text:
Talk:Comparison of free software for audio

Untitled discussion
Guaka's question: Can I use (copy/paste/edit) parts of your "Sound & MIDI Software For Linux" pages into the Wikipedia [0]?

Dave Phillips' answer Yes, you can use whatever parts you like. I do ask that you mention my site, but I see that you've already done so.

Guaka 11:20, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Guaka: when deleting stuff, please mention in the comment for the deletion that you moved it elsewhere. o/w it looks like vandalism. cheers, Waveguy 03:15, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

cat
there should be a free audio software category with all of these programs in it. note for future, since WP is really unresponsive today. - Omegatron 15:36, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Are there any free audio software which record what is being produced to the speaker? --  Thorpe  talk 17:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Try AudacityOpenSebJ 09:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

vkeybd
I think vkeybd is worth adding, but don't know which of the links suits best for it, and which of the page parts. [first link (from the Debian package 0.1.17-3)] [second link (from Google)] -- Aleksej S.

operating systems
for now on if you will, add what operating system the software will run on to avoid frustration (since most of them are for linux, and most readers are probably using Windows) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.38.83.189 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

merge
Shouldn't we merge this article with this one ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_audio_software

 * I agree, there is a lot of overlap. The problem is that Linux and Free audio software are not mutually inclusive, so which one should go?  There already is "Category:Free audio software" so I suggest that this page be merged in, consolidated, and disolved. (Requestion 17:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

 * You are completely right about the inclusive or not issue on linux and free software. And the argument of the already existing category convince me.

 * FYI, Category:Linux software was recently deleted because of it's blurry scope. If these two articles are merged, I suggest we use "free audio software" as the merged article to avoid that scope problem (and this article is better quality anyway). Gronky 14:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I disagree. Not all Linux software fits into the Free software category. What do you propose to do with the OSS that is not by definition FS? Delete it? That would be vandalism.  If one of these lists has to go then I suggest merging both the Free and Linux audio software lists into a new list called Unix audio software.  Maybe it would be better to delete both of these lists and make it a category? (Requestion 16:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

 * "The OSS that is not by definition FS"? There is no such audio software, so you've asked me what we should do with nothing, so I'll suggest we don't do anything with nothing.  Agreed?  And we'll proabably also agree that doing nothing with nothing does not count as vandalism.  ("Open source" is the term of a free software marketing campaign which was launched in 1998.)  And there's a category, here: Category:Free audio software Gronky 22:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't oppose merging "Linux audio software" into "Free audio software", but I would oppose a merge in the opposite direction. Free audio software is a definable category of software that can be written about, so having an article about it is good.  Linux audio software is a bad topic to write an article about because it's not defineable - would software that runs on WINE be included?  What if the GNU/Linux version was poor quality and/or outdated compared to the Windows or MacOS versions?  What if only half the functionality is available for the GNU/Linux version?  What if the software works but is unuseable compared to the Windows version because the utility is in the plug-ins, not the software, and the plug-ins do not work on GNU/Linux?  For those reasons, I think there should be an article on free audio software, and the only question is whether or not to get rid of the Linux audio software article (by merging it in here). Gronky 22:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

 * From the article Free software: "while most open source software is also free software and vice-versa, this is not always the case." So by Wikipedia's own definition FS != OSS but they are subsets.  Your comment about "definable category of software that can be written about" makes absolutely no sense and I have no idea what you are talking about.  I suggest that the Free audio software article be deleted because the Category:Free audio software makes it completely redundant. (Requestion 17:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

 * Neither FS or OSS is a subset of the other, you've made an incorrect assumption. They are two overlapping sets - there is FS that is not OSS, and there is OSS that is not FS, but, the overlap is 99.9% and the 0.1% of non-overlap is made up of unused, irrelevent software.  This level of overlap is no accident.  "OSS" was invented as a new name for "free software", so their definition just rewording the existing free software definition.  So for all practical purposes, FS=OSS (and OSS is just a marketing campaign for the former.  This article is useful because, unlike the category, it has short descriptions of each entry. Gronky 03:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I will agree that the Free audio software page is cleaner and higher quality than the List of Linux audio software. The Linux list also has a lot of external links and only half the entries have descriptions, it needs work. I still think that both the Free audio software list and the category are redundant. My opinion is that this sort of list is much better handled as a category.  In light of the category maybe both the Free and the Linux audio list pages should be deleted? (Requestion 04:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

