responsibility for our state's mistakes and show that we do not tolerate violations of basic human rights. We must provide meaningful assistance to victims, so I am including this funding in my budget."

Perdue's budget proposal is in accordance with the recommendations of the January 2012 final report issued from the Eugenics Compensation Task Force. The board suggested that living victims and those who were not deceased when verified by the foundation receive a tax-free, lump sum payment of $50,000. The N.C. Justice for Sterilization Victims Foundation reports that there is still an increase in the number of confirmed/verified eugenics victims. , 132 people in 51 counties had been matched to the North Carolina's Eugenics program records.

In 2013, the General Assembly of North Carolina passed an appropriations bill to give compensation, up to $50,000 per person, to individuals sterilized under the authority of the Eugenics Board of North Carolina.

title: Eugenics Board of North Carolina