text:
Fannie Mae

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), commonly known as Fannie Mae, is a United States government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) and, since 1968, a publicly traded company. Founded in 1938 during the Great Depression as part of the New Deal, the corporation's purpose is to expand the secondary mortgage market by securitizing mortgage loans in the form of mortgage-backed securities (MBS), allowing lenders to reinvest their assets into more lending and in effect increasing the number of lenders in the mortgage market by reducing the reliance on locally based savings and loan associations (or "thrifts"). Its brother organization is the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), better known as Freddie Mac.

In 2023, with over $4.3 trillion in assets, Fannie Mae is the largest company in the United States and the fourth largest company in the world, by assets. Fannie Mae was ranked number 28 on the Fortune 500 rankings of the largest United States corporations by total revenue and was ranked number 75 on the Fortune Global 500 rankings of the largest global corporations by total revenue.

Background and early decades
Historically, most housing loans in the early 1900s in the United States were short term mortgage loans with balloon payments. The Great Depression weakened the U.S. housing market, as people lost their jobs and were unable to make payments. By 1933, an estimated 20 to 25% of the nation's outstanding mortgage debt was in default. This resulted in foreclosures in which nearly 25% of America's homeowners lost their homes to banks. To address this, Fannie Mae was established by the U.S. Congress in 1938 by amendments to the National Housing Act as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. Originally chartered as the National Mortgage Association of Washington, the organization's explicit purpose was to provide local banks with federal money to finance home loans in an attempt to raise levels of home ownership and the availability of affordable housing. Fannie Mae created a liquid secondary mortgage market and thereby made it possible for banks and other loan originators to issue more housing loans, primarily by buying Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insured mortgages. For the first thirty years following its inception, Fannie Mae held a monopoly over the secondary mortgage market. Other considerations may have motivated the New Deal focus on the housing market: about a third of the nation's unemployed were in the building trade, and the government had a vested interest in getting them back to work by giving them homes to build.

Fannie Mae was acquired by the Housing and Home Finance Agency from the Federal Loan Agency as a constituent unit in 1950. In 1954, an amendment known as the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act made Fannie Mae into "mixed-ownership corporation", meaning that federal government held the preferred stock while private investors held the common stock; in 1968 it converted to a privately held corporation, to remove its activity and debt from the federal budget. In the 1968 change, arising from the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, Fannie Mae's predecessor (also called Fannie Mae) was split into the current Fannie Mae and the Government National Mortgage Association ("Ginnie Mae").

Ginnie Mae, which remained a government organization, guarantees FHA-insured mortgage loans as well as Veterans Administration (VA) and Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) insured mortgages. As such, Ginnie Mae is the only home-loan agency explicitly backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.

In 1970, the federal government authorized Fannie Mae to purchase conventional loans, i.e. those not insured by the FHA, VA, or FmHA, and created the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), colloquially known as Freddie Mac, to compete with Fannie Mae and thus facilitate a more robust and efficient secondary mortgage market. That same year FNMA went public on New York and Pacific Exchanges.

In 1981, Fannie Mae issued its first mortgage pass-through and called it a mortgage-backed security. Ginnie Mae had guaranteed the first mortgage pass-through security of an approved lender in 1968 and in 1971 Freddie Mac issued its first mortgage pass-through, called a participation certificate, composed primarily of private mortgage loans.

1990s
In 1992, President George H.W. Bush signed the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. The Act amended the charter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reflect the Democratic Congress' view that the GSEs "have an affirmative obligation to facilitate the financing of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income families in a manner consistent with their overall public purposes, while maintaining a strong financial condition and a reasonable economic return". For the first time, the GSEs were required to meet "affordable housing goals" set annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and approved by Congress. The initial annual goal for low-income and moderate-income mortgage purchases for each GSE was 30% of the total number of dwelling units financed by mortgage purchases and increased to 55% by 2007.

In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas designated in the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977.

In 1999, The New York Times reported that with the corporation's move towards the subprime market "Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s."

2000s
In 2000, because of a re-assessment of the housing market by HUD, anti-predatory lending rules were put into place that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals. In 2004, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals.

The intent was that Fannie Mae's enforcement of the underwriting standards they maintained for standard conforming mortgages would also provide safe and stable means of lending to buyers who did not have prime credit. As Daniel Mudd, then president and CEO of Fannie Mae, testified in 2007, instead the agency's underwriting requirements drove business into the arms of the private mortgage industry who marketed aggressive products without regard to future consequences:

"We also set conservative underwriting standards for loans we finance to ensure the homebuyers can afford their loans over the long term. We sought to bring the standards we apply to the prime space to the subprime market with our industry partners primarily to expand our services to underserved families.

Unfortunately, Fannie Mae-quality, safe loans in the subprime market did not become the standard, and the lending market moved away from us. Borrowers were offered a range of loans that layered teaser rates, interest-only, negative amortization and payment options and low-documentation requirements on top of floating-rate loans. In early 2005 we began sounding our concerns about this "layered-risk" lending. For example, Tom Lund, the head of our single-family mortgage business, publicly stated, "One of the things we don't feel good about right now as we look into this marketplace is more homebuyers being put into programs that have more risk. Those products are for more sophisticated buyers. Does it make sense for borrowers to take on risk they may not be aware of? Are we setting them up for failure? As a result, we gave up significant market share to our competitors.""

Alex Berenson of The New York Times reported in 2003 that Fannie Mae's risk was much larger than was commonly believed. Nassim Taleb wrote in The Black Swan: "The government-sponsored institution Fannie Mae, when I look at its risks, seems to be sitting on a barrel of dynamite, vulnerable to the slightest hiccup. But not to worry: their large staff of scientists deem these events 'unlikely'".

On January 26, 2005, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (S.190) was first introduced by U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel. The Senate legislation was an effort to reform the existing GSE regulatory structure in light of the recent accounting problems and questionable management actions leading to considerable income restatements by the GSEs. After being reported favorably by the Senate's Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in July 2005, the bill was never considered by the full Senate for a vote. Sen. John McCain's decision to become a cosponsor of S.190 almost a year later in 2006 was the last action taken regarding Sen. Hagel's bill in spite of developments since clearing the Senate Committee. McCain pointed out that Fannie Mae's regulator reported that profits were "illusions deliberately and systematically created by the company's senior management" in his floor statement giving support to S.190.

At the same time, the House also introduced similar legislation, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 1461), in the spring of 2005. The House Financial Services Committee had crafted changes and produced a committee report by July 2005 for the legislation. It was passed by the House in October in spite of President George W. Bush's opposition to the House version, which stated: "The regulatory regime envisioned by H.R. 1461 is considerably weaker than that which governs other large, complex financial institutions." The legislation met with opposition from both Democrats and Republicans at that point and the Senate never took up the House passed version for consideration after that.

The mortgage crisis from late 2007
Following their mission to meet federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing goals, GSEs such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks) had striven to improve home ownership of low and middle income families, underserved areas, and generally through special affordable methods such as "the ability to obtain a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a low down payment ... and the continuous availability of mortgage credit under a wide range of economic conditions". Then in 2003–2004, the subprime mortgage crisis began. The market shifted away from regulated GSEs and radically toward Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) issued by unregulated private-label securitization (PLS) conduits, typically operated by investment banks.

As loan originators began to distribute more and more of their loans through private label PLS's, the GSEs lost the ability to monitor and control loan originators. Competition between the GSEs and private securitizers for loans further undermined GSEs' power and strengthened mortgage originators. This contributed to a decline in underwriting standards and was a major cause of the financial crisis.

Investment bank securitizers were more willing to securitize risky loans because they generally retained minimal risk. Whereas the GSEs guaranteed the performance of their mortgage-backed securities (MBSs), private securitizers generally did not, and might only retain a thin slice of risk. Often, banks would offload this risk to insurance companies or other counterparties through credit default swaps, making their actual risk exposures extremely difficult for investors and creditors to discern.

The shift toward riskier mortgages and private label MBS distribution occurred as financial institutions sought to maintain earnings levels that had been elevated during 2001–2003 by an unprecedented refinancing boom due to historically low interest rates. Earnings depended on volume, so maintaining elevated earnings levels necessitated expanding the borrower pool using lower underwriting standards and new products that the GSEs would not (initially) securitize. Thus, the shift away from GSE securitization to private-label securitization (PLS) also corresponded with a shift in mortgage product type, from traditional, amortizing, fixed-rate mortgages (FRMs) to nontraditional, structurally riskier, nonamortizing, adjustable-rate mortgages (ARM's), and in the start of a sharp deterioration in mortgage underwriting standards. The growth of PLS, however, forced the GSEs to lower their underwriting standards in an attempt to reclaim lost market share to please their private shareholders. Shareholder pressure pushed the GSEs into competition with PLS for market share, and the GSEs loosened their guarantee business underwriting standards in order to compete. In contrast, the wholly public FHA/Ginnie Mae maintained their underwriting standards and instead ceded market share.