 * Maybe, I'm not sure. A counter argument is that since categories only contain software that WP has articles on.  This article can also include and describe software which does (yet, or might never) have its own article. Gronky 15:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I suggest personaly (after I've read your comments) that the Category:Free audio software should be kept as well as the Free audio software as they are "correlated" (like here : Category:Cultural movements). It's possible to include the softwares that are not included in the category in the article and it might be also intersting to include all this ambiguity (between OSS softwares and Free Softwares). Coltie 16:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The reason this list and the Category:Free audio software are redundant is because they are "correlated." I don't think we need any more "ambiguity" since we have more of that on Wikipedia than we know what to do with. What we need is more clarity and less overlap. This merge issue with List of Linux audio software has put both software lists in a sort of limbo. I think this issue needs to be resolved soon for the good of both lists. My vote is still to merge this list into the Linux list because the category makes this list redundant. (Requestion 21:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC))

 * I just thought of an alternative compromise solution. Merge the List of Linux audio software into this list. Delete or change the Category:Free audio software to something like a Category:Unix audio software. That way we reduce the redundancy and we keep the same coverage. This is basically a flip of my previous suggestion with the same perceived benefits. What do you think? (Requestion 21:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC))

 * I expect that "Unix blah software" will have the same problem that caused "Category:Linux software" to be deleted. It's just too big and the scope is too blurry. Just my 2c. Gronky 20:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

 * "Same problem, too big, and too blurry?" What!? The only reason Category:Linux software was deleted was because no one knew about it and you were the only person to vote Delete. See Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_20. Gronky I called your bluff and you are busted. (Requestion 21:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

 * AS Gronky pointed out, the term "unix" bring the same problem. I just got the idea that we could add in brackets the operating system that each programs support. Then, "Free audio software" might be the terms that could contain linux softs, free softs which are non-OSS,...Coltie 17:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

 * About 2 months have passed now, and still nothing have been merge. Is it time to did it? Many arguements arn't bad, but I think we should go on... Anyone against merging to Category:Free audio software and an article of the same name?
 * NB: How can I know that I can go on merging while following the law of wikipedia? Coltie 09:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree that something should be done but I don't understand what you are proposing. Could you please restate what you would like to merge and/or delete? I'll be acceptable to most anything as long as it is fair and balanced. (Requestion 15:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC))

 * My suggestion, without any other arguments: keep or create a category "free audio software" and an article related with the same name (like Category:Cultural movements ) to englobe all software and then add for example in brackets to which operating system the soft is related ( like Ardour (Linux and MacOS, GPL,...)Coltie 23:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Ok, there are no answers for about a month... What do we do or what do I do now? No answer doesn't mean at all the agreement of the majority...Coltie 13:37, 2 Mai 2007 (UTC)

 * Just leave it as it - FOSS doesn't have to mean Linux - if we can just add the OS's it should be fine.

Links
It would be good if there were links to the company's websites for every mention of the software. -- Jacroe 16:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia tries to avoid this because it's such a temptation for spammers. Gronky 17:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

WavePad
I hope I didn't just mess up there by removing WavePad. I think I did. I saw "This article is about free software as used in the sociopolitical free software movement; for non-free software distributed without charge, see freeware." at the top of the page, but.. then I just noticed it also says "Free audio software is free software (and usually open source software) for use by sound engineers, audio producers, and those involved in sound recording and reproduction." That seems to be a bit conflicting. It should be clarified. Which is it, free as in the free software movement free, or freeware (AND "usually open source software")? --AshyRaccoon Talk 05:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

MadTracker, Reaper?
I wonder whether MadTracker and Reaper can be added to the list. MadTracker is a freeware tracker software. Reaper is an unexpiring shareware. --kosu Talk 13:11, 26 Nov 2007 (IST)

Licence Information
If someone updated one of the tables with the softwares license (e.g. GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT), I would understand why this page would vary in comparison to the linux audio software page. At the moment, it's taking a long time to open each and view the licence for the piece of audio software.

Just an idea which would make things easier for people ... not sure if it's a  good idea though!

--J05HYYY (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I started doing it ... realized it was a good idea but haven't got time to do the rest so there is a job which needs finishing. --J05HYYY (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

MilkyTracker
Added MilkyTracker to the list of trackers. Gyzome (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ardour
Claims to be 'free', but is really just crippleware, with fascistic locks on the GPL'd source code and a developer nagging for "Software Developer's Dole". It doesn't deserve to be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.14.156.195 (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC) hai guys.............i used the audio editor fleximusic wave editor is so simple.......just try it as me............. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steevei1000 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

include:
FreeRIP? Narssarssuaq (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seq24 links here, but is not on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.68.171.60 (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Add more software
There are lots of software that are not included (such as the ones that appear in LibreMusicProduction), it may be a good idea to add them in order to have a complete list of FOSS. Should I get some permission in order to do this? Thanks. Lightmachete (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there software that helps to categorize my collection? I have lots of music on my pc. Sometimes tracks have their number as a prefix, other times not. So there's duplication of tracks.

What's out there to use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCF5:E060:28F8:15DC:ABEE:9CFD (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent Plague: Malware Attacks on Audio Freeware Utilities
This may be a bit off topic, but I don't know where to turn. It's a funeral.

I've been using simple Audio Freeware recording utilities since the 1990s, mostly those that "record what your sound card is playing," from the popular freeware download sites such as Cnet. Typically they may have simple editing abilities such as volume and fade-in/out, and output recordings in several possible common formats and compression levels. A favorite was called something like: "Sound Recorder for Free," but recently has seemingly been passed around from one "developer" or distributor to another. (I also use many other small freeware utilities.)

After a computer crash and a several year break, I now find it impossible to find one of the above that does not trigger my (Avast) anti-virus, usually a "PUP" of the redirect, spyware, or adware variety. I surmise that the spam&Co industry folks have found purchasing and infecting freeware to be cost effective. (My work-around is using the full-blown but distracting Audacity freeware.)

If others also find this to be true and troublesome, it seems this should be in the article. I (GASP!) have no idea how this should be worded. --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:1005:EB11:5070:EE3C (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford
 * You are confusing freeware and Free Software. They are completely different. This article lists free software for audio (Audacity is free software, too, not freeware). While free software could technically contain viruses or spyware, it is highly unlikely. There may be three common explanations. First, antivirus software is notorious for false alarms (and harmless free software is often its innocent victim). Second, you may be downloading free software from infamous websites that have been known to add adware/spyware etc. to free software packages (which do not contain any adware or spyware by themselves). So just do not download re-packaged or rebranded software from scam websites (for free software, this mean you should download it from their own original websites, or just use the package manager from your operating system if you're using a system like Linux). And third, you may indeed be confusing free software with freeware. Yes, many "freeware" programs are actually adware, crippleware, spyware or malware. But that's what you get when you insist on using obscure proprietary software (like many dubious freeware programs). Anyway, I don't think anything like this should be in the article.—J. M. (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Room EQ Wizard
Would someone please take the time to include Room EQ Wizard, https://www.roomeqwizard.com/ in the audio analysis section. JCH (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)JHymen

 * This article is a comparison of free software for audio. Room EQ Wizard is not free software. It is proprietary software (see the EULA), so it cannot be included in the list. Besides, it does not have its own article, which means it cannot be included in other lists either, as stand-alone lists on Wikipedia generally only include notable items that have their own article.—J. M. (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Simpler title?
Why not just call it Comparison of free audio software? In reference works like WP, usually "less is more". :?) – AndyFielding (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds a bit like Comparison of software for free audio. I think "free software" is a precise technical term that should be as undivided as possible to make it unambiguous. Alternatively, many people could also read "free audio software" as "audio software for free". In fact, that's the way many people interpret it anyway and keep adding proprietary freeware to various free software lists on Wikipedia. That's why I would even say more is more—Comparison of free and open-source software for audio would make it clearer, even though people could still read it as "software that's either available for free or is open-source".—J. M. (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


text:
Friuli

Friuli (Friûl ; Friul or Friułi; Furlanija; Friaul) is a historical region of northeast Italy. The region is marked by its separate regional and ethnic identity predominantly tied to the Friulians, who traditionally spoke the Friulian language. It comprises the major part of the autonomous region Friuli-Venezia Giulia, i.e. the administrative provinces of Udine, Pordenone, and Gorizia, excluding Trieste.

Names
The name originates from the ancient Roman town of Forum Iulii ("Julius' Forum"), now Cividale del Friuli.

Geography
Friuli is bordered on the west by the Veneto region with the border running along the Livenza river, on the north by the crest of the Carnic Alps between Carnia and Austrian Carinthia, on the east by the Julian Alps, the border with Slovenia and the Timavo river, and on the south by the Adriatic Sea. The adjacent Slovene parts of the Soča/Isonzo valley from Gorizia/Nova Gorica up to Triglav and the Vipava Valley, forming the Goriška region, may also be considered part of historic Friuli.

The mountainous northern part of the region belongs to the Southern Limestone Alps. From west to east, the region's highest peaks are, in the Carnic Prealps (Dolomiti Friulane)—the Cima dei Preti, 2703 m, Duranno 2652 m, and Cridola 2581 m; in the Carnic Alps—Peralba 2694 m, Monte Bìvera 2474 m and Coglians 2780 m; in the Julian Alps, the Jôf Fuârt 2666 m, the Jôf di Montasio 2754 m, Mangart 2677 m, and Canin 2587 m, which dominates the plain. Rivers flowing southwards from the mountains are numerous. The Friulian mountains surround the course of the Tagliamento river, which, at the latitude of Gemona del Friuli first crosses the hills that occupy the center of the Friuli, then flows into a large flood plain. This plain is commonly divided into the High Friulian plain and the Low Friulian plain (Bassa Friulana), whose boundary is the Napoleonic road that connects the cities of Codroipo and Palmanova. To the south of this road is the risorgive zone, where water resurfaces from underground waterways in spring-fed pools throughout the area. South of the plains lie the lagoons of Marano and Grado, which are nature reserves. Other important rivers include the Torre, Natisone, Stella, Isonzo/Soča, and Ausa.

Friuli covers an area of 8,240 km2, subdivided among the provinces of Udine 4,905 km2, Pordenone 2,178 km2 and Gorizia 466 km2. The historical capital and most important city is Udine, which was also the capital of the medieval Patria del Friuli. Other important towns are Pordenone, Gorizia/Nova Gorica, Sacile, Codroipo, Cervignano del Friuli, Cividale del Friuli, Gemona del Friuli, Monfalcone, and Tolmezzo.

Climate
The climate of the Friulian plain is mainly humid subtropical. The climate in this area is suitable for growing white wine grapes, and 2.5% of wine produced in Italy comes from this part of the region. The hills, however, have a continental climate, and the mountainous regions have an alpine climate. On the coast the mean annual temperature is 14 C, while in the inner plains, the average is lowered to 13 to 13.5 C; Udine 13.1 C, Pordenone 13.3 C, Gorizia 13.4 C). Further north, in Tolmezzo, the average temperature is approximately 10.6 C. The lowest values are recorded in the Alps: 4 C at Passo di Monte Croce Carnico (at 1300 m) and between 5.5 and(-) in Val Canale, which is situated 850 m above sea level. In the coldest month, January, temperatures vary between approximately 4.5 C in Monfalcone and nearly -5 C in Passo di Monte Croce Carnico, with intermediate temperatures of 3 C in Udine and -2 or in Valcanale. Gorizia, a short distance from Udine, enjoys a particularly milder micro-climate with its approximate annual average of 4 C. In the warmest month, July, the temperatures range between 22.5 and(-) along the coast and plains and between 14 and(-) in Val Canale.

Precipitation in Friuli is relatively abundant; the distribution of rainfall varies a great deal during the course of the year. Minimum values in the southern part generally fall between 1200 and(-) (Gorizia over 1350 mm and Udine over 1400 mm), whereas the alpine area's maximum annual rainfall is approximately 3000 mm. The Julian Prealps is one of Italy's rainiest regions: Musi receives about 3300 mm of annual precipitation, sometimes even 5000 mm, and can receive 400 mm in a single month. In some areas of Friuli, excessive rainfall has caused erosion and the flooding of many rivers. Snow is sparse in the southern plains (3 or 4 snowy days each year in Udine and Pordenone) but falls more consistently further to the north (Val Canale 25 days, Sauris 23 days, and Passo di Monte Croce Carnico 28 days).

The following weatherbox is from Udine, the main city of Friuli.

Demography
Friuli, Mandament of Portogruaro included, is inhabited by over 1,000,000 people.

One of the most important demographic phenomena in Friuli was emigration. It began in the final decades of the 19th century and ended in the 1970s. It is estimated that more than a million Friulian people emigrated away over a period of approximately one hundred years. According to the most recent census by AIRE (2005), Friulian émigrés living abroad number 134,936. Of these, 56.0% reside in Europe, 24.0% in South America, 10.3% in North America and 4.7% in Oceania. This data only reflects those Friulians and their descendants who have Italian citizenship. The descendants of Friulians are excluded from the census because they are not Italian citizens. Friulians in the world have supported cultural associations called Fogolârs furlans, of which there are 46 in Italy and 156 in the rest of the world.

Origins and the Roman era

In the prehistoric era, Friuli was home to the Castellieri culture. These peoples most likely arrived from the sea and were the dominant culture in the area from about the 15th century BC until the early historical period. During the course of the 4th century BC Friuli was settled by the Carni (in ancient Greek Καρνίοι), a tribe of unknown ethnicity which may have spoken a Celtic, a Venetic or a Rhaetic language, and which introduced advanced techniques of working iron and silver. According to Strabo [4.6] the Carni inhabited "the country about the Adriatic Gulf and Aquileia" and both Pliny [3.22(18)] and Ptolemy [3.1] ascribe Aquileia, Concordia and Forum Julii to belong to the "towns of the Carni" in the "country of the Carni". The Carni worshiped the deity Belenus which is attested by the most numerous votive inscriptions found in and around Aquileia. A northern mountainous area of Friuli still retains the ancient name Carnia.

Beginning from the 2nd century BC, Friuli was colonized by the Romans: Aquileia was the fourth largest city of Italy during Roman imperial times, capital of Regio X of the Italia province (the Augustan region Venetia et Histria). The city was the most important river port on the Natissa river, dominating trade between the Adriatic Sea and northern Europe (carried over the Via Iulia Augusta road). Aquileia owed its importance to the strategic position it has on the Adriatic sea and its proximity to the Alps. This location allowing Rome to intercept barbarian invasions from the East. Julius Caesar quartered his legions in Aquileia during winter. The development of other centers, such as Forum Iulii (Cividale del Friuli) and Iulium Carnicum (Zuglio), contributed to the increase in economic and cultural wealth of Friuli until the first barbarian incursions, at the beginning of the 5th century. In the final decades of the 3rd century, Aquileia became the center of one of the most prestigious bishoprics of the empire, competing in Italy with Milan and, subsequently, Ravenna, for second place to Rome. A Hun invasion marked the start of Friuli's decline: Aquileia, protected by meager forces, was forced to surrender and was razed to the ground by Attila in 452. After the retreat of the Huns, the survivors, who had found shelter in the lagoon of Grado, returned to the city, but found it completely destroyed. The reconstruction of Aquileia was never completed and it never regained the old splendour of the capital of X Regio. The city remained important even after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, due to the creation of the Patriarchate of Aquileia. It ranked among the highest ecclesiastic authorities in Italy from the mid-6th century onward. The lack of security in the Friulian plain, crossroads of all the great barbarian invasions, drove many people to seek shelter on the islands of the lagoons or in fortified hill-villages, causing a generalized depopulation of the more fertile part of the region and its consequent colonization by barbarian gentes.

Middle Ages
After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, Friuli belonged to the kingdom of Odoacer and subsequently to that of Theodoric the Great. The Byzantine reconquest under Justinian I was brief in the region, in 568 it was one of the first provinces conquered by the Lombards, who invaded from Pannonia, and with that, ended the Greek-Byzantine era of the region. The Lombard king Alboin established the Duchy of Friuli, the first Lombard duchy, and granted it to his relative Gisulf I. The capital of the duchy was established at Forum Iulii (Cividale del Friuli), which became the most important city of the area and for where it derived its name.

The duchy of Friuli was from the start one of the most important Lombard duchies. It served as a barrier against the threat of invasion by the Avars and Slavs from Pannonia. Among the duchies of the North, which were closely aligned with the crown (unlike Spoleto and Benevento to the South), it was the most powerful, probably due to its marcher status. Among later dukes, Ratchis became king in 744 and his ducal successor, Aistulf, succeeded him as king in 749. The historian Paul the Deacon was born in Friuli (730/5), he went on to write the Historia Langobardorum and taught Latin grammar at Charlemagne's court. Another teacher and a trusted advisor Charlemagne's court, Paulinus, was born at Cividale and eventually became patriarch of Aquileia.

After the Kingdom of Italy fell to the Franks, the duchy of Friuli was reorganized into counties according to the Frankish model. The region was again reorganized into the March of Friuli in 846. The march was granted to the Unruoching dynasty. Friuli became the base of power of Berengar I during his struggles for the throne of Italy between 888 and 924.

The march was transformed under his rule, its territory extended to Lake Garda, the capital moved to Verona, and a new March of Verona and Aquileia established in its place. The territory was now subjected to the Duchy of Bavaria, then to the Duchy of Carinthia, for more than a century.

On 3 April 1077, the Emperor Henry IV granted the county of Friuli, with ducal status, to Sigaerd, Patriarch of Aquileia. In the succeeding centuries, the patriarchate expanded its control over neighboring Trieste, Istria, Carinthia, Styria, and Cadore. The patriarchal state of Friuli was one of the best organized polities of the Italian Middle Ages. From the 12th century it possessed a parliament representing the communes as well as the nobility and the clergy. This institution only survived six centuries, remaining alive yet weak even during Venetian domination. It convened for the last time in 1805, when it was abolished by Napoleon Bonaparte. The Patriarch Marquard of Randeck (1365–1381) had gathered together and codified all the laws of Friuli and promulgated them as the Constitutiones Patriae Foriiulii ("Constitutions of the Country of Friuli"). Cividale del Friuli was seat of the Patriarchate until 1238, when the patriarch moved his seat to Udine, where he had a magnificent episcopal edifice constructed. Udine was so important that it in time became the institutional capital of Friuli.

Venetian domination to Bourbon restoration
The Patriarchate ended in 1420: surrounded by the powerful states of the Austrian Empire, the Kingdom of Hungary and the Republic of Venice, it was the theatre of a war between Hungary and Venice, and was conquered by the latter. Friuli maintained some form of autonomy, by keeping its own Parliament ruling on the old territory of the Patriarchate, an autonomy not granted to the other cities and provinces submitted to Venice (even Venetian ones); on the other side, it maintained also its feudal nobility, which was able to keep their feudal rights over the land and its inhabitants for some time.

Friuli was the eastern border of the Stato da Tera, and suffered both from Ottoman raids and from the border wars with Austria. These wars led to poverty and instability of the rural population, with the inability to cultivate the land crossed by fighting armies and with the forced surrender of all livestock to feed traveling troops. The harvesting of timber needed to build Venetian ships caused complete deforestation of the Bassa Friulana and central Friuli. Venice took possession of collective farms belonging to rural Friulian communities, seriously impoverishing them. These properties in turn would be sold by Venice during the 17th century to raise cash to alleviate its poor financial condition.

Beginning in the 1630s, the Venetian Republic entered a relative decline, due to the enlarging horizon of European markets (reaching now from Asia to Africa to the Americas). Venice's richest families often directed financial resources into unproductive investments (specifically real estate), while there was a loss of competitiveness in industries and services. Friuli was subject to increasing fiscal pressure, and its industries and commercial activities were affected.

According to some historians, the political populism practiced by Venice looked for ways to limit the most oppressive and anachronistic effects of feudalism. Other researchers assert that the Venetian aristocratic government maintained a most oppressive feudal condition in Friuli. These policies were practiced by the Venetian government to ensure the support of the urban and rural population as a counterbalance to the independent tendencies and power of local oligarchies and aristocrats.

An important jacquerie, known as Joibe Grasse 1511 (Fat Thursday 1511), was started in Udine on February 27 by starving Udinesi citizens. They were subsequently joined by the farmers and the revolt spread to the whole territory of Friûl, against the feudal rule of some noble families; some other noble family, like the pro-Venetian Savorgnan, initially supported the revolters. This insurrection was one of the largest in Renaissance Italy and it lasted from 27 February until 1 March, when it ended as Venice dispatched around one hundred cavalry to put down the rebellion. The chiefs of the revolt were executed, but the feudal powers of the Friulian noblemen were reduced.

With the 1516 Noyon pacts the boundary between the Venetian Republic and the County of Gorizia and Gradisca, now in the hands of the House of Habsburg, were redefined. Venice lost the upper Isonzo valley (that is the Gastaldia of Tolmino with Plezzo and Idria), but it kept Monfalcone, Marano and a series of shed feudal islands in the Western Friuli stayed with the Archduke of Austria (until 1543). Between 1615 and 1617 Venice and Austria again fought for the possession of the fort of Gradisca d'Isonzo. The so-called War of Gradisca ended with a return to the status quo.

Beginning in 1516 the Habsburg Empire controlled eastern Friuli, while western and central Friuli was Venetian. In 1797, the year of the Treaty of Campo Formio, this part of the Friuli was surrendered to Austria. For a brief period from 1805 until the Bourbon Restoration, Friuli belonged to the Italic Kingdom.

From the Restoration to the Great War
In 1815, the Congress of Vienna confirmed the union of Veneto, