text:
Wikipedia talk:Dirty laundry

Comment
I don't think we need a policy on "Dirty laundry". If it is well accepted as fact, then there is no reason to exclude it. Having a policy against dirty laundry will simply give people an excuse to delete information that they don't like about someone in order to make them look more favorable. (Another example: Shrub being arrested for DUI). --snoyes 18:16 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Every man has is Foibles. As John Adams said, "Every man is cracked". Do we want our dirty laundry aired.?

If Wagner wrote Judiasm in Music so he did put it in article. Martin Luther committed adultery. The entry should read, Martin had extra marital affiars or in proper Victorian English, "sexual pecadilloes". (I like this way the best because It doesn't hit them over the head with a baseball bat, neither does it hide it, but gives respect to the individual and acknowledgement of weaknesses.)WHEELER 16:18, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Snoyes that we should not have a policy against dirty laundry. However, it is important to keep it in balance with (possibly) more important aspects of the involved individuals. This IMHO is the only real thing a policy on this should shape. --ssd 15:54, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From Village pump (policy)
I am seeking consensus on presentation of history that is uncomplimentary to the subject. I am hoping this can be addressed in a broad guideline, whether the subject is a corporation, a person, a religion, or a nation. I would also recognize the ambiguity of "uncomplimentary." What one political party views as horrifying, the other may view as its core philosophy.

Background is that I added a series of articles regarding L'Oréal, the corporate headquarters of which were used for meetings of collaborators, who owned the company and hired many other collaborators, through the 1990s and beyond. This drew personal insults ("anti-French") and unannounced deletions of large sections of text, in part on the grounds that the material was "not related" to the topic. I responded with a similar level of hostility, probably more so than I should have. In any event, I am now seeking a guideline to follow. Is the story of a corporation's cooperation with the Nazis appropriate for the wikipedia article on the corporation, on the Nazis, both, neither? I am now (cautiously) looking to deal with the boycott of Nestlé products, and one of my former jousting partners is also looking at that article.

Part of the philosophical issue is that it is possible to view the negative information (and I would argue any information) as not being "about" the core topic of the article. In what articles would it be appropriate to post facts about the acts of some American military members in Abu Ghraib? There are so many connections - an Abu Ghraib article, a human rights article, an Iraqi War II article, maybe one on Donald Rumsfeld? Maybe on GWB? What if someone wants to compare/contrast the Monica Lewinsky scandal to the Abu Ghraib scandal?

I did review the wikipedia guidelines I could find, but I'm still feeling very much "at sea" in knowing what philosophical anchor points assist in knowing what's "related" and what's "not related." The Nestlé boycott information is "about" babies, the Nestle corp, death, health, milk, Switzerland, all kinds of things. Are there any lines drawn anywhere on this point? twestgard
 * Collaboration with the Nazis certainly deserves mention on the L'Oreal page, as well as IBM and others. Perhaps it should also be placed on a list of corporations that collaborated with the Nazis? Anyways, you should drop me a line if you need help with pov-warriors trying to censor embarassing history.--    Revolutionary Left   |  Che y Marijuana 15:40, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Is there such a list? If not, one ought to be created. It's no real secret that Kodak made gas for the KZ-camps, nor that both Ferdinand Porsche and Hugo Boss with their respective companies aided the nazis in designing and producing tanks and uniforms, respectively. Thus, such listings would only be informative, IMHO. Choosing to leave them out so as not to hurt any feelings would be A) blatantly biased towards the corporations in question, B) foolish, as it doesen't make the current companies nazis, and C) the same as not to mention Christian Terrorism or Islamist terrorism - so as not to hurt their feelings. --TVPR 18:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Based on the above, plus a lot of my own thoughts, I have created a page on how to draft Wikipedia articles that include uncomplimentary history, which I hope will be used, edited, and improved.  --Twestgard

 * Just a little note: I was involved in the l'Oréal quarrel, and I was certainly not try to censor history. However, I thought that the additions were very clumsy, initially lacked any reference (this was fixed later, kudos to Twestgard), lacked background information, and should have been centralized instead of being copied into many articles. I was also concerned that some of the sources, from some extracts that I read, were more concerned about sensationalism than about historical precision. It therefore removed some materials from some of the pages (but it was still available on other pages). Then, some tempers flew high.
 * I agree with Twestgard's proposed policy, and have added some other provisions. David.Monniaux 05:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

= From Uncomplimentary history =

Who needs an article on uncomplimentary history?
Many disputes over how best to draft Wikipedia articles arise from the inclusion of history that is uncomplimentary to the subject of the article, or is viewed by someone as being uncomplimentary, although others view it as being neutral or even good. There have been many examples of such disputes involving Nazi history and Judaism, but also involving people with an interest in (pardon my terms here, folks, all the options are all offensive to someone) mainland China and Taiwan, and also in articles discussing aspects of Israel in reference to Palestinians and other Arabs and/or Muslims. There are, and will continue to be, examples of others arising in Wikipedia on an ongoing basis.

These debates are deeply meaningful and important. They allow the opportunity for partisans to air their views, and also can improve the overall quality of the Wikipedia articles over which the debates are waged. However, because each side holds their views so close to their identity, the debates can spill over into regrettable and unproductive activities that also hurt articles and Wikipedia overall - name-calling and vandalism. Because the belief that Wikipedia can function includes the belief that people can find routes through these disagreements, it follows logically that anyone who strays from this path is not being true to the trust in Wikipedia's concept that we Wikipedians take as fundamental when choosing to participate in Wikipedia.

Thus, all of us need an article on uncomplimentary history, because all of us benefit when these debates go well, and all of us suffer when they do not.

How to diagnose uncomplimentary history
The symptoms of dealing with uncomplimentary history are (1) a feeling of anger, combined with (2) thought that the article is not NPOV. Just temporarily, step away from reacting to the debate, and hold off from making your NPOV argument, until you make sure you have all your other Wikipedia guidelines in place. This is not a retreat from your position.  Wikipedia's processes are effective in creating NPOV articles. You will promote your position in the public arena if Wikipedia includes information on your topic that is more neutrally presented than the other sources that currently exist. You can fairly use Wikipedia articles to state, factually, that your position is one of the perspectives that exist. Most debates suffer from a lack of sources that present both sides factually. Consider the following suggestions for success, then come back to the specific debate.

Maintain Wikipedia standards, no matter what the other side is doing
Two wrongs don't make a right. Many of the standard guidelines for Wikipedia are at their most useful when applied to an article which includes statements that you find objectionable. For example, avoid name-calling, no matter how attractive or well-justified the accusation may be. If you have been called names, avoid calling the name-caller a "name-caller." Skip these activities entirely - it's a distraction that won't help your cause. Also, avoid mass deletions of text you view as wrong - the outcome is just a series of "take it out" - "put it back" - "take it out again" that goes nowhere. Seek consensus for changes, both because it's the Wikipedia thing to do, and also because it's the best way to get your changes to stay in the article. If you and/or the other side have been "misbehaving," the best cure is to come back immediately to the Wikipedia way of doing things.

Maintain a Sense of Scope
Remember — if a particular issue or dispute seems crucial and important in your group, religious affiliation or country, most Wikipedia readers and editors will see it with more distance. Do not assume that some editor with a different point of view on the facts, or the importance that they should bear in the article, necessarily does so because they hold opposite ideological views, or are biased because of their country or religion. (For example: if you edit from a pro-Israel point of view, do not assume that whoever disagrees with your edits is pro-Muslim, anti-Zionist or antisemite.)

Also, remember most Wikipedia readers probably need information that is more general than the quarrels that you are part of. While some facts may seem obvious to you (because you are very familiar with the quarrel), many readers may not know about them. Try to keep your focus on writing for disinterested readers who are outside the debate.

Use NPOV arguments to raise factual verifiability
The best approach is to push facts, and verifiability. A "fact" is something that is "verifiable," that is, the accuracy of the assertion can be checked by looking at something other than Wikipedia. The greater the ability to check facts outside of Wikipedia, the better the article is. Where you see something that is "not right" in your view, try to push for an inclusion of the source. For example, suppose someone changes the Henry Ford article to include the sentence, "Henry Ford  was a Nazi." While this sentence might be true, it is not much of a fact because has a very low degree of verifiability — in particular because the meaning of this sentence is not well-defined (Does it mean Ford was a member of the NSDAP? A supporter? A sympathizer? Somebody who espoused some of their ideas?). Where do you look to prove it true or false? Someone who found that sentence to be objectionable would want to push for more verifiable assertions.

At the time this sentence is written, the Henry Ford article does not directly call him a Nazi, but does declare that his company built a factory in Germany in 1938 to assist in building munitions, and does claim that he spoke approvingly of Adolph Hitler's policies. These are more verifiable than merely applying a label of "Nazi." At some point in the future, the Henry Ford article could become even more factually verifiable, perhaps by including direct quotes from Ford himself, and/or by including references to books or newspaper articles describing Ford's life.

Generally speaking, actions are much more verifiable than motivations. While it is often possible to know what someone did or did not do, the reasons why that person did or did not do so are often a matter of speculation — and any statements about them is essentially unverifiable. We can of course draw inferences from that person's statements; but there are many reasons why one should not speak totally one's mind, and one's declarations may not reflect one's personal motivations. This often leads to speculations as to the "real intents" of some historical figure. The problem is even graver with groups — a group does not have a single mind, and thus discussions of motivations should take into account the diversity of opinions that were present.

As a consequence: Wikipedians should be careful before reporting speculations, or vague statements as to historical events. If the statement is vague, try to reformulate it in a precise manner. If the statement is speculative, question whether it should be in the article — unless the speculation is a widely held one, or originates from prominent commentators, it should probably not be mentioned.

Add context and background information
Articles sometimes suffer from what's called "the zealotry of the new convert." You see this when well-intentioned editors add information regarding a very narrow topic, in a way (or to a degree) that tends to obscure the "bigger picture", or to attribute complex historical phenomena to one factor, ignoring others.

Such problems often arise when editors deal with historical periods that they know from one single aspect, while lacking culture about the historical context. For instance, this would be the case of somebody who would edit on the labor movement around Chicago at the end of the 19th century, without knowing the political or social structures of the United States. From the perspective of a Wikipedian who has spent more time or energy in the overall field, such edits are likely to seem unbalanced, or to be obsessed with very specific points of view, or to be lacking essential information to be understandable. Remember that without some information about the context, many historical facts are distorted or even incomprehensible, or give a false picture of the motivations of the people. Some examples:
 * It is difficult to really describe the group Hamas by just focusing on its paramilitary activities, without explaining that its popularity among Palestinians is largely due to the social services that it runs.
 * The support or opposition to slavery was certainly a factor in the American Civil War. However, not all political positions or motivations of that era can be reduced strictly to the issue of slavery, while ignoring economical and political factors.

Try to improve the overall article by gathering information surrounding the topic, and including it in the article. For instance, if your article discusses a particular group or person, consider whether the article's text and the sources cited include both general background and narrow topics. Try adding information from general background sources, if the writing is too narrow, or briefly quote or paraphrase some more specific sources, if not many are present. In the above example, add links to biographies of Henry Ford, or histories of the Ford Company, since articles focusing on Ford's Nazi acquaintances are already well-represented.

Put the weight of truth on an outside source whenever possible
On hotly contested issues, put the responsibility for the truth of the assertion on an outside source. Instead of "Person X was a Nazi," substitute a sentence saying "In Book Xxxxx, Historian Xxxxx concluded that Person Xxxxxx was a Nazi." Whether a person was or was not a Nazi is not highly verifiable. Whether such an accusation exists in the book is highly verifiable, because anybody can go to the book and read it. Even for Adolph Hitler, (whose Nazi status is essentially indisputable), verifiable facts make a better article, because they go beyond mere labels to describe actions that support whatever inference the reader may make about this person. Keep in mind that it's then fair game for the other side to put in a line that says "The speeches of Analyst X came to the opposite conclusion." Ultimately, you can make the article into a starting point for the reader to independently research the topic, after being pointed at supporting material on all sides.

Remember — the goal is to prepare an encyclopedia article, not to engage in an advocacy war. One possible consequence of fights of opinions and the rule of quoting sources is that the controversy section or article gets very long, with a lot of quotes, nitpicks about very specific points; ultimately, it completely loses focus, and loses the reader as well. At one point, it makes much sense to summarize the quarrel and give the opposite points of views and who holds them.

Be prudent with outside sources
Note, however, that not all outside sources are created equal. There exist varying degrees of precision and credibility; obviously, as a general rule, the description of a historical event by a noted historian should not be put on an equal footing with a mention of that event in a press article.

Some books and articles are of an editorial nature — that is, they strive to push some point of view, without necessarily trying to give all the elements of the problem. In general, while they may be good starting points to get information about a topic, they make poor sources for facts.

Some books and articles are of a sensationalist nature — that is, they will make broad claims, pretend they were the first to unveil some particular uncomplimentary fact of the past, etc. Editors should be particularly prudent when they use such sources.

For almost any political or historical point of view, it is possible to find some group, however obscure, supporting it. Thus, the fact that you have an outside source does not imply that this source is legitimate. While, of course, we should mention minority opinions, we should certainly not give false importance to the opinion of fringe groups; nor should we ignore the expertise of reputable historians.

Isolate debates to a subheading that describes the debate
The fact that opposing views exist on a particular point is usually only a part of the article's topic, no matter how important it may be to you and your opponent(s). When possible, separate the disputed aspect into a subheading with an introductory paragraph that describes, in the most neutral possible terms, what the debate is about. Within the subheading, each perspective can have a paragraph or subsubheading that states their position. Remember, NPOV requires that even these position paragraphs be limited to verifiable statements like "The Constitution of Group X states, '(quote)'." or "The catechism of Group X describes a fundamental principle of their belief to be ..." Even in the paragraph describing a position, statements that claim "Truth" will not  inform a reader outside the debate, but will only drag you into time-wasting disputes that ultimately do not promote your position, or significantly affect the opposition.

Also consider whether a separate article would help to reduce conflict (see below).

Consider creating a new article
Some disputes can be made pointless (and thus avoided entirely) through the creation of a new article, especially when the dispute is a question of balance. While uncomplimentary history about a particular subject is part of its history and should not be Bowdlerized, including the full story may take up so much space that it unfairly overbalances the rest of the article, thereby making it non-NPOV in a fashion. For example, the Nestlé article, in all fairness, needs to include reference to the Nestlé boycott. However, there is a debate at the time of writing as to whether the boycott material may overbalance the rest of the material. One view is that creation of a separate article on the boycott eliminates the "overbalancing" perspective, as long as the article on the corporation includes a clear reference and link to the boycott article.

A new article is a good option when your topic affects many Wikipedia articles. If your topic is one story, it is undesirable that the full story, links and reference be copied in extenso in all the related articles. Instead, put a short but clear summary in the articles describing all significant parties involved and point to a central article, or section of an article, where the issue is discussed. (Additionally, this has the benefit that there is a single point to edit in case of inaccuracies in the details instead of having to fix several articles.)

There is a difference for religious leaders
Some religious leaders claim to be saints or is claimed so by his followers. This is part of their "marketing strategy". In that case the dirty laundry is very important and should be mentioned. See talk:guru. Andries 09:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't see that there is a difference for religious leaders - the point remains the same, whether the person who has dirty laundry is selling soap, salvation, or sincerity (business, religion, or politics). The descriptions of how to deal with these kinds of debates remain valid. You get two people who disagree on what NPOV is, under the circumstances, and it can devolve into stupid BS like namecalling. The point here is that it gives those two people a common reference point and techniques to take their enthusiasm and manifest it in ways that help, rather than hurt, Wikipedia. The above options describe ways that you can "mention" dirty laundry about the parenting skills of George W. Bush or the sexual habits of Bill Clinton, not to mention various religious leaders, without ending up in a deletion war. The conflict that led to the suggestions above was about Eugene Schueller, who both founded one of the world's largest and most successful companies, and also used some of his profits to help Hitler invade France. Schueller eventually died, Hitler lost of course, and you probably have some of the company's products in your house. How do you balance those aspects out? It's not a simple equation, but it is one that the above suggestions sorted out. It wouldn't really have been different if (instead of a corporation) we had been arguing about the morally-flawed founder of a religion that nevertheless has sincere adherents. 24.148.89.191 19:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * No, Andries has the right of it. Immoral behavior is more relevant to someone claiming to be a moral leader.  Corporate executives might get placed in the role of being role models, but odds are they never made the promise to anyone "I'll show you how to live a good and virtuous life."  When people's weaknesses and mistakes run exactly counter to what they are claiming to offer to the world, it become the world's business. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Isn't dirty laundry basically the very thing that most people are interested in? That and gruesome deaths under tragic circumstances. --~!Wetman

 * I think dirty laundry must be mentioned in case people claim to be saints or are seen as saints by their followers i.e. religious leaders. For those kind of people, their private lives are important for the public, in the same way that the private life of Muhammad and Jesus is interesting for the public. Andries 08:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Links
Wikipedia article on using verifiability in articles

Text moved from main project page
My POV on this: Richard Wagner held contemptible views, and appears to have been an obnoxious person. At the same time, he wrote remarkable music. We should only report facts (when there is consensus) and opinions (where there is controversy). Wagner's views are a matter of record, their obnoxiousness an almost universal opinion about those views. Similiarly with the fact of his composition of his works, and the almost universal opinion that they are great works of music. All of these are significant facts and opinions about Wagner, and thus fitting encylopedia material. Similar reasoning applies to the other cases: just report the facts and opinions.The Anome

Tell it all. Give readers the chance to realize that no one is perfect. You can't make an informed opinion when information is withheld from you. Wikipedian's NPOV will probably show the bad points in a moderate and inoffensive way. User:TomCerul

It's a matter of emphasis. We can certainly talk about the contemptible moral actions of famous people, and should not withhold such information, but this shouldn't occupy most of the article, because these are not the facts we consider most important about these people. Derrick Coetzee 17:44, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We should only include "dirty laundry" if it relates to why is this person is important. If it did not have significant impact, then it is just trivia. For example, did Wagner's views on Judaism influence his contemporaries? Did it inspire later generations? Did it affect his music? There are plenty of anti-semites who do not have Wikipedia entries. Matthew Simoneau 20:11, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

VERY IMPORTANT Don't put it in the intro! Put the dirty laundry stuff farther down in the article the less signifigant it is. If its real important, maybe in the 1st paragraph after the intro, but never in the intro! I can't stand when people do that, its completely unfair. Sam [Spade] 21:03, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We need to make sure that any "dirty laundry" is presented with proper respect to it's authoritivenes, too. There's a difference between talking about Martin Luther King Jr.'s adultery, which is documented, and most of the checkout line tabloid accusations of most celebs. That being said, I think it is important to cover all of the documented attributes of somebody, good and bad, so a certain amount of dirty laundry, treated respectfully, is a good thing. Unfortunately, such things are more value judgements than quantifiable rules, although concentrating on dirty laundry can be called a NPOV violation. --Wirehead 23:55, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Richard Wagner was a hit-and-run driver.
 * Martin Luther King, Jr. used to gas while having dinner with friends.
 * Sun Myung Moon is a terrible musician.

So what?

Do you want Richard Wagner to teach you how to drive? Do you want Martin Luther King, Jr. to teach you table manners? Do you wan Sun Myung Moon to teach you everything about classical music but you are afraid to ask?

Come on, if they were not the kind of person required by the society to do something right, the thing they had done wrong was not worthy to mention. You may argue Rev. King, a servant of God, was not supposed to fuck other people's woman. OK, possibly true. You may argue Rev. Moon, another servant of God, was not supposed to be caught by a pilice. I think you may have a point. But what about Richard Wagner? He was nothing but a musician. If you don't ask him how to run your business, if you don't ask him how to keep your country's budget under control, if you don't hire him to build a space rocket, why do you care about his racial view?

So what? He was nothing but an entertainer who died over 100 years ago.

People are nuts when they go witch hunt. -- Toytoy 14:43, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Notability and notoriety are a big thing here. Wagner's antisemitism made him a darling of the Third Reich, while King's adultery had no further consequences. One has to be careful and selective with dirty laundry. JFW | T@lk  11:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Food for thought: MLK, Jr.'s adultery might be looked at as notable because it has been exploited as such. i.e., while he was alive, King's enemies tried to smear him as a Communist and an adulterer; now the Communism charge is mostly forgotten but the adultery is still waved about. Both charges, both the one with little factual basis and the one that did have some, were used in the same way. Wouldn't that give them similar notability? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All interesting notable dirty laundry should be mentioned, but its clear that Richard Wagner anti-semitism should be promenently mentioned, as it relates to his fame, but his (hypothetical?) hit-and-run driving should not be given prominence, as it does not. Wirehead is right that one needs a basis beyond tabloids for the dirty laundry. Various early rumors about Clinton which were made up by conservatives is a similar non-tabloid example; although I doubt it currently gets much mention next to the real Lewinsky (sp?) affair. MLK's gas should definitely be include. Whats the point of an encyclopedia anyone can edit if it doesn't tell me that MLK gassed in front of guests. ;) - 134.214.102.33 14:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I don'd think someone's dirty laundry is important UNLESS it has something to do with how that person is portrayed.. with MLK the adultey IS incriminating because he manifested himself as a Christian and most of his speeches were strongly based on moral values so the fact he fucked other women demotes his words and extremely hypocritical!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.245.225.66 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Dirty laundry


text:
Reanimation (Linkin Park album)

Reanimation (typeset as [REAИIMATIOИ]) is the first remix album by American rock band Linkin Park, released on July 30, 2002, through Warner Bros. Records, as a follow-up to their 2000 debut studio album, Hybrid Theory. Recorded during the Hybrid Theory tour, it features remixes of songs from Hybrid Theory, including the album's bonus tracks. It was produced by Mike Shinoda and mixed by Mark "Spike" Stent. It is the fourth best selling remix album of all time.

Singles
"Pts.OF.Athrty", the remix of "Points of Authority" by Jay Gordon of Orgy, was released as the first and only official single from Reanimation. The single also features B-sides "H! Vltg3", the remix of "High Voltage" by Evidence and DJ Babu featuring additional vocals by Pharoahe Monch, as well as a remix of "By Myself", entitled "Buy Myself", by American musician Marilyn Manson.

"Enth E Nd", "Frgt/10", "Songs from Reanimation" and "My<Dsmbr" were released as radio promotional singles.

Music videos
The official video for "Pts.OF.Athrty" depicts an animated battle between robots, ruled by the heads of Linkin Park members, and an alien race.

MTV 2 made videos for each song of the album for its playback of the album on "MTV:Playback" which aired only a few times. These include: "Opening" (a girl going to bed), "Pts.OF.Athrty" (the US flag up to 1:05, then a motorcycle chase), "Enth E Nd" (Mike Shinoda, KutMasta Kurt and Motion Man performing their respective parts and verses in the back of a car. This was the only video to show the actual performers of the song), "[Chali]" (the girl in bed and shots of her room), "Frgt/10" (the girl from the "Opening" doing graffiti in a town while evading the police chopper), "P5hng Me A*wy" (a cannibal at work), "Plc. 4 Mie Hæd" (the girl singing to the song), "X-Ecutioner Style" (a cartoon boy walking around town, singing Chester's "Shut Up" parts), "H! Vltg3" (a night in the life of a man), "[Riff Raff]" (the girl in bed), "Wth>You" (very quick montage of Mugshots of people in sync with the song), "Ntr\Mssion" (the girl in bed), "Ppr:Kut" (shots of people's reactions to an unexpected loud noise while listening to music; Joe Hahn made a cameo appearance in this video), "Rnw@y" (a woman with a Mohawk in town, running in each chorus of the song), My<Dsmbr (a man obviously lives on the beach and does some amusements in an amusement park), "[Stef]" (the girl in bed), "By_Myslf" (a woman in a forest), "Kyur4 th Ich" (people breakdancing, Joe Hahn made another appearance as his cameo), "1Stp Klosr" (depicts a failing relationship), and "Krwlng" (animation of a white stick man).

Only the MTV 2 videos of "Frgt/10" and "Kyur4 th Ich" were officially released on the DVD-A edition of the album, along with the official "Pts.OF.Athrty" video. The videos of "Pts.OF.Athrty", "Enth E Nd", "Frgt/10", and "Kyur4 th Ich" were the only videos to be considered "official".

Editions
Reanimation 's standard edition came in a digipak case with 20 tracks. The Japanese edition included "Buy Myself" as a bonus track. The iTunes release, in addition to "Buy Myself", also included live recordings of "One Step Closer" and "My December", originally released as B-sides for "Faint" and "Somewhere I Belong" respectively.

Also released was a DVD-A version with surround sound and music videos for "Pts.Of.Athrty", "Frgt/10", and "Kyur4 Th Ich". Linkin Park Underground 1.0 members received the DVD-A edition for free as a Christmas gift.

A test release of a DualDisc version was sold in Boston and Seattle only. This edition contained the album on one side of the disc and special content on the other. It never progressed beyond the test run and thus the DualDisc edition is difficult to obtain.

The entire album was later re-released in 2020 on CD, vinyl and digital format as part of the 20th Anniversary Edition of Hybrid Theory, with "Buy Myself" also released as part of the boxset's B-Side Rarities collection.

Critical reception
Reanimation was met with mixed reviews from critics. It helped the many underground hip hop artists that it featured reach a larger audience, as well as changing the nature of the work so significantly (restructuring songs, adding or substantially changing verses, and adding several guest artists) that it could be considered an entirely new album. The album received an average score of 60 from Metacritic. Reviewer Stephen Thomas Erlewine of AllMusic considered the album "a welcome step in the right direction," and he praised Reanimation for attempting to break new ground. Will Hermes of Spin found that "ultimate, the set is a little schizo" finding it "channels enough rap-rock frisson to make it more than just a between-albums snack."

The album reached a peak position of #2 on the Billboard 200 and stayed on the list for 33 straight weeks. It sold 270,000 copies in its debut week., and nearly two million overall. It became the fourth best-selling remix album of all time.

In popular culture
At the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics, British ice dancers Sinead and John Kerr skated to "Krwlng".

In 2011, magician Dynamo walked across the Thames River. This was shown during his TV show Dynamo: Magician Impossible while the song "Krwlng" played over it.

iTunes
The videos for "Pts.OF.Athrty", "Frgt/10" and "Kyur4 Th Ich" are the only videos of Reanimation to be available for purchase on iTunes.

DVD-Audio
Contains the complete album mixed in 5.1 surround sound, along with the music videos for "Pts.OF.Athrty", "Frgt/10", and "Kyur4 th Ich", as well as the making of "Pts.OF.Athrty" feature. This is only available in a DVD-Audio format. It plays in most DVD players and DVD-A compatible DVD players. This version was originally distributed to members of the Linkin Park Underground, who signed up before November 10, 2002, for free. It was also made into a DualDisc format which contained the CD version on one side and the DVD-Audio on the other.

DualDisc version
This album was included among a group of 15 DualDisc releases that were test marketed in two cities: Boston and Seattle. The DualDisc has the standard album on one side, and the DVD-Audio track listing on the second side. The DualDisc version was not reissued after the test market run.

Outtakes
Remixes were also crafted by Tricky, Prince Paul, DJ Z-Trip,  and Team Sleep ("My December").

Tracks 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, and 16 are not on Hybrid Theory. Tracks 9 and 15 are remixes of Hybrid Theory B-sides, while the rest were created specifically for Reanimation.

Personnel

 * Linkin Park
 * Chester Bennington – vocals
 * Rob Bourdon – drums, percussion
 * Brad Delson – lead guitar
 * Phoenix – bass guitar on "By_Myslf"; violin, and cello on "Opening" and "Krwlng"
 * Chairman Hahn – turntables, samples, programming; scratching on "Frgt/10"
 * Mike Shinoda – lead and rap vocals; rhythm guitar on "P5hng Me A*wy" and "Wth>You"; keyboard, piano, samplers
 * Production
 * Don Gilmore – producer (original recordings)
 * Andy Wallace – mixing (original recordings)
 * Mike Shinoda – producer, art direction, design, art
 * Mark "Spike" Stent – mixing
 * David Treahearn – mixing assistant
 * Paul "P-Dub" Walton – ProTools engineer
 * Brian "Big Bass" Gardner – mastering, digital editing
 * Nancie Stern – sample clearance
 * Tom Whalley – A&R
 * Kevin Sakoda – A&R, marketing director
 * Jeff Blue – A&R
 * Natalie Preston – A&R coordination
 * Peter Standish – marketing director
 * Rob McDermott – worldwide representation
 * Clay Patrick McBride – photography
 * Flem – art direction, design
 * Joseph Hahn – art

 * Additional musicians and interpretations
 * Jay Gordon – interpretation on "Pts.OF.Athrty"
 * Nova – programming, interpretation on "Pts.OF.Athrty"
 * Doug Trantow – additional programming, additional producer, engineer on "Pts.OF.Athrty"
 * KutMasta Kurt – interpretation on "Enth E Nd"
 * Motion Man – vocals on "Enth E Nd"
 * The Alchemist – interpretation on "Frgt/10"
 * Chali 2na – vocals on "Frgt/10"
 * Stephen Richards – vocals on "P5hng Me A*wy"
 * AmpLive – interpretation on "Plc.4 Mie Hæd"
 * Baba Zumbi – vocals on "Plc.4 Mie Hæd"
 * Sean C – producer on "X-Ecutioner Style"
 * Roc Raida – interpretation on "X-Ecutioner Style"
 * Black Thought – vocals on "X-Ecutioner Style"
 * Jeff Chestek – engineer on "X-Ecutioner Style"
 * Ray Wilson – assistant engineer on "X-Ecutioner Style"
 * Evidence – interpretation on "H! Vltg3"
 * Pharoahe Monch – vocals on "H! Vltg3"
 * DJ Babu – cut on "H! Vltg3"
 * Porse 1 – additional production on "H! Vltg3"
 * DJ Revolution – editing on "H! Vltg3"
 * Troy Staton – mixing on "H! Vltg3"
 * Aceyalone – vocals on "Wth>You"
 * Cheapshot – interpretation on "Ppr:Kut"
 * Jubacca (Vin Skully) – interpretation on "Ppr:Kut"
 * Rasco – vocals on "Ppr:Kut"
 * Planet Asia – vocals on "Ppr:Kut"
 * Josh Kouzomis – interpretation on "Rnw@y"
 * E.Moss – interpretation on "Rnw@y"
 * Phoenix Orion – vocals on "Rnw@y"
 * Mickey Petralia – additional production on "Rnw@y"; keyboards, programming, producer, interpretation on "My<Dsmbr"
 * Michael Fitzpatrick – programming, interpretation on "My<Dsmbr"
 * Kelli Ali – vocals on "My<Dsmbr"
 * Greg Kurstin – keyboards on "My<Dsmbr"
 * Josh Abraham – interpretation on "By_Myslf"
 * Stephen Carpenter – guitar on "By_Myslf"
 * Ryan Williams – engineer on "By_Myslf"
 * Jonas G. – engineer on "By_Myslf"
 * Erik Gregory – programming on "By_Myslf"
 * The Humble Brothers – interpretation on "1stp Klosr"
 * Jonathan Davis – vocals on "1stp Klosr"
 * Aaron Lewis – vocals on "Krwlng"
 * Marilyn Manson – interpretation and keyboards on "Buy Myself"
 * John 5 – guitar on "Buy Myself"
 * Madonna Wayne Gacy – keyboards on "Buy Myself"
 * Tim Sköld – co-producer, engineer, mixing, programming on "Buy Myself"

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

title: Reanimation (Linkin Park album)


text:
Talk:Sagittarius (constellation)

Visibility
On the table in the top right it states the best time to see sagittarius in the sky. Is this time the same regardless of geography?

 * Almost. If you can see Sagittarius at all from your position on the globe, that "best time" is valid (and refers to your local time).

Sources.

 * Distances: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/Sgr.html (as on 2005-05-31)
 * HR and HD catalog numbers for Omega Sagittarii, 59, 60, 62 Sgr: http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/constellations/hr/7597.html http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/constellations/hr/7604.html http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/constellations/hr/7618.html http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/constellations/hr/7650.html (as on 2005-05-31) — Jeandré,, 2005-05-31t22:12z

Featured in fiction.
Would it be appropriate to mention here related trivia about the constellation and its stars? For instance, &alpha Sagitarii, Rukbat, is the parent star (?) of the hypothetical planetary system where Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern fantasy/sci-fi series is located.

 * We already have mythology and astrology sections, so a "Featured in fiction" section seems fine to me. — Jeandré,, 2005-05-31t22:12z

For every constellations
You should add a responding datas into the Infobox in every, 88 constellation articles, such as Number of Bayer-Flamsteed stars under the number of stars, the number of bright stars (magnitude < 3), and the number of nearby stars (distance < 100 ly). For the brightest stars in the editing page, put 'brightest' before "starname" with no space; also every others with the same thing depending what it say in the three parenthesis mode. Put the nearest stars in the constellation under "neareststarname" and "stardistance"-with a parenthesis like apparent magnitude of brightest star. You should put every distances in the blanks in the distance column in light years except for the unknown in every constellations with the table of stars even under the red icons and lots of Flamsteed and Bayer stars like apparent magnitudes. For the constellations that is already done, even though, you must change the responding datas to the absolute number under the number of nearby stars except for the unknown distance for some of the stars unless if it is right. Rarely, the nearest stars also, you could check to see if it is right, and if you want, you could check every other new datas and you could check the "number of bright stars". Cosmium 02:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

what is its problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.5.22 (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Son of Saturn
Sagittarius, according to the article, is Greek, Saturn is a Roman deity whose Greek equivalent is Cronus. Which is correct?--Jcvamp (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Crotos the Hunter
There is another (and I believe more widely-accepted) origin story: the poet Hyginus asserted that the stars are in fact Crotus the Hunter, son of Eupheme and companion to the nine Muses. After his death, the Muses asked Zeus to place him in the sky -- 141.156.188.132 (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC).

Feature found in the constellation
I've just come to this article to point out that there is a new feature found in the constellation... Somewhat creepy if you've watched this year's series of Doctor Who. They bring it up in the comments section.
 * http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/06/image-of-the-day-the-ghost-snake-of-the-milky-way.html 62.252.178.158 (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

gliese 745
I have just added a new article on the Stars of Sagittarius. the name is gliese 745. it is a binary system with two red dwarfs. please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clammybells (talk • contribs) 05:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The Wow Signal
Picked up by the "Big Ear" in 1977, the wow signal is believed to be from the Sagittarius constellation, worthy of a mention? 2.127.84.37 (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

A proper illustration
Seriously, we can't include a decent traditional illustration depicting the figure the constellation...sorry, "asterism"...is supposed to portray? I never would have learned to recognize the constellations as a child without the visual image to overlay the stars to make them make sense. Maybe some people can be shown a cluster of stars with random lines drawn between them and be able to recognize them later when looking at the sky. That's the whole point of constellations, that they are supposed to form an IMAGE. It is much easier to remember them later when you already know that this part is supposed to be his "arm", this part is supposed to be his "bow", etc. Otherwise it just looks like a bunch of stars, even with random lines drawn between them. Even I can't tell how this is supposed to be a centaur with a bow just by looking at the pictures provided, not easily, anyway (and I used to be quite familiar with it even). Sure, when someone points out a constellation, you have to use your imagination to visualize the figure, but you usually have that persons help to "see" the image, and a person shouldn't have to rely on their imagination to follow a Wikipedia article. Maybe to the sort of person who would be inclined to write an article like this, it would be embarrassing to fall back on quaint and simplistic practices such as actually viewing the "asterism" as an image, rather than a distinct star pattern, but I personally think it would be a great help to many people. And yes, I realize there IS one image on the page depicting "The Archer". However, it is very old, and basically worthless. What it really needs is to have one of these photos showing the lines drawn between the stars, with a "ghost" outline of the the image overlaid on top of it, so people can interpret it easier. Part of why this bothers me is that I glanced at a couple other pages on constellations before I came here, and they didn't appear to have any illustrations of their figure either. It's possible that they have one down in the body of the text somewhere, but personally, I think it ought to be at the very top..45Colt 18:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Sagittarius and Corona Australis, Microscopium, and Telescopium.png to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Sagittarius and Corona Australis, Microscopium, and Telescopium.png will be appearing as picture of the day on June 26, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-06-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Terebellum (astronomy) merge
This 4th magnitude asterism is not as notable and not well known as some of the more common and brighter ones (e.g. Orion's Belt and The Big Dipper in the northern skies and the Teapot in this constellation which is best visible in the southern hemisphere). The article is not as long as other asterisms in terms of page length. Iggy (Swan) 19:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently not even notable enough to be mentioned in this article, shock horror. At the very least, it probably should be.  Things are complicated by the use of the name Terebellum for the star ω Sagittarii, previously rather obscure but now formalised by the IAU.  Lithopsian (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

 * Terebellum ("The Drill"), with Vexillium ("The Banner"), was one of two new constellations introduced around 1230 by Michael Scot in his Liber introductorius and his Liber de signis et ymaginibus celi. More on Michael Scot's constellations can be found here (cf. Sequence D: Michael Scot). AstroLynx (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If the article could be expanded to discuss the obsolete constellation, there might be enough information to make it worthwhile. Would still slip very nicely into Sagittarius (constellation), though.  Lithopsian (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and implemented the merger. --Trialpears (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sagittarius (constellation)


text:
Talk:Fork (chess)

Quadruple forkchecking (sic)
Aren't there some opening traps that involve queen forks that would make a good example. ... I've had both of these happen to me: If nobody has a ready example, I'll try to dig one up... Jeff 18:24 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
 * n. Qh5+ ... n+1. Qxe5
 * m. ... Qe5+ m+1. ... QxRa1

 * There are a couple of almost unbelievable examples of this sort of thing from games at quite a high level. Combe-Hasenfuss, Folkstone Olympiad 1933 went 1. d4 c5 2. c4 cxd4  3. Nf3 e5  4. Nxe5 Qa5+  5. resigns. This is given in Mike Fox and Richard James' The Complete Chess Addict (1987) as the shortest ever loss by a master. I'll let somebody else put it in the article if they want, though—I'm not sure how to best format it. --Camembert

 * Postscript: see World records in chess for a shorter game with a similar fork. --Camembert

 * After only a few times playing over IRC, a long time ago, I once quadruple forkchecked him with my knight, checking his king (duh), queen, rook, and pawn. Is that good? :) lysdexia 03:52, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Example queen rook fork
i'm not really into chess algebra, but shouldn't it be Nd2 instead of Nd3 -- the knight is on f3, so he can't move along line 3 can't he?

Besides, it is perhaps not impossible that after a king queen fork, you don't loose your queen. This happens when moving your king opens the way for a piece that checks the other king. --Selach 23:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

 * No. First the knight moves to f2, then to d3 to fork the queen and rook.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead image
Black's pawn fork isn't mentioned in the lead image caption. Doing so would make it even longer, so perhaps those three pieces should be removed altogether? — JAO • T • C 04:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I think that caption is too long as it is. I think it would be better to shorten the caption but discuss that example more fully in the text of the article.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, that sounds like a good idea. — JAO • T • C 08:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

forked pieces must be undefended?
Not sure if "undefended" is proper chess terminology; by "piece A defends piece B", I mean that if B were taken by piece C, then A would be able to take C immediately. Is it considered a fork when one or both of the attackable pieces is being defended? Is there separate terminology for when one or both of the attackable pieces is defended? If so, the intro should mention them, because they would be closely related to forking.--Danielx (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

 * You are right - the forked piece could be defended, but more valuable than the attacking piece. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

removed material, etc
I removed most of the caption to the first diagram as discussed on the Chess project page. "(It is particularly effective to fork a king and another piece: the rules require immediate attention to a check to the king.) Black cannot choose to defend another piece, nor can he make an intermediate move (zwischenzug) to complicate the situation; the king must move, after which White can capture the rook. In return, ... . But White can escape loss of material, since after Black's king moves out of check, one of the rooks can deliver check again, allowing the other rook to escape next move, and possibly check the black king again, allowing the white knight to capture the black rook." The reason is that the caption is too long. At this point, forks should be illustrated, but the caption went too far. I think the removed material about intermediate moves, etc, should be discussed in a section in the body, but not here and not with this example.

I also removed the white king from the diagram because this is not intended to represent an actual position - just show the forks.

I also don't see the need for the second diagram (which has now been removed). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Article needs
After all of the revisions, I think the article needs two things:
 * 1) An example (with diagram) showing an escape from a fork, preferably from a master game.
 * 2) inline references.  Even though most references are going to say about the same thing about forks, a few inline references will help it get to a higher class.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Fork trick example from the opening
I think we should include a fork trick example in the opening, using the knight capture followed by pawn fork to regain the piece and eliminate a center pawn. The simplest example seems to come from the Three Knights Game: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Bc5(?) 4. Nxe5 Nxe5 5. d4. There are similar examples where Black can use the fork trick in the Vienna Game, Two Knights Defense, and Bishop's Opening, but they seem to be messier as there are a lot of alternatives to explain. I'll take a crack at this if no one else does it, although I suspect someone else here could do a better job than I can. Quale (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Another simple opening example from the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 and 5. Nxe5 does not win a pawn because of the queen fork 5...Qd4. Quale (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I think that is good. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I'd vote for Two Knights (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nxe4) over Three Knights, since the line comes up a lot in amateur play. (Whereas Three Knights, is less commonly seen.) I think the messiness in Two Knights could be sufficiently controlled. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

 * That is good because the "fork trick" is mentioned in that section. In fact, this article could have a section "The fork trick". Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Do u think desirable to have Two Knights example only, or two examples, Two Knights and Ruy Exchange? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I think one is sufficient, unless there is to be a section for "eork trick", then probably two. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Ok, it's "stable". ;) Let me know any comments. (And, add the Ruy to that section? Or?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

 * It looks good, although the reason I suggested the Three Knights example instead of this one is that there is a lot of explanation necessary—four different variations plus a footnote covering two other possibilities. For example, it might not be obvious from the footnote why Black is better after 5. Bxf7+?.  In the Three Knights example it's much more cut and dried as Black has no reasonable alternatives.  It's true that the Three Knights is quite rare, but the goal in this article is to explain the fork, not to get mired in explaining that many peripheral lines.
 * A section on the fork trick is probably a good idea, but if we wanted two examples I don't think we could use the queen fork in the Open Variation of the Ruy. I think that "fork trick" is usually reserved for a pawn fork to regain a knight used to capture a center pawn.  I think it would be great to show that forks can occur in all phases of the game by including an example of a fork in the ending.  Bubba73, do you know of any good examples? Quale (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably the only endgame example I can think of is K+Q vs. K+R, which I think is usually won by forking the rook and king. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I footnoted the 5.Bxf7+ and 5.0-0 lines to keep the fork trick clear & present, an alternative too would be to eliminate those lines and the four continuation lines, leaving just the fork. Anyway it was a good exercise, discovering some related line omissions along the way, etc. I'm going to remove the section and start over with the Vienna, to see what that brings. Another idea intro'd when developing the Two Knights section was that the section could be about forks in openings, rather than section on fork trick (pawn), so then the Ruy example would have a place. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I've looked at Three Knights, and it's clear to me, it's a mistake (tempting for me, but a mistake) to include variations here (either Two Knights or Three Knights) -- that data belongs in the respective openings articles. (For example, 5.Bxf7+ in Two Knights is a "?" move according to ECO [III] leading to −/+ advantage for Black, whereas 4...Bxf2+ in Three Knights leads to no worse off for Black than the 4...Nxe5 mainline does. So, the need to include 5.Bxf7+ line in Two Knights, would seem to be less than need to include 4...Bxf2+ line in Three Knights.) So that means there aren't any more variations to mire in, in Two Knights, than Three Knights, if the lines given here stop short of duplicating coverage in the articles proper (in fact, I discovered more lines in Three Knights, if White is to pull an advantage, than lines in Two Knights, if Black is to get equality; but all that is superflous anyway, since Three Knights article doesn't even try to approach that level of detail). And so in either case, the lines here should end with the pawn forks themselves.

 * That said, I've re-added the Two Knights example, simplified, for consideration. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Better? Worse? Okay? Not okay? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Simple combination
While we're making modest improvements in this article, I'd like to add a short section at the end showing the fork in a simple combination with another tactical device, such as a pin. I don't think any of our articles give good examples of how tactics are usually applied in practice, and this would end the article with a slightly more complicated example. Pachman provides some good examples, so I think I could borrow one from him. There are many other possible sources too. Again if someone is ambitious enough to take this one themselves, I'm lazy enough to be very happy to let you do it. Quale (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, enticement is a very common tactical device used with the fork. Frequently a fork is set up by luring a defender to a vulnerable square. The fork trick could be considered an example. Quale (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Fork in ending
I think Bubba's K+Q vs R idea is probably right/good. There already seems to be enough emphasis on forks from knights, but, I did find this do you think it has value here (this is taking right out of the source [Soltis book] w/o any substantive changes) ...

"Now, with 39.Bd4, Black still had to prove he had a win, but Alekhine makes 'another terrible move.' 39. Ba3? e5! Black polishes off the game quickly after this because of the knight forks and the activity of his K. For example, 40.fxe5 Ndxe5+ 41.Nxe5+ Nxe5+ 42.Ke4 Ke6 should be an easy win, e.g. 43.Bc5 Nb4 44.h4 Nf6+ 45.Kd4 (else 55...Kd5) Kf5 scooping up the kingside pawns. 40. Ke3 Ke6 41. Bb2 Kd5 42. Nh4 Nb6! 43. Bc1 Nc4+ 44. Kf2 Nb4! Threatening another N-fork. The key point of Black's maneuver is that 55...Na2 will grease the path of the b-pawn. White will not even get a chance to sacrifice a piece for it if the pawn gets to the sixth rank. The game proceeded 45. Ke2 Na2 46. Bd2 b4 47. fxe5 b3 48. Kd1 Nxe5! There was a last Alekhine trap in 48...b2? 49.Kc2 Nxd2 50.Kxb2 Nb4 51.Kc3 forking the pieces. But Black's move threatened ...Kd5–c4–d3 or ...Ne5–d3–f2+ followed by ...b2. Alekhine tried '''49. Ng2 Ke4 50. h4 Nd3 51.Ba5 Nb2+''' and resigned because 52.Ke2 Nc4! would either queen the pawn or win the white B."

Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Forking piece
You're right, I've often heard these described as "forking pieces". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Rattigan (talk • contribs) 12:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Other terms
Has anyone ever seen the terms absolute fork or relative fork used in real chess literature? These were added 100% in good faith, but I don't find the single source provided (https://www.chess-game-strategies.com/chess-fork.html) to be very compelling. Quale (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Graphics showing (not) "forkable" squares
Hi, I made this graphics.

It shows combinations of forkable squares. The main insights are: 1. Two enemy pieces have to be on the same color. Most will know this but it will be useful for very new players. 2. There are two cases where being the same color are insufficient for "forkability". These are marked with exclamation marks.

Feel free to incorporate this graphics. Sorry about the color scheme. I know its not the prettiest and doesnt match the standard appearance on Wiki. I made it for myself but thought I might share. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LedZepaholic (talk • contribs) 23:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fork (chess)


text:
Advertising slogan

Advertising slogans are short phrases used in advertising campaigns to generate publicity and unify a company's marketing strategy. The phrases may be used to attract attention to a distinctive product feature or reinforce a company's brand.

Etymology and nomenclature
According to the 1913 Webster's Dictionary, a slogan derives from the Scottish Gaelic "sluagh-ghairm", a battle cry. Its contemporary definition denotes a distinctive advertising motto or advertising phrase used by any entity to convey a purpose or ideal. This is also known as a catchphrase. Taglines, or tags, are American terms describing brief public communications to promote certain products and services. In the UK, they are called end lines or straplines. In Japan, advertising slogans are called catch copy (キャッチコピー) or catchphrase (キャッチフレーズ).

Format
Most corporate advertisements are short, memorable phrases, often between three and five words. Slogans adopt different tones to convey different meanings. For example, funny slogans can enliven conversation and increase memorability. Slogans often unify diverse corporate advertising pieces across different mediums. Slogans may be accompanied by logos, brand names, or musical jingles.

History

In August 1859, Thomas Beecham, founder of the British firm Beechams, created a slogan for Beecham's Pills: "Beechams Pills: Worth a guinea a box", which is considered to be the world's first advertising slogan, helping the company become a global brand. The phrase, which first appeared in a Beechams advertisement in the St Helens Intelligencer, was first said to be uttered by a satisfied lady purchaser from St Helens, Lancashire, the founder's home town.

Use
Some slogans are created for long term corporate identity processes, while others are interested in specific limited-time campaigns. However, since some ideas resonate with the public with persistence, many advertising slogans retain their influence even after general use is discontinued. If an advertising slogan enters into the public vernacular, word-of-mouth communication may increase consumer awareness of the product and extend an ad campaign's lifespan, or cause a company to adopt it for long term advertising and identity.

Slogans that associate emotional responses or evoke recollections of memories increase their likelihood of being adopted by the public and shared. Additionally, by linking a slogan to a commonplace discussion topic (e.g. stress, food, traffic), consumers will recall the slogan more often and associate the corporation with their personal experiences.

If a slogan is adopted by the public, it can have a notable influence on everyday social interaction. Slogans can serve as connection points between community members as individuals share pithy taglines in conversation. In contrast, if an individual is unaware of a popular slogan or tagline, they can be socially excluded from conversation and disengage from the discussion.

Social control
Advertising slogans as a system of social control include devices similar to watchwords, catchwords, and mottoes. The use of slogans may be examined insofar as the slogans elicit unconscious and unintentional responses.

The ongoing argument
Quantifying the effects of an effective, or ineffective, ad campaign can prove challenging to scholars. Critics argue taglines are a self-gratifying, unnecessary form of corporate branding that is neither memorable nor pithy. However, proponents argue if taglines enter everyday public discourse, the company's market influence could exponentially increase.

Functional slogans
A marketing slogan can play a part in the interplay between rival companies. A functional slogan usually:
 * states product benefits (or brand benefits) for users (or potential buyers)
 * implies a distinction between it and other firms' products —with constraints
 * makes a simple, concise, clearly defined, and appropriate statement
 * is either witty, or has a distinct "personality"
 * gives a credible impression of a brand or product
 * makes the consumer experience an emotion; or, creates a need or desire
 * is hard to forget—it adheres to one's memory

The business sloganeering process communicates the value of a product or service to customers, to sell the product or service. It is a business function for attracting customers.

External articles

 * The Advertising Slogan Hall of Fame, www.adslogans.co.uk
 * Advertising Industry Guidelines 2014
 * Advertising Slogans
 * Advertising Slogans

title: Advertising slogan


text:
Meteora (album)

Meteora is the second studio album by American rock band Linkin Park. It was released on March 25, 2003, through Warner Bros. Records, following Reanimation, a collaboration album which featured remixes of songs included on their 2000 debut studio album Hybrid Theory. The album was produced by the band alongside Don Gilmore. The title Meteora is taken from the Greek Orthodox monasteries originally bearing the name. Meteora has a similar sound to Hybrid Theory, as described by critics, and the album took almost a year to be recorded. It is the first Linkin Park studio album to feature bassist Dave "Phoenix" Farrell after he rejoined the band in 2000 following his temporary touring with other bands.

Meteora debuted at number one on the Billboard 200, selling over 810,000 copies in its first week. Linkin Park released singles from Meteora for over a year, including "Somewhere I Belong", "Faint", "Numb", "From the Inside", and "Breaking the Habit". “Lying from You” was released in March 2004 as a promotional single. Meteora received generally positive reviews, although some critics felt the album's style was too similar to its predecessor.

Meteora has sold around 16 million copies worldwide, making it the 8th best-selling album of the 21st century. It is certified 8× Platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). It was ranked number 36 on the Billboard Top 200 Albums of the 2000s. Some songs from the album were remixed with some of Jay-Z's songs for the EP Collision Course (2004). "Session" was nominated for Best Rock Instrumental Performance at the 46th Grammy Awards.

In February 2023, it was announced that the band would release a 20th anniversary edition of Meteora on April 7, 2023. They released a previously never-before-heard outtake from the album titled "Lost" as the lead single of the reissue.

Writing and recording
In 2000, Linkin Park worked with music producer Don Gilmore to record and release their debut album, Hybrid Theory. Initial writing for a second album dated back to early 2001, while still touring in support of Hybrid Theory. The band had written around eighty different demos during their Hybrid Theory World Tour and LP Underground Tour, within the span of just eight months. Rough song ideas written then would find its way to the final album; notably the intro for "Somewhere I Belong". Bennington recorded guitar notes for it, but found it too folk rock sounding. However, Shinoda and Joe Hahn reworked it, adding effects to it, and then played it backwards, molding it into something the band was happy with. As explained by Shinoda: "Since I reversed it, it was playing 4-3-2-1. The chord progression was reversed. Then I cut it into four pieces, and I played it 1-2-3-4. And that's why it has that sweeping sound."

Prior to releasing a second album, the band instead chose to release a remix album, Reanimation, in 2002, produced by band member Mike Shinoda. The experience led the band to want to co-produce their second album, while still working with Gilmore, hoping to expand on the sound of Hybrid Theory with more experimental ideas. In early 2002, after the touring, the writing continued in Mike's home studio, pre-production of the album began there. The band worked in pairs during the writing process, whereas Shinoda was always involved in all the songs. The recording of the songs mainly used Pro Tools, whereas the band used the traditional method of writing, in main studio. In June, pre-production terminated and the band headed for main production. The band finalized Don Gilmore as their producer. When Reanimation was released, the band had started to write the main content. Rob Bourdon spent eight hours a day in the studio for the recording of the album. By August, the band entered NRG Studios as Bennington also began writing songs with the band.

We knew what we wanted, and we knew how to execute to a certain degree. However, we were also just going for it. We didn’t really care about what anybody else was doing. We also didn’t care whether or not the songs fit together stylistically as a whole or a collection of songs. It was more like, "This riff is sick!" Then, we’d just scream over it, and the next song would be a mid-tempo ballad and you’d sing the way that song needed to be sang. We were testing. We were students in college. We were in the lab, and we happened to stumble across something everybody liked and it worked. I think Meteora was an extension of that. Linkin Park had finished rough versions of many songs before entering the studio to begin recording. They spent the time in the studio to create the sound for the album and write the lyrics. By October, the drum recordings were completed and guitar parts were introduced. By the middle of October, the bass parts were introduced. The scratching and sampling parts by Hahn were introduced just a month before the deadline. The song "Breaking the Habit" featured live strings arranged by David Campbell; the song had been worked on by Shinoda for five or six years. The vocal recordings began on a song after all the instruments were finished for it. The band went to New York for mixing with Andy Wallace, where the album was finished in December 2002.

Composition and themes
Lyrically, the album contains elements including depressing emotions, anger, and recovery. Explaining to MTV, Bennington said: "We don't talk about situations, we talk about the emotions behind the situations. Mike and I are two different people, so we can't sing about the same things, but we both know about frustration and anger and loneliness and love and happiness, and we can relate on that level." In the same interview, Shinoda explained it as: "What we really wanted to do was just push ourselves and push each other to really find new ways to be creative." He continued: "We wanted each sample that was in each song to be something that might perk your ear – something that you might not have ever heard before."

In a promotional interview, Rob Bourdon stated: "We wanted a group of songs that would sit well together because we wanted to make a record that you could pop into your CD player and, from beginning to end, there would never be a spot where you start daydreaming."

In titling the album, Mike said that "Meteora was a word that caught my attention because it sounded huge." Dave, Joe, and Chester elaborated that just like how Meteora, the rock formations in Greece, is very epic, dramatic, and has great energy, the band wanted the album to have that same feeling.

Genre-wise, the album is categorized as nu metal rap metal, rap rock, alternative rock and alternative metal, with elements of pop, electronica and hip-hop.

Promotion
The promotion for the album began well ahead before its release, as pictures of the band recording were distributed to the media. To support the album, there were many photo shoots of the band on October 29 at the Ambassador Hotel, where the band took a break from recording the album for two days, for designing the cover art of the album. "The Flem" and "Delta" helped the band for the art works, for the album as well as for the singles spawned by it. A TV commercial for the album was premiered on January 1, 2003.

"Somewhere I Belong" was released as the first single and premiered on US radio on February 24, 2003. Being released a month before the album release, it influenced the album sales performance worldwide. The second single off the album was "Faint", released before the band started its world tour. The third single "Numb" was released when Linkin Park performed it live in Madrid. "From the Inside" was released as the fourth single off the album before the North American leg of the world tour. "Breaking the Habit" was released while the band was in Indonesia. The album was released with various limited edition content for promotional purposes.

There is a special edition of Meteora, which includes the "Making of Meteora" DVD documentary. The special-edition package was packaged in a blue tinted case with the blue Meteora cover that can be found in some parts of Asia, United States, and more commonly in India. An alternate Indian version contains an alternate DVD and alternative cover that is packaged in a slimline case with the disc in original packaging. The "Tour Edition" of Meteora is packaged in a two disc set. The second disc, which is a Video CD, has the music videos for "Somewhere I Belong", "Faint", "Numb", and "Breaking the Habit". The tour edition is packaged in a standard Compact Disc case, rather than their trademark digipak case. The album was also released on a very limited quantity of vinyl records (spread across two LPs) under Warner Brothers. These are coveted by collectors and fetch high prices at auction. In 2014, Linkin Park released a demo version of Shinoda singing the song, on their 14th annual fan club CD, LPU XIV.

The band promoted the album with their Meteora World Tour and various other supporting tours. The world tour was supported by Hoobastank, P.O.D. and Story of the Year. The band played shows at Pellissier Building and Wiltern Theatre on the day before the album release and on the release date. The shows were called "'Meteora' Release Show". The European leg was cancelled because Chester was having severe back and abdominal pains. As a result, half of the music video of "Numb" was shot in Los Angeles and the Czech Republic. The album was also promoted by the Projekt Revolution festival. A live album was released in support of the album titled Live in Texas. Linkin Park played various special shows worldwide, including "Reading Ireland", as well as performing during the Kerrang! Awards, "Livid", "X-103's Not So Silent Night", "The End's Deck The Hall Ball" and "KROQ Almost Acoustic X-Mas", in promotion of the album.

Critical reception
Meteora received generally positive reviews, although critics noted that the album's musical style was similar to its predecessor, Hybrid Theory (2000). The overall Metacritic score is 62. E! Online rated it A, and expected it to "shoot straight for the stars". Entertainment Weekly gave the album a B+, calling it a "thunderously hooky album that seamlessly blends the group's disparate sonic elements into radio-friendly perfection." Dot Music described it as a "guaranteed source of ubiquitous radio hits". Rolling Stone said the band "squeezed the last remaining life out of this nearly extinct formula". Billboard Magazine described Meteora as "a ready-made crowdpleaser". The New Musical Express said it had "massive commercial appeal" but left the reviewer "underwhelmed".

Writing for AllMusic, Stephen Thomas Erlewine described the album as "nothing more and nothing less than a Hybrid Theory part 2.", but added that the band "has discipline and editing skills, keeping this record at a tight 36 minutes and 41 seconds, a move that makes it considerably more listenable than its peers... since they know where to focus their energy, something that many nu-metal bands simply do not." Sputnikmusic writer Damrod criticized the album as being too similar to Hybrid Theory, but praised the album's production quality and catchiness, stating "the songs just invade your brain".

Blender described it as "harder, denser, uglier", while Q described it as "less an artistic endeavor than an exercise in target marketing."

Accolades
The song "Session" was nominated for a Grammy Award for Best Rock Instrumental Performance in 2004. Single from the album "Somewhere I Belong" won Best Rock Video at the 2003 MTV Video Music Awards. At the 2004 MTV Video Music Awards, "Breaking the Habit" was nominated for Best Rock Video but won MTV Viewer's Choice.

Commercial performance
In its first week, Meteora debuted at number one on the Billboard 200. The album sold 810,400 copies in the US and 36,700 in Canada its first week of release. In its second week, it sold an additional 265,000 copies in the US and stayed at the top for another week. As of June 2014, the album has sold 6.2 million copies in the US, and around 16 million copies worldwide. The album was ranked number 36 on Billboard's Hot 200 Albums of the Decade.

As of April 2023, the album has sold 8.55 million equivalent album units and 6.49 million in pure album sales in the US.

20th anniversary edition
In January 2023, the band started teasing the 20th anniversary of Meteora by updating their website, featuring a countdown to February 1, where it was speculated that they would be announcing something related to their second album. By the time that the countdown concluded, the website was updated again in the style of an interactive game that progressed every day up until the announcement of "Lost", on February 6, to commemorate the album's 20th anniversary. The previously unreleased track was released on February 10 as the lead single alongside the official announcement of the 20th anniversary reissue. A second single, also previously unreleased, entitled "Fighting Myself" was released on March 24. The 20th anniversary reissue was released on April 7.

The 20th anniversary super deluxe edition of Meteora, promoted as Meteora20, features the original tracklist; an extended release of Live in Texas, featuring tracks previously omitted from the CD release; a previously unreleased live performance at Nottingham, England in 2003, titled Live in Nottingham 2003; previously released demos for the Linkin Park Underground fan club, titled LPU Rarities 2.0; previously released live recordings, titled Live Rarities 2003–2004; previously unreleased demos, titled Lost Demos; and three DVDs: the first disc feature the previously released The Making of Meteora and The Art of Meteora documentaries, along with a new documentary titled Work in Progress, while the second and third discs feature previously unreleased live performances from 2003 and 2004 respectively. The Deluxe CD features the original Andy Wallace mix of "Lost", called "Lost (2002 Mix)", as the 14th track of the first disc, after "Numb".

Lost Demos was later released on vinyl for Record Store Day Black Friday 2023.

Track listing
The 20th anniversary edition includes the original album (in CD, vinyl and digital) on disc one.

Meteora – Live Around the World
Meteora – Live Around the World is a live album which features live versions of seven songs from the second studio album, Meteora, similar to their prior live release, Hybrid Theory – Live Around the World. They were recorded in various cities around the world from 2007 to 2011. The album was released exclusively on iTunes.

Personnel
Linkin Park
 * Chester Bennington – lead vocals, guitar intro (3)
 * Rob Bourdon – drums, backing vocals
 * Brad Delson – lead guitar, backing vocals
 * Dave "Phoenix" Farrell – bass guitar, backing vocals
 * Joe Hahn – turntables, samples, backing vocals
 * Mike Shinoda – co-lead and rap vocals, samples, strings arrangement (7, 9), rhythm guitar (2, 3, 6, 7, 10), piano (3, 12, 13), keyboard (4, 6, 8–10, 12)

Additional musicians
 * David Campbell – strings arrangement (7, 9)
 * Joel Derouin, Charlie Bisharat, Alyssa Park, Sara Parkins, Michelle Richards, Mark Robertson – violins
 * Evan Wilson, Bob Becker – violas
 * Larry Corbett, Dan Smith – cellos
 * David Zasloff – shakuhachi flute (11)

Production
 * Produced by Don Gilmore and Linkin Park
 * Recorded by Don Gilmore
 * John Ewing, Jr. – engineer
 * Fox Phelps – assistant engineer
 * Andy Wallace – mixing at Soundtrack Studios, New York, NY
 * Steve Sisco – mixing assistance
 * Brian "Big Bass" Gardner – mastering, digital editing at Bernie Grundman Mastering

Artwork
 * Mike Shinoda & The Flem – creative direction
 * The Flem – art direction & design
 * Delta, Mike Shinoda, Joseph Hahn & The Flem – installation artists
 * James R. Minchin III – photography
 * Nick Spanos – spray paint can close-up photos

title: Meteora (album)