The growth of private-label securitization and lack of regulation in this part of the market resulted in the oversupply of underpriced housing finance that led, in 2006, to an increasing number of borrowers, often with poor credit, who were unable to pay their mortgages – particularly with adjustable rate mortgage loans (ARM), caused a precipitous increase in home foreclosures. As a result, home prices declined as increasing foreclosures added to the already large inventory of homes and stricter lending standards made it more and more difficult for borrowers to get loans. This depreciation in home prices led to growing losses for the GSEs, which back the majority of US mortgages. In July 2008, the government attempted to ease market fears by reiterating their view that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a central role in the US housing finance system". The US Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve took steps to bolster confidence in the corporations, including granting both corporations access to Federal Reserve low-interest loans (at similar rates as commercial banks) and removing the prohibition on the Treasury Department to purchase the GSEs' stock. Despite these efforts, by August 2008, shares of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had tumbled more than 90% from their one-year prior levels.

2008 – crisis and conservatorship
On July 11, 2008, The New York Times reported that U.S. government officials were considering a plan for the U.S. government to take over Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac should their financial situations worsen due to the U.S. housing crisis. Fannie Mae and smaller Freddie Mac owned or guaranteed a massive proportion of all home loans in the United States and so were especially hard hit by the slump. The government officials also stated that the government had also considered calling for explicit government guarantee through legislation of $5 trillion on debt owned or guaranteed by the two companies.

Fannie stock plunged. Some worried that Fannie lacked capital and might go bankrupt. Others worried about a government seizure. U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson as well as the White House went on the air to defend the financial soundness of Fannie Mae, in a last-ditch effort to prevent a total financial panic. Fannie and Freddie underpinned the whole U.S. mortgage market. As recently as 2008, Fannie Mae and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) had owned or guaranteed about half of the U.S.'s $12 trillion mortgage market. If they were to collapse, mortgages would be harder to obtain and much more expensive. Fannie and Freddie bonds were owned by everyone from the Chinese government, to money market funds, to the retirement funds of hundreds of millions of people. If they went bankrupt there would be mass upheaval on a global scale.

The Administration PR effort was not enough, by itself, to save the GSEs. Their government directive to purchase bad loans from private banks, in order to prevent these banks from failing, as well as the 20 top banks falsely classifying loans as AAA, caused instability. Paulson's plan was to go in swiftly and seize the two GSEs, rather than provide loans as he did for AIG and the major banks; he told president Bush that "the first sound they hear will be their heads hitting the floor", in a reference to the French Revolution. The major banks have since been sued by the Feds for a sum of $200,000,000, and some of the major banks have already settled. In addition, a lawsuit has been filed against the federal government by the shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for a) creating an environment by which Fannie and Freddie would be unable to meet their financial obligations b) forcing the executive management to sign over the companies to the conservator by (a), and c) the gross violation of the (fifth amendment) taking clause.

On September 7, 2008, James Lockhart, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), announced that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were being placed into conservatorship of the FHFA. The action was "one of the most sweeping government interventions in private financial markets in decades". Lockhart also dismissed the firms' chief executive officers and boards of directors, and caused the issuance to the Treasury new senior preferred stock and common stock warrants amounting to 79.9% of each GSE. The value of the common stock and preferred stock to pre-conservatorship holders was greatly diminished by the suspension of future dividends on previously outstanding stock, in the effort to maintain the value of company debt and of mortgage-backed securities. FHFA stated that there are no plans to liquidate the company.

The authority of the U.S. Treasury to advance funds for the purpose of stabilizing Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac is limited only by the amount of debt that the entire federal government is permitted by law to commit to. The July 30, 2008, law enabling expanded regulatory authority over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac increased the national debt ceiling by US$800 billion, to a total of US$10.7 trillion in anticipation of the potential need for the Treasury to have the flexibility to support the federal home loan banks.

2010 – delisting
On June 16, 2010, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac announced their stocks would be delisted from the NYSE. The Federal Housing Finance Agency directed the delisting after Fannie's stock traded below $1 a share for over 30 days. Since then the stocks have continued to trade on the Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board.

Dividends paid to government
In May 2013, Fannie Mae announced that it is going to pay a dividend of $59.4 billion to the United States Treasury.

In 2014, gross flows were:
 * $116 billion received from Treasury
 * $134 billion paid to Treasury

Fannie Mae's 2014 financial results enabled it to pay $20.6 billion in dividends to Treasury for the year, resulting in a cumulative total of $134.5 billion in dividends through December 31, 2014 – approximately $18 billion more than Fannie Mae received in support. As of March 31, 2015, Fannie Mae expects to have paid a total of $136.4 billion in payments to the Treasury.

2015 ruling
On May 11, 2015 The Wall Street Journal reported that A U.S. District Court judge said Nomura Holdings Inc. was not truthful in describing mortgage-backed securities sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, giving a victory to the companies' conservator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). Judge Denise Cote asked the FHFA to propose updated damages to be paid by Nomura and co-defendant RBS Securities Inc., which underwrote some of the investments. At the outset of the case, the FHFA asked for about $1.1 billion. The order brought to conclusion a rare trial addressing alleged mortgage-related infractions committed during the housing boom. Over the past few years, more than a dozen firms chose to settle similar allegations brought by the FHFA rather than face a court battle. The settlements have brought Fannie and Freddie $18 billion in penalties. In her decision, Judge Cote wrote that Nomura, in offering documents for mortgage-backed securities sold to Fannie and Freddie, didn't accurately describe the loans' quality. "The magnitude of falsity, conservatively measured, is enormous", she wrote. During the boom, Fannie and Freddie invested billions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities issued by such companies as Nomura. Those investments bolstered profits but, in the bust, contributed to steep losses that ultimately resulted in the companies' 2008 government takeover. Nomura and RBS were two of 18 financial institutions, including Bank of America Corp. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., targeted in 2011 by the FHFA, which alleged that the companies lied about the quality of the loans underlying the securities. During the nonjury trial, lawyers for the FHFA said that Nomura and RBS inflated values of homes behind some mortgages and sometimes said a home was owner-occupied when it was not.

Business
Fannie Mae makes money partly by borrowing at low rates, and then reinvesting its borrowings into whole mortgage loans and mortgage backed securities. It borrows in the debt markets by selling bonds, and provides liquidity to loan originators by purchasing whole loans. It purchases whole loans and then securitizes them for the investment market by creating MBS that are either retained or sold.

As a Government Sponsored Enterprise, or GSE, Fannie Mae is compelled by law to provide liquidity to loan originators in all economic conditions. It must legally ignore adverse market conditions which appear to be unprofitable. If there are loans available for purchase that meet its predetermined underwriting standards, it must purchase them if no other buyers are available. Because of the size, scale, and scope of the United States single-family residential and commercial residential markets, market participants viewed Fannie Mae corporate debt as having a very high probability of being repaid. Fannie Mae is able to borrow very inexpensively in the debt markets as a consequence of market perception. There usually exists a large difference between the rate at which it can borrow and the rate at which it can 'lend'. This was called "The big, fat gap" by Alan Greenspan. By August 2008, Fannie Mae's mortgage portfolio was in excess of $700 billion.

Fannie Mae also earns a significant portion of its income from guaranty fees it receives as compensation for assuming the credit risk on mortgage loans underlying its single-family Fannie Mae MBS and on the single-family mortgage loans held in its retained portfolio. Investors, or purchasers of Fannie Mae MBSs, are willing to let Fannie Mae keep this fee in exchange for assuming the credit risk; that is, Fannie Mae's guarantee that the scheduled principal and interest on the underlying loan will be paid even if the borrower defaults.

Fannie Mae's charter has historically prevented it from guaranteeing loans with a loan-to-values over 80% without mortgage insurance or a repurchase agreement with the lender; however, in 2006 and 2007 Fannie Mae did purchase subprime and Alt-A loans as investments.

Business mechanism

Fannie Mae is a purchaser of mortgages loans and the mortgages that secure them, which it packages into mortgaged-backed securities (MBS). Fannie Mae buys loans from approved mortgage sellers and securitizes them; it then sells the resultant mortgage-backed security to investors in the secondary mortgage market, along with a guarantee that the stated principal and interest payments will be timely passed through to the investor.. In addition, Fannie MBS, like those of Freddie Mac MBS and Ginnie Mae MBS, are eligible to be traded in the "to-be-announced" or "TBA" market. By purchasing the mortgages, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide banks and other financial institutions with fresh money to make new loans. This gives the United States housing and credit markets flexibility and liquidity.

In order for Fannie Mae to provide its guarantee to mortgage-backed securities it issues, it sets the guidelines for the loans that it will accept for purchase, called "conforming" loans. Fannie Mae produced an automated underwriting system (AUS) tool called Desktop Underwriter (DU) which lenders can use to automatically determine if a loan is conforming; Fannie Mae followed this program up in 2004 with Custom DU, which allows lenders to set custom underwriting rules to handle nonconforming loans as well. The secondary market for nonconforming loans includes jumbo loans, which are loans larger than the maximum that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will purchase. In early 2008, the decision was made to allow TBA (To-be-announced)-eligible mortgage-backed securities to include up to 10% "jumbo" loans.

Conforming loans
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have a limit on the maximum sized loan they will guarantee. This is known as the "conforming loan limit". The conforming loan limit for Fannie Mae, along with Freddie Mac, is set by Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), the regulator of both GSEs. OFHEO annually sets the limit of the size of a conforming loan based on the October to October changes in mean home price, above which a mortgage is considered a non-conforming jumbo loan. The conforming loan limit is 50 percent higher in Alaska and Hawaii. The GSEs only buy loans that are conforming to repackage into the secondary market, lowering the demand for non-conforming loans. By virtue of the law of supply and demand, then, it is harder for lenders to sell these loans in the secondary market; thus these types of loans tend to cost more to borrowers (typically 1/4 to 1/2 of a percent). Indeed, in 2008, since the demand for bonds not guaranteed by GSEs was almost non-existent, non-conforming loans were priced nearly 1% to 1.5% higher than conforming loans.

Implicit guarantee and government support
Originally, Fannie had an 'explicit guarantee' from the government; if it got in trouble, the government promised to bail it out. This changed in 1968. Ginnie Mae was split off from Fannie. Ginnie retained the explicit guarantee. Fannie, however, became a private corporation, chartered by Congress and with a direct line of credit to the US Treasury. It was its nature as a Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) that provided the 'implied guarantee' for their borrowing. The charter also limited their business activity to the mortgage market. In this regard, although they were a private company, they could not operate like a regular private company.

Fannie Mae received no direct government funding or backing; Fannie Mae securities carried no actual explicit government guarantee of being repaid. This was clearly stated in the law that authorizes GSEs, on the securities themselves, and in many public communications issued by Fannie Mae. Neither the certificates nor payments of principal and interest on the certificates were explicitly guaranteed by the United States government. The certificates did not legally constitute a debt or obligation of the United States or any of its agencies or instrumentalities other than Fannie Mae. During the sub-prime era, every Fannie Mae prospectus read in bold, all-caps letters: "The certificates and payments of principal and interest on the certificates are not guaranteed by the United States, and do not constitute a debt or obligation of the United States or any of its agencies or instrumentalities other than Fannie Mae." (Verbiage changed from all-caps to standard case for readability).

However, the implied guarantee, as well as various special treatments given to Fannie by the government, greatly enhanced its success.

For example, the implied guarantee allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to save billions in borrowing costs, as their credit rating was very good. Estimates by the Congressional Budget Office and the Treasury Department put the figure at about $2 billion per year. Vernon L. Smith, recipient of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences, has called FHLMC and FNMA "implicitly taxpayer-backed agencies". The Economist has referred to "the implicit government guarantee" of FHLMC and FNMA. In testimony before the House and Senate Banking Committee in 2004, Alan Greenspan expressed the belief that Fannie Mae's (weak) financial position was the result of markets believing that the U.S. Government would never allow Fannie Mae (or Freddie Mac) to fail.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were allowed to hold less capital than normal financial institutions: e.g., they were allowed to sell mortgage-backed securities with only half as much capital backing them up as would be required of other financial institutions. Regulations exist through the FDIC Bank Holding Company Act that govern the solvency of financial institutions. The regulations require normal financial institutions to maintain a capital/asset ratio greater than or equal to 3%. The GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are exempt from this capital/asset ratio requirement and can, and often do, maintain a capital/asset ratio less than 3%. The additional leverage allows for greater returns in good times, but put the companies at greater risk in bad times, such as during the subprime mortgage crisis. FNMA is exempt from state and local taxes, except for certain taxes on real estate. In addition, FNMA and FHLMC are exempt from SEC filing requirements; they file SEC 10-K and 10-Q reports, but many other reports, such as certain reports regarding their REMIC mortgage securities, are not filed.

Lastly, money market funds have diversification requirements, so that not more than 5% of assets may be from the same issuer. That is, a worst-case default would drop a fund not more than five percent. However, these rules do not apply to Fannie and Freddie. It would not be unusual to find a fund that had the vast majority of its assets in Fannie and Freddie debt.

In 1996, the Congressional Budget Office wrote "there have been no federal appropriations for cash payments or guarantee subsidies. But in the place of federal funds the government provides considerable unpriced benefits to the enterprises ... Government-sponsored enterprises are costly to the government and taxpayers ... the benefit is currently worth $6.5 billion annually."

Accounting
FNMA is a financial corporation which uses derivatives to "hedge" its cash flow. Derivative products it uses include interest rate swaps and options to enter interest rate swaps ("pay-fixed swaps", "receive-fixed swaps", "basis swaps", "interest rate caps and swaptions", "forward starting swaps"). Duration gap is a financial and accounting term for the difference between the duration of assets and liabilities, and is typically used by banks, pension funds, or other financial institutions to measure their risk due to changes in the interest rate. "The company said that in April its average duration gap widened to plus 3 months in April from zero in March." "The Washington-based company aims to keep its duration gap between minus 6 months to plus 6 months. From September 2003 to March, the gap has run between plus to minus one month."

Accounting controversy
In late 2004, Fannie Mae was under investigation for its accounting practices. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight released a report on September 20, 2004, alleging widespread accounting errors.

Fannie Mae was expected to spend more than $1 billion in 2006 alone to complete its internal audit and bring it closer to compliance. The necessary restatement was expected to cost $10.8 billion, but was completed at a total cost of $6.3 billion in restated earnings as listed in Fannie Mae's Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Concerns with business and accounting practices at Fannie Mae predate the scandal itself. On June 15, 2000, the House Banking Subcommittee On Capital Markets, Securities And Government-Sponsored Enterprises held hearings on Fannie Mae.

On December 18, 2006, U.S. regulators filed 101 civil charges against chief executive Franklin Raines; chief financial officer J. Timothy Howard; and the former controller Leanne G. Spencer. The three were accused of manipulating Fannie Mae earnings to maximize their bonuses. The lawsuit sought to recoup more than $115 million in bonus payments, collectively accrued by the trio from 1998 to 2004, and about $100 million in penalties for their involvement in the accounting scandal. After 8 years of litigation, in 2012, a summary judgment was issued clearing the trio, indicating the government had insufficient evidence that would enable any jury to find the defendants guilty.

Conflict of interest
In June 2008, The Wall Street Journal reported that two former CEOs of Fannie Mae, James A. Johnson and Franklin Raines, had received loans below market rate from Countrywide Financial. Fannie Mae was the biggest buyer of Countrywide's mortgages. The "Friends of Angelo" VIP Countrywide loan program included many people from Fannie Mae; lawyers, executives, etc.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have given contributions to lawmakers currently sitting on committees that primarily regulate their industry: The House Financial Services Committee; the Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee; or the Senate Finance Committee. The others have seats on the powerful Appropriations or Ways & Means committees, are members of the congressional leadership or have run for president.

2011 SEC charges
In December 2011, six Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives, including Daniel Mudd, were charged by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission with securities fraud. "The SEC alleges they 'knew and approved of' misleading statements claiming the companies had minimal exposure to subprime loans at the height of home mortgage bubble." Former Freddie chief financial officer Anthony "Buddy" Piszel, who in February 2011, was CFO of CoreLogic, "had received a notice from the SEC that the agency was considering taking action against him". He then resigned from CoreLogic. Piszel was not among the executives charged in December 2011. Piszel had been succeeded at Freddie by David Kellermann. Kellermann committed suicide during his tenure at Freddie.

A contemporaneous report on the SEC charges continued: The SEC said Mudd's misconduct included knowingly giving false testimony to Congress. Mudd said last week that the government approved Fannie Mae's disclosures during his tenure. "Now it appears that the government has negotiated a deal to hold the government, and government-appointed executives who have signed the same disclosures since my departure, blameless – so that it can sue individuals it fired years ago," he said in a statement last week.

2011 lawsuits
In 2011, the agency had a number of other big banks in the crosshairs as well. JPMorgan Chase was one of 18 financial institutions the FHFA sued back in 2011, accusing them of selling to Fannie and Freddie securities that "had different and more risky characteristics than the descriptions contained in the marketing and sales materials". Fannie and Freddie, the government-backed housing finance firms, sustained massive losses on mortgage-backed securities as the housing market imploded, requiring a bailout of over $187 billion. The firms have been controlled by the FHFA since their 2008 rescue. Swiss lender UBS has already reached an $885 million settlement with the FHFA in connection with losses Fannie and Freddie sustained on over $6.4 billion worth of mortgage securities. The agency also settled for undisclosed sums earlier this year with Citigroup and General Electric. The FHFA is reportedly seeking $4 billion from JPMorgan to resolve its claims over $33 billion worth of securities sold to Fannie and Freddie by JPMorgan, Bear Stearns and WaMu. Bank of America (BAC), which acquired Countrywide and Merrill Lynch during the crisis era, could be on the hook for even more. The Charlotte-based firm is facing claims from the FHFA over $57 billion worth of mortgage bonds. In all, the 18 FHFA lawsuits cover more than $200 billion in allegedly misrepresented securities. The question of whether any individual bankers will be held to account is another matter. Thus far, criminal cases related to the packaging and sale of mortgage-backed securities have been conspicuously absent. The proposed JPMorgan settlement covers only civil charges, and would not settle the question of whether any individual executives engaged in wrongdoing. There is an ongoing federal criminal probe based in Sacramento, Calif., the state where Washington Mutual was based. JPMorgan originally sought to be protected from any criminal charges as part of this deal, but that request was rejected by the government.

2013 allegations of kickbacks
On May 29, 2013, the Los Angeles Times reported that a former foreclosure specialist at Fannie Mae has been charged but pleaded "not guilty" to accepting a kickback from an Arizona real estate broker in a Santa Ana Federal court. Another lawsuit filed earlier in Orange County Superior Court, this one for wrongful termination, has been filed against Fannie Mae by an employee who claims she was fired when she tried to alert management to kickbacks. The employee claims that she started voicing her suspicions in 2009.

Chief executive officer

 * Priscilla Almodovar (Dec. 5, 2022–)
 * Hugh R. Frater (2018–2022)
 * Timothy Mayopoulos (2012–2018)
 * Michael Williams (2009–2012 )
 * Herbert M. Allison (2008–2009)
 * Daniel Mudd (2005–2008)
 * Franklin Raines (1999–2004)
 * James A. Johnson (1991–1998)
 * David O. Maxwell (1981 -1991)
 * Allan O. Hunter (1970–1981)

Key people

 * Board of directors 2018
 * Renee Lewis Glover, age 69, independent director since January 2016
 * Michael J. Heid, age 61, independent director since May 2016
 * Robert H. Herz, age 65, independent director since June 2011
 * Antony Jenkins, age 57, independent director since July 2018
 * Diane C. Nordin, age 60, independent director since November 2013
 * Jonathan Plutzik, age 64, board chair since December 2018, independent director since November 2009
 * Manuel "Manolo" Sánchez Rodríguez, age 53, independent director since September 2018
 * Ryan A. Zanin, age 56, independent director since September 2016
 * Executive officers, as of February 14, 2019, there are seven other executive officers:
 * David C. Benson, age 59, president
 * Andrew J. Bon Salle, age 53, executive vice president—single-family mortgage business
 * Celeste M. Brown, age 42, executive vice president and chief financial officer
 * John S. Forlines, age 55, senior vice president and chief risk officer
 * Jeffery R. Hayward, age 62, executive vice president and head of multifamily
 * Kimberly H. Johnson, age 46, executive vice president and chief operating officer
 * Stephen H. McElhennon, age 49, senior vice president and interim general counsel
 * Named executives for 2018
 * Hugh R. Frater, interim chief executive officer (beginning October 2018)
 * Timothy J. Mayopoulos, former chief executive officer (until October 2018)
 * Celeste M. Brown, executive vice president and chief financial officer (beginning August 2018)
 * David C. Benson, president (beginning August 2018), former executive vice president and chief financial officer (until August 2018)
 * Andrew J. Bon, executive vice president—single-family mortgage business
 * Jeffery R. Hayward, executive vice president and head of multifamily
 * Kimberly H. Johnson, executive vice president and chief operating officer (beginning March 2018), former executive vice president and chief risk officer (until March 2018)

Related legislation
On May 8, 2013, Representative Scott Garrett introduced the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act of 2014 (H.R. 1872; 113th Congress) into the United States House of Representatives during the 113th United States Congress. The bill, if it were passed, would modify the budgetary treatment of federal credit programs, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill would require that the cost of direct loans or loan guarantees be recognized in the federal budget on a fair-value basis using guidelines set forth by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. The changes made by the bill would mean that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were counted on the budget instead of considered separately and would mean that the debt of those two programs would be included in the national debt. These programs themselves would not be changed, but how they are accounted for in the United States federal budget would be. The goal of the bill is to improve the accuracy of how some programs are accounted for in the federal budget.

title: Fannie Mae


text:
Talk:Beetlejuice

main character name
This article is a mess. The spelling Beetle Juice, Beetlejuice and Betelgeuse are variously used. I am changing all the names to Beetlejuice, the most common usage. I read and deleted the "Warning" at the top of the article. This is not the way that Wikipedia works, discuss your issues here and a user consensus will emerge. --Brideshead (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be the most common spelling, but the movie makes it very clear that his name is Betelgeuse. 68.197.166.162 (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Can someone please decide on whether or not we're going to use Beetle Juice or Beetlejuice throughout the article? The name is listed both ways multiple times and the back-and-forth over something as simple as the character's name is becoming tiresome. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm positive that the character is Betelgeuse (like the star) and that the title of the movie is a reference to how Betelgeuse hinted at how to pronounce his name when the Maitlands struggled (if it were spelled Beetlejuice, it's doubtful he'd need to hint at how to pronounce it). --Evice (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. He is listed as "Betelgeuse" in the closing credits. Wildroot (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet he is Beetle Juice (two words) in the opening credits. It's not exactly cut and dry. 86.43.212.208 (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is STILL a mess gang, I thought a consensus was reached??? 70.91.35.27 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)T
 * It's quite simple - the character's name is shown onscreen and in the credits to be spelled "Betelgeuse". The film is spelled "Beetlejuice". There is no need for discussion, as there is only one possible right spelling for the character's name. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually you're wrong there. His name in the credits is "Beetle Juice".  Serendi pod ous  13:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I vote that it should be changed to "Beetlejuice" regardless of how it's represented in the credits. Culturally, it is widely known as "Beetlejuice," and spelling it any other way will prove confusing to most readers. Furthermore, there is no consensus on the pronunciation of the star "Betelgeuse" (which in scientific communities tends to be "BAY-tehl-jooz"), and this association only confounds the issue further. Cavatica (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

 * I added in three references to the Beetlejuice section: One showing "Beetle Juice" and two for "Betelgeuse". For the three scripts listed as references, two do not produce any results for "Beetlejuice", and the third, labeled February 3, 1987 revised second draft, produces only one instance of the character being referred to as "Beetlejuice" by another character. Only the first lists dialogue for a character labeled "Beetle Juice"; the other two list the character as "Betelgeuse". If another editor wishes to change the character's name to "Beetlejuice", please provide the required source.

The movie title is reflected correctly as Beetlejuice throughout the article. However, the character name should remain "Betelgeuse" in the plot section and in any other section when reference is made to the character specifically and not to the title of the movie. Sottolacqua  (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree with 68.197.166.162 and with Evice and with Wildroot and with MikeWazowski and with  Sottolacqua  that the character's name is Betelgeuse, not Beetlejuice or Beetle Juice. I disagree with Cavatica, who seems to be saying that Wikipedia should give its readers incorrect information because the correct information would be "too confusing" for some readers. Not only do I disagree with the notion that this online encyclopedia should be feeding people incorrect information (regardless of the rationale), I also do not believe it will be "too confusing" for readers to figure out that his name is spelled differently from, but pronounced the same as, the film's title (especially since the article says this in no uncertain terms). The only person who presents any reasonable argument for the name being spelled "Beetle Juice" is 86.43.212.208, who claims that his name is spelled "Beetle Juice" in the opening credits.  Perhaps it is, but his name is spelled "Betelgeuse" everywhere else, including the end credits, and most importantly, throughout the film itself.  Betelgeuse's name appears as "Betelgeuse" on the little TV in the attic, on the little grave marker in the miniature cemetery, and everywhere else it is written in the actual film.  Indeed, as Evice correctly points out, it's because his name is spelled "Betelgeuse" and not "Beetle Juice" that the Maitlands have such difficulty saying his name in order to summon him.  They are unaware at first that his name is pronounced "Beetle Juice" precisely because his name is spelled "Betelgeuse."  Had his name actually been spelled "Beetle Juice" instead of "Betelgeuse," then he would have simply listed his name on the little TV (etc.) as "Beetle Juice," and the Maitlands would have had zero difficulty summoning him.  Thus, we can conclude that not only is his name "Betelgeuse," but likewise that his-name-being-spelled-"Betelgeuse" is a main plot point. Moreover, Tim Burton spells the character's name as "Betelgeuse," as does IMDb. Sincerely, allixpeeke (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Official consensus of the character's name

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

The result of the proposal was to officially list the character's name as Beetlejuice.—Wildroot (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In recognition of the above section, we need to agree what of the character's name. Of course the title of the film is Beetlejuice. However, people also refer to the character in the film as Beetlejuice, Beetle Juice or Betelgeuse. I'll give this issue a week and see how it goes.

 * Feel free to state your position on naming the character to Beetlejuice, Beetle Juice or Betelgeuse by beginning a new line in this section, then sign your comment with ''. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

 * Beetlejuice: I could care less what we call him, just as long as we all agree on a name. —Wildroot (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, seeing as how nobody cares about this, it's now official that he will be called Beetlejuice. —Wildroot (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

 * Comment: As this "vote" was conducted in 2008, and consists of a single vote from a person who, at the time, didn't even care, I submit that this former "official consensus" be thrown out. Above, we see that the following people present arguments for the name being spelled Betelgeuse: (1) 68.197.166.162 (2) Evice (3) Wildroot (4) MikeWazowski (5)  Sottolacqua  and (6) allixpeeke. We only see the following people present arguments for the name being Beetle Juice: (1) 86.43.212.208 and (2)  Serendi pod ous . And we only see the following person present an argument for the name being Beetlejuice: (1) Cavatica. It seems clear that the current consensus, insofar as there is one, is that the character's name is actually Betelgeuse.  I submit that this should become the new official consensus. Sincerely, allixpeeke (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Footnote
This article used to have a footnote explaining the different spellings of Beetlejuice's name and when they were used, but it seems to have been removed. I was thinking it would be a good idea to put it back, to prevent people changing the name again.  Serendi pod ous  16:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Brideshead deleted it. Wildroot (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

sometimes its always on top —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.40.0.14 (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Danny Elfman's score
Reviewers rarely pay attention to a film's music. Danny Elfman's score is one of the greatest of non-Herrmann scores. It's also one of the most ripped-off scores of all time, both the actual music and the style. Bits of it were used in trailers over the next decade.

At the very least, someone should analyze the opening, which perfectly obeys Herrmann's dictum that the title music should tell the audience what the film is about. There is a "Beetlejuice" theme (a variation of the Dies Irae), mixed up with Grieg ("In the Hall of the Mountain King"), plus a bit of hoe-down, which not only refers to the story's bucolic setting, but is a tip of the hat to Herrmann's score for The Devil and Daniel Webster. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You know what would REALLY be helpful in deciding how Betelgeuse's name is spelled?
REFERENCES. My god I was about to change all the names from Betelgeuse to Beetlejuice. All I saw was some crap about it being a phonetic spelling. I was very tempted to change it, but I knew there had to be an explanation, and lo and behold, in the "Betelgeuse in fiction" I fid out the reason:

Beetlejuice's name is a reference to Betelgeuse, and is spelled Betelgeuse on his tombstone.

WOW. I had to go to another article?? There apparently was a discussion about which spelling to use, and this ALL could've been avoided by simply citing proof his name is Betelgeuse??? In the page history, I noticed people constantly changing Betelgeuse to Beetlejuice. 75.72.205.243 (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Where'd That Picture Of Beetlejuice In Universal Hollywood Come From?
Where'd That Picture Of Beetlejuice In Universal Studios Hollywood Come From, i don't see him there in Hollywood! I'd like to see proof of that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.204.215 (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * If you took a moment to Google, or even looked at the Wikipedia article for it, you’d see that "Beetlejuice's Rock and Roll Graveyard Revue" closed in Hollywood in 2002, and was replaced by "Spider-Man Rocks"; however it is apparentky still on in Florida.Jock123 (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Is it worth putting a link (or some info) about the stage show on the Wiki page?--TimothyJacobson (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wasn’t there another sequel script?
Until I read this article I’d never heard of the “Goes Hawaiian” sequel. The script that I’d heard spoken of - by Michael Keaton, amongst others - was called "Beetlejuice in Love", by Warren Skarren. Is this the same, or a different thing? If so, it should be added. Not that I actually would want a sequel - the first one was quite bad enough! Jock123 (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed Vandalism
I removed the "ADAM LIKES MEN" from the beginning of the article, as it was a clear act of vandalism. 144.160.130.16 (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

DEUS EX MACHINA
is t worth mention that the end of the movie is a "deus ex machina"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.112.212 (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I'd say not. Betelgeuse's fear of the worms and their ability to destroy ghosts was established early on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmundogg (talk • contribs) 21:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely deus ex machina... The wife randomly comes in riding a worm out of the ceiling and it solves the problem of beetlejuice out of nowhere

Plot clarification
From reading the summary, one doesn't know why the wedding is occurring. In the film, Beetlejuice says that she must marry him so he can stay alive. --Boycool † (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm pretty sure in the movie, he says he wants to marry her to BECOME alive (since he is obviously dead). This was the reason behind the revert. Ckruschke (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

 * Ok thanks for clearing it up. --Boycool † (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Beetlejuice or Betelguise
I have reverted at least four instances (two in as many days) where editors have changed Micheal Keaton's character from "Beetlejuice" to "Betelguise". I'm happy to be wrong, but everything I've read on the credits, IMDB, etc state that Keaton is the TITLE character (and therefore it's spelled Beetlejuice) - the only Betelguise I know of is a star in the constellation Orion. Ckruschke (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * It's quite simple - the character's name is shown onscreen and in the credits to be spelled "Betelgeuse". The film is spelled "Beetlejuice". There is no need for discussion, as there is only one possible right spelling for the character's name. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh... Since I don't currently own the movie, I'll have to take your word for it since "there is no need for discussion". Since every source I looked at on the web disagrees with this fact, you'll have to shepherd this since the name has changed back and forth many many times in the couple years I've watched the page... Ckruschke (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * Actually, earlier discussion indicates several versions are used in the film itself, and the consensus (in the green box above), having not been revoted on at a later time, is still in effect. Therefore, all references to the character have been changed to "Beetlejuice" per that consensus. If someone wants to change it, it needs a vote again, not the assertion of one person. MSJapan (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. That so-called "consensus" you refer to is 5 years old and there was no discussion, so I do not think we can call it definitive.  I agree with MikeWazowski's comment above: the name is spelled in the film and in the credits "Betelgeuse" and that is the spelling that should be used. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  15:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The opening credits can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaCYL04Kd8g. At 1m23s it states the character name as "BEETLE JUICE". In the graveyard scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdpTGOepEvU) it is clearly written as Betelgeuse. I can't find a clip of the end credits but I believe it is stated there as "Betelgeuse". I think the safest thing to do is to add a section on the main page to discuss the character name spelling, citing the three sources from the movie, mentioning that he is named after the star, and the little trivia about McDowell being impressed that people made the connection. Otherwise people will keep editing the name and arguing over itAdxm (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Something needs to be done. Continues to be an issue. Your rationale seems sound "to me". Ckruschke (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

 * Well, since this is still an on-going issue, I think it's okay to add in. I think the biggest focus should be on the Plot section, since that's what people will be more likely to read. Perhaps we should call him "Betelgeuse", but add in brackets that it's pronounced "Beetle Juice". It'd be particularly notable to include the pronunciation, since it was worked into the script that laymen can't work out how to pronounce it and need help.-- 194.81.33.118 (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

In the Beetlejuice wiki it's spelled as Betelgeuse in the movie (http://beetlejuice.wikia.com/wiki/Betelgeuse) Oddly enough however in the animated show his name is Beetlejuice. Just adding my two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KentuckyBengalsAndReds (talk • contribs) 07:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Above, Ckruschke cites IMDb, saying that it lends credence to the view that the character's name is "Beetlejuice." But, when you actually go to IMDb's cast page, it says this: "Michael Keaton	 ...	Betelgeuse". I agree with MikeWazowski,  The Old Jacobite , IMDb, and Tim Burton that the character's actual name is Betelgeuse. Best regards, allixpeeke (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Actually if you look at the full discussion - and don't simply stop at the comment made by MikeWazowski over two years ago - Adxm states pretty convincingly that he believed a note should be put on the page describing the apparent dichotomy in the naming convention WITHIN THE MOVIE so as to end this somewhat pointless discussion once and for all. I have been on only a little bit in the last year, but had assumed that this had already taken place. So this is what I suggested at the time and still believe would be the most logical end-state rather than to endlessly debate the "real" spelling. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

References for use

 * http://www.mtv.com/news/1967432/michael-keaton-beetlejuice-2-no-script/
 * http://www.denofgeek.us/movies/larry-wilson/240561/larry-wilson-interview-cindy-beetlejuice-sequels-aliens

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Beetlejuice. 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/20070404160758/http://www.saturnawards.org:80/past.html#selective to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html#film
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afi.com/tvevents/100years/laughs.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Beetlejuice. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/beetlejuice/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612033831/http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1989-hugo-awards/ to http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1989-hugo-awards/

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) 05:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beetlejuice. 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/20131029194626/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html

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) 04:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beetlejuice. 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/20120522005333/http://www.aintitcool.com/node/55824 to http://www.aintitcool.com/node/55824/

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) 02:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Fansite
Is there some exceptional reason why a Fansite is included in the External links section or has no one just gotten around to removing it yet? Fansites are not normally allowed. WP:EL -- 109.78.201.245 (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * gone Ckruschke (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke

Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes
Just a side note for editors of this page...

Normally for 'critical response' I tend to think of reviews as happening in the first couple of years after a show/movie has started. Beetlejuice came out in 1988. Metacritic started in 2001 and Rotten Tomatoes in 1998, more than a decade after the movie had been released.

This strikes me as highly odd. They are certainly a source for critiques, but anyone reading this who is not aware of recent history will walk away thinking the internet was active LONG before it actually was.68.111.75.31 (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The Internet predates 1988. See History of the Internet. Dimadick (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Title

 * The title that appears on screen is Beetle Juice -- with a space. https://i.ibb.co/bL9RWVm/Beetle-Juice-title-card.png
 * Same job for the character name at the start (although in the end credits he is correctly named Betelgeuse). https://i.ibb.co/719xjs2/Beetlejuice-credit.png
 * All of which is to say: kindly stop removing the Beetle Juice AKA from the lede. It is more than relevant. Thanks! https://www.radiotimes.com/film/rndw/beetlejuice--beetle-juice/ 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:49AF:CA13:80CC:B8C2 (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyone can create an image, post it on the internet, and claim that it means something. Give us a reliable source from someone who was actually involved in production of the film, not some random person's image. Sundayclose (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwDE5dMCtsc&feature=youtu.be&t=34 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:49AF:CA13:80CC:B8C2 (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not doubtful that the title card shows Beetle Juice, and there can be inconsistency between the title card and the advertising materials and what secondary sources use. While the spacing exists in the title card, the vast majority of reliable sources do not use the spacing. It looks like The Tim Burton Encyclopedia says on page 168 of a screenwriter, "He wrote the first draft of Beetlejuice (then Beetle Juice) in early 1985." I don't mind this detail being mentioned in the article body, but I'm not sure if it needs to be mentioned in the opening sentence since it is too inconsequential to do that so upfront, unlike some other alternative titles. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Another consideration is the film's record at the US Copyright Office here that shows the official title to be Beetlejuice. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but the on-screen title is always mentioned in the first sentence of the article (in brackets) if it differs from the WP:COMMONNAME. There are no exceptions to this. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:49AF:CA13:80CC:B8C2 (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Except you have provided no evidence that it's a "common name". I will be moving it out of the lead sentence to a later place in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * However commonly used, the on-screen title is always mentioned in the first sentence. No exceptions. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:C59C:A410:479F:B9DD (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to link the policy for that, including the "no exceptions" part. Your saying it doesn't make it true. Otherwise I'll be removing it from the lead sentence. Sundayclose (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "No exceptions" has no basis in the guidelines. I would know, I've been involved with film articles for over a decade. It would be a local consensus depending on each topic. The lead section has the most important information, and the opening sentence contains a key basic description. The on-screen title is ignored by the vast majority of reliable sources writing about the film. Even what I quoted above only mentioned it in the context of screenwriting. It doesn't matter in terms of the big picture. I'm fine with Sundayclose moving it out of the lead section and into a relevant spot in the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not. There is no precedent for removing the on-screen title from the lede. Many reliable sources ignoring it is of no consequence. Wikipedia consistency is. That's the relevant policy. If you could find me other articles where the on-screen title is not mentioned in the very first sentence, you might have an argument, but the onscreen title has always been mentioned at the start. I'm happy to start an RFC on this if we can't agree, but there is simply no precedent for removing this from the lede, so yes, the conversation can be had, but you'd need a pretty persuasive reason to break with Wikipedia consistency. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:C59C:A410:479F:B9DD (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We're waiting for you to link the relevant policy, but we don't plan to wait indefinitely. Feel free to start an RfC, but follow the requirement to word it neutrally. Otherwise it will be reworded. And note that you need to identify yourself for every comment, since you IP hop with every post. We can easily determine whether it's the same person, so don't try to deceive us. That's a great way to get an RfC rejected because of vote-stacking. Sundayclose (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't do any kind of hopping, thank you. It's a dynamic IP, which doesn't alter post-to-post, but session-to-session. I have no idea why, but there you go. Thanks so much for the pleasant tone. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:C59C:A410:479F:B9DD (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Using a different IP with every edit is the definition of IP hopping. I didn't state that you have any control. But if you don't identify yourself with every change of IP when commenting in an RfC, that's vote-stacking. And by the way, don't make changes regarding this issue in the article while discussion is ongoing. Sundayclose (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Has someone been using a different IP with every edit? 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:C59C:A410:479F:B9DD (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So far you've edited the article with 5 different IPs that I know of. That's enough to cause a lot of misunderstanding in an RfC unless you make it clear who you are. Sundayclose (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You may notice that those 5 similar IPs only altered day-to-day. Not post-to-post. Thank you. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:C59C:A410:479F:B9DD (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * By hair-splitting you've missed the point. Just make sure it's clear who you are in an RfC and everything will be copacetic. In any event, this is not the appropriate venue to quibble about those details. Sundayclose (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not splitting hairs. You've suggested that I may be trying to deceive you (which was why I "thanked" you for the pleasant tone), which would probably be the case if every post was a different IP. There is major difference between post-to-post and session-to-session, so thanks for admitting you were wrong. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:C59C:A410:479F:B9DD (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please drop this and move on. Sundayclose (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, the American Film Institute is about the most reliable of reliable film sources. https://catalog.afi.com/Catalog/MovieDetails/55732 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:9018:CEE2:997:8F66 (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * AFI is a good source depending on what it's used for, but it isn't necessarily more reliable than other sources. I'm not sure where you come up with ideas like "no exceptions" and "most reliable of reliable", but as always your saying it doesn't make it true. Also note that the page you link points out that "the majority of reviews and articles published at the time of the film’s release listed the title as one word." But that has already been pointed out in this discussion. It's not a compelling case for WP:COMMONNAME. Sundayclose (talk) 04:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Have I made an RM? No. Am I arguing it's the common name? No... 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:614F:DF63:DA36:F60A (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you provided a link to the policy or guideline for "no exceptions" after a couple of requests to do so? No. Have you provided any evidence for "most reliable of reliable"? No. You've expressed your opinion. Let's wait and see if there is any support for it. Sundayclose (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are indeed no exceptions. At least, not that I have ever seen. Can you find any exceptions? Other than this title right here. And if you want to make an exception for this one... why? It is a well-known fact that the AFI is a highly reliable source. No one is going to deny that. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:614F:DF63:DA36:F60A (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For the fourth time, give us links to back up your bold claims of "no exceptions" and "most reliable of reliable", not just your opinion. Once again, your saying it doesn't make it true. Be aware that consensus is not determined by how many times you can repeat yourself. Also be aware that continuing to repeat the same thing over and over is disruptive editing. Give us the links to back up your claims or stop repeating them. Sundayclose (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I repeat: the policy of consistency between articles. It is not a difficult concept to grasp. If you can't find any exceptions, there are, by definition, and cunning deduction, no exceptions. So... why should this article be the one exception? The onus is on you to explain why one article should be treated differently to all similar articles (Ocean's 8, X-Men: First Class, Nymphomaniac, Scary Movie 5, Mowgli, 13 Reasons Why, Brotherhood, Life Sentence, Cube 2: Hypercube, Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials, M*A*S*H, etc.) 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:614F:DF63:DA36:F60A (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no "policy of consistency between articles". If you think there is, please link it. No one has to obey your command to "find any exception". You, on the other hand, need to back up your claims about "no exceptions" and "most reliable of reliable" with links to actual policies rather than policies you create in your mind. Otherwise, move on and stop being disruptive by endlessly repeating claims with no basis in policy. I'm very serious about stopping this incessant repetition. Read WP:DISRUPT, especially WP:IDHT. Accordingly, I will not pander to your disruptive editing. Thus far you have no support for your edit, either here or in Wikipedia policy. Future repetitive comments will be ignored. A reasonable period of time to establish consensus is a couple of weeks. After that time, if you don't get significant support from other editors, your edit will be removed and placed in an appropriate place later in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are no policies or guidelines that requires including on-screen titles. There is no explicit policy for consistency other than article titles being WP:CONSISTENT. Since this is related to film, there would need to be WikiProject Film WP:CONSENSUS to support this, and that does not exist. Furthermore, the examples are a mixed bag where some alternative titles are also reflected in the marketing materials, where I've seen local consensus to mention them. That's not the case for Beetlejuice. The existence of these examples do not mean they are valid; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Some examples seem worthwhile, others are not. Like who cares if Ocean's 8 spelled out the number onscreen, and who cares if Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials only focused on the subtitle onscreen? There is a stronger case to make in mentioning alternative titles reflected in marketing materials, as they may be likely to be searched for, but not necessarily on a universal basis. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmmmm, even IMDB has "Beetle Juice" as the primary title. Weird that Wikipedians are ignoring this notable variation. I'm struggling to understand from the above discussion why you want it buried? Jenny Jankel (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, IMDb does not have it as the primary title. It says "Beetlejuice (1988)" in both the web page's title and on the page itself. I'm not sure what you're looking at. And as far as I can tell, no one is objecting to mentioning Beetle Juice in the article body. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is a summary of the most important parts of the article body. A difference of a space in an early copy of the script is not important compared to other details about the film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't about the script. IMDB's policy is to use what appears on screen as their primary title, which is why it is "Beetle Juice" (two words) as the primary title there (you will only see their localized display title if you're accessing via your phone), and I have to agree with the above argument that I haven't come across a Wiki page which doesn't show this in the lead. If you did have consensus to move it from the lead (I don't see consensus) then the correct course of action would be to move it to the article body, not delete it entirely. Jenny Jankel (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's about what IMDb uses as the title on it's page for the film. Give us your evidence that "IMDB's policy is to use what appears on screen as their primary title", and then explain why IMDb uses "Beetlejuice" as the title for its article as well as the content of its article. And yes, there was a consensus because there were no comments here for three weeks. You just violated that consensus by not getting a new consensus. Feel free to mention "Beetle Juice" in the body of the article, but not in the lead without a new consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you're getting funny about "new consensus" because a couple of weeks elapsed. If you had consensus, your move would be to move it to the article body, not delete it, which you have once again done. Here is the evidence of IMDB's title policy, which has always been this way, and I repeat for the third time: IMDB's primary title for this film is Beetle Juice. Their display titles are localized common titles, which is why you see "Beetlejuice", but you will notice the primary title directly below the display title. Jenny Jankel (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Three weeks without discussion is quite sufficient to determine consensus. Consensus can change, so please seek a change in consensus before changing the lead. Sundayclose (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Anything to say about the evidence presented above? And what policy says three weeks is enough? The discussion is ongoing. Aggressively hitting my talk page with false warnings isn't going to get you anywhere. Jenny Jankel (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

 * It's very clear from the above that there is zero consensus to change the title on this page. There are two camps on the subject and neither are moving. @Jenny Jankel can argue that the discussion is "on-going", but you are the only voice pro change and the dissenters aren't budging. If you feel that the issue needs mediation, I'd suggest that you take this to admin as the horse is officially dead. Ckruschke (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * I'm fairly sure no one was trying to change the page title, and your count is also... wrong. But thanks for your input! Jenny Jankel (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'm admittedly coming late to the party, but I need some help understanding exactly what is being asked. Does someone (,, or the IPv6 user on Sky Broadband in the UK, perhaps) want to rename (move) the article? Rewrite the lede? I've read this Talk section and am really confused as to what—specifically—is being asked. I'll appreciate any help any of y'all care to give. Meanwhile, I'm going to get some popcorn and rewatch the movie. Cheers! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 01:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In essence, it is about whether or not to mention Beetle Juice as an alternative title in the opening sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've thought about the title's variance before, but I shrugged it off because it's not the first work of fiction to have that type of inconsistency. If it's important enough, rather than just some trivial thing, to mention on the page, I'm okay with that. Film Bio Legacy (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Character name spelling
I realize I'm reopening a can of worms, but can we take another swing at achieving consensus for how this article should spell the character name? Going to start this out as a plain old discussion, but can turn it into an RfC if there isn't enough engagement or if consensus remains elusive...

Note that I'm not questioning how to spell the movie title, which seems to be a relatively settled question, just how to refer to the character. I see there are claims on this page that consensus has been reached (both for "Beetlejuice" and for "Betelgeuse", which is a good sign consensus probably has not been reached), but it seems pretty clear from a review of past discussions that it has not been. Furthermore, the article currently uses the "Beetlejuice" spelling for the character within the lead and plot sections, "Betelgeuse" in the cast section, and a mix of both in the production section, making it confusing to read.

From a review of past discussions, it seems that this all stems from inconsistency within the film itself, so it's understandable that there's not a clear answer. To try to summarize:
 * Written usage throughout the film is consistently "Betelgeuse" (on the attic TV, in the model graveyard, etc.)
 * Opening credits display "Beetle Juice" with a space
 * End credits use "Betelgeuse"
 * The scripts cited in references 6 and 9 use a mix of all, with the script in reference 6 favoring "Beetle Juice" and the version in reference 9 favoring "Betelgeuse"
 * Tim Burton uses "Betelgeuse" in Burton on Burton
 * Source review (again, looking only at where the sources are referring specifically to the character):
 * "Beetlejuice": AllMovie (cite 1); Esquire (cite 2, 2020); Variety (cite 4, 2023), Uproxx (cite 11, 2015), Mental Floss (cite 13, 2018), Starburst magazine, (cite 23, 2019), Rotten Tomatoes (cite 27), Metacritic (cite 28), New York Times (cite 31, 1988), Broadway World (cite 45, 2020), IGN (cite 46, 2017), Playbill (cite 47, 2017)
 * "Betelgeuse": Burton on Burton (cite 5+, 2006), Filmtracks (cite 22, 1999), Washington Post (cite 32, 1988), New York Times (cite 33, 1988), Roger Ebert (cite 34, 1988), [ Comedy-Horror Films: A Chronological History, 1914-2008 (cite 35, 2009)]
 * A mix: 2nd draft of script (cite 6), script (cite 9)

To simplify discussion, let's call Option A support for using "Beetlejuice" throughout when referring specifically to the character, and Option B support for using "Betelgeuse".

Pinging editors involved in past discussions on this topic, with apologies for those of you who discussed this 15 years ago and don't care anymore. I've skipped those who haven't edited in years and years. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:Beetlejuice Beetlejuice. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Option B ("Betelgeuse") because that is the spelling used within the film, and that spelling is somewhat of a plot point itself (given the characters have trouble pronouncing it, which they likely would not if it was spelled "Beetlejuice"). I'm also swayed by the fact that it's the spelling favored by Burton himself in his autobiography. There is no clear WP:COMMONNAME among the sources used in this article — by numbers alone, "Beetlejuice" wins out 12–6, but excluding some of the lower-quality or UGC sources leaves it roughly even. I would also support adding a footnote explaining the spelling discrepancies. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Option B If "Betelgeuse" is the name given in the film and by the credits then, honestly, I don't understand why this discussion is happening. This is the factually correct spelling of the name. This isn't a WP:COMMONNAME issue because we are not discussing the name of the article, so the amount of coverage the factually inaccurate spelling gets is irrelevant. Betty Logan (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Option B ("Betelgeuse"): I concur with the above and support adding a footnote, perhaps as early as the introductory paragraph: "starring [...] Michael Keaton as the title character" (emphasis mine). Beaudine Wilson (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Lack of Consensus: I'm sorry and I'm probably going back on what I've said in the past, but when the movie and all the literature on the movie is titled Bettlejuice and other references to the character within and without of the movie spell it Betelgeuse, even the source material has no consensus with itself so I'm not sure how Wikipedia can sort it out when its unsortable. Yes that option is hard to take and keeping the page the mess that it is is stupid, but I'm not sure how we can make a decision when even Burton doesn't refer to the movie with its given title spelling - he's part of the problem. Ckruschke (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * We can reach a consensus on how to treat it within the article(s) even if the source material is inconsistent. That doesn't mean we're deciding what the One True Spelling is, we're just picking an option to stick to for our own internal consistency. I've suggested including a footnote on the spelling inconsistencies as well, to directly note in the article that there is some variation in how the name is spelled. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I've implemented the change given the general consensus here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Aaand someone already broke it. Beaudine Wilson (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Cult Following?
Should we add a “cult following” status to Beetlejuice? It seems to have acclaimed one over the years, in my opinion. Meghan Norry (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Beetlejuice


text:
Talk:Bad Boys

Is this original material, or copied from another source? RickK 21:12, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Detroit Pistons
I added the Pistons reference...I think the "Bad Boys" are big enough to have their own article, but I won't be able to start one for a while (and I'm pretty bad at making articles)

Love, Atog 21:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ndlangisa Thole ngqagqane lwandle
this is the most serious family i ever had there is three children mother and father only five 💓❤❤🧡😂🤨 41.116.120.55 (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bad Boys


text:
User talk:Ranga~enwiki

Hi. Is your Bad Boys article your own work, or was it copied from another source? If it's your own work, it's well-written, but Wikipedia isn't a place for movie reviews. If you can give us Neutral point of view discussions of movies, please do so. RickK 21:17, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Ranga. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Ranga~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ranga~enwiki


text: User talk:81.79.111.66

title: User talk:81.79.111.66


text:
User talk:Kourtney

Hello. I'm Kourtney. Summer projects stink and I'm getting tired of them..... so How are you? :-) Have a nice day!

title: User talk:Kourtney


text:
Haeinsa

Haeinsa is a Buddhist temple in Gayasan National Park, South Gyeongsang Province, South Korea. It is the head temple of the Jogye Order of Korean Seon Buddhism. Haeinsa is most notable for being the home of the Tripitaka Koreana, the whole of the Buddhist Scriptures carved onto 81,350 wooden printing blocks, which it has housed since 1398.

Haeinsa is one of the Three Jewels Temples, and represents Dharma or the Buddha’s teachings. It is still an active Seon practice center in modern times, and was the home temple of the influential Seon master Seongcheol, who died in 1993.

History
The temple was first built in 802. Legend says that two monks of royal Daegaya descent, Suneung and Ijeong, returned from Tang China and healed Aejang of Silla's wife of her illness. In gratitude for Gautama Buddha's mercy, the king ordered the construction of the temple. Another account, by Choe Chi-Won in 900 states that Suneung and his disciple Ijeong, gained the support of a queen dowager who converted to Buddhism and then helped to finance the construction of the temple.

The temple complex was renovated in the 10th century, 1488, 1622, and 1644, respectively. Huirang, the temple abbot enjoyed the patronage of Taejo of Goryeo during that king’s reign. Haeinsa was burned down in a fire in 1817 and was rebuilt in 1818. Another renovation in 1964 uncovered a royal robe of Gwanghaegun of Joseon, who was responsible for the 1622 renovation, and an inscription on a ridge beam.

The main hall, Daejeokkwangjeon (대적광전, 大寂光殿: Hall of Great Silence and Light), is unusual because it is dedicated to Vairocana, whereas most other Korean temples house images of Gautama Buddha in their main halls.

The Temple of Haeinsa and the Depositories for the Tripiṭaka Koreana Woodblocks were made a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1995. The UNESCO committee noted that the buildings housing the Tripiṭaka Koreana are unique because no other historical structure was specifically dedicated to the preservation of artifacts and the techniques used were particularly ingenious.

The temple also holds several official treasures including a realistic wooden carving of a monk and interesting Buddhist paintings, stone pagodas, and lanterns.

Crisis
During the Korean War, the area surrounding Haeinsa Temple was a site of conflict between North Korean guerillas and the allied forces of South Korea and the United Nations Command. In September of 1951, during an anti-guerilla bombing campaign, Air Force Colonel Kim Young-hwan was ordered to destroy the temple. He refused, instead leading his squad of fighter jets over the temple without dropping a single bomb.

Janggyeong Panjeon (National Treasure No. 32)
The storage halls known as the Janggyeong Panjeon complex are the depository for the Tripiṭaka Koreana woodblocks at Haeinsa and were also designated by the Korean government as a National Treasure on December 20, 1962. They are some of the largest wooden storage facilities in the world. Remarkably, the halls were untouched during the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98) and were spared from the 1818 fire that burned most of the temple complex down. All told, the storage halls have survived seven serious fires and one near-bombing during the Korean War when a pilot disobeyed orders because he remembered that the temple held priceless treasures.

Janggyeong Panjeon complex is the oldest part of the temple and houses the 81,258 wooden printing blocks from the Tripiṭaka Koreana. Although the exact construction date of the hall that houses the Tripiṭaka Koreana is uncertain, it is believed that Sejo of Joseon expanded and renovated it in 1457. The complex is made up of four halls arranged in a rectangle and the style is very plain because of its use as a storage facility. The northern hall is called Beopbojeon (Hall of Dharma) and the southern hall is called the Sudara-jang ("Hall of Sutras"). These two main halls are 60.44 meters in length, 8.73 meters in width, and 7.8 meters in height. Both have fifteen rooms with two adjoining rooms. Additionally, there are two small halls on the east and west which house two small libraries.

Several ingenious preservation techniques are utilized to preserve the wooden printing blocks. The architects also utilized nature to help preserve the Tripitaka. The storage complex was built at the highest point of the temple and is 655 meters above sea level. Janggyeong Panjeon faces southwest to avoid damp southeasterly winds from the valley below and is blocked from the cold north wind by mountain peaks. Different sized windows on the north and south sides of both main halls are used for ventilation, utilizing principles of hydrodynamics. The windows were installed in every hall to maximize ventilation and regulate temperature. The clay floors were filled with charcoal, calcium oxide, salt, lime, and sand, which reduce humidity when it rains by absorbing excess moisture which is then retained during the dry winter months. The roof is also made with clay and the bracketing and wood rafters prevent sudden changes in temperature. Additionally, no part of the complex is exposed to sun. Apparently, animals, insects, and birds avoid the complex but the reason for this is unknown. These sophisticated preservation measures are widely credited as the reason the woodblocks have survived in such fantastic condition to this day.

In 1970, a modern storage complex was built utilizing modern preservation techniques but when test woodblocks were found to have mildewed, the intended move was canceled and the woodblocks remained at Haeinsa.

Tourism
It also offers Temple Stay programs where visitors can experience Buddhist culture.

title: Haeinsa


text:
Liu Chen (Shu Han)

Liu Chen (died December 263), the Prince of Beidi (北地王), was the fifth son of Liu Shan, the second ruler of the state of Shu Han during the Three Kingdoms period of China. Liu Chen opposed the plans of Qiao Zhou to surrender to the opposing force under general Deng Ai from the rival state of Cao Wei. Liu Chen attempted to convince his father to fight for the honour of Shu, so Liu Bei (the founder of Shu) could look upon him as a redeemed ruler of Shu. However, Liu Shan threw Liu Chen out of the court for this. He then went to Liu Bei's ancestral temple and killed his wife and children before committing suicide.

Liu Chen is depicted in the Wu Shuang Pu (無雙譜, Table of Peerless Heroes) by Jin Guliang.

Liu Chen's story is reenacted in a play of the Yue opera.

title: Liu Chen (Shu Han)


text:
Talk:Liu Shan/Archive 1

Pinyin transliteration
What is the pinyin transliteration? --Jiang 21:34, 10 August 2003 (UTC)

 * Just added Líu Chán. Were you asking about that? --Menchi 21:47, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

 * It's the same "Chan" as Zen. --Menchi 22:09, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I'm just too illiterate to figure it out myself. --Jiang 22:13, 10 August 2003 (UTC)

Hi, i'm moving this page to Liu Shan as that is the correct pronunciation. There are two pronunciations to "禅": chán and shàn. In this case it is the second one as you might recall the adopted son of Liu Bei is Liu Feng. "Feng" and "Shan" make "封禅", which means to be throned. --Plastictv 10:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Shan is a transliteration: e.g. "Nanking" for "Nanjing". Wikipedia generally uses the modern pinyin. Aran|heru|nar 06:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct name
i've moved the page Liu Chan (which is now a redirect page) to Liu Shan because "shàn" is the correct pronunciation for "禅" in this case. There was confusion previously because there are "chán" is another and more widely used pronunciation for the character. However, the first son of Liu Bei (adopted) was named Liu Feng (刘封); and "封禅" (pronounced "fēng shàn") means "to be throned".
 * If the correct name is Liu Shan, then wouldn't the whole article be with the name Liu Shan? In almost the whole article, it is referred to as "Liu Chan". I'm not going to change it now, but I'll let you decide. FinalHeaven 23:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The correct pronunciation is Liu Chan. I am a native Mandarin speaker - 禅 can be pronounced in two ways, Chan and Shan. In this case, Chan is the generally accepted pronunciation. Aran|heru|nar 06:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

 * May I beg to differ. I too am a native Mandarin speaker (not that this is particularly relevant to this discussion).  禅 is only pronounced as Chan when it is used in a Buddhist context.  This is analogous to how 南 is pronounced as Na in Buddhist contexts even though it is normally Nan.  When 禅 is used in any other context (in particular, in the context meaning the passing of the Imperial Crown, which is the original intention of Liu Bei as can be seen from the name Liu Feng 刘封), it is always pronounced as Shan (see 辞海 for instance).  Please also note that the use of 禅 in its Buddhist context would be extremely rare during the Three Kingdoms period.  Herbert Xu 01:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct name
I think it should stay Liu Chan because he is mainly called Liu Chan and even in video games such as Dynasty Warriors 5 he is still refered to as Liu Chan.
 * However, as the article explained, there is strong circumstantial evidence that "Shan" is correct. Videogames aren't good sources.  --Nlu (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Full ACK. Sarazyn • TALK • DE 21:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Liu Shan/Archive 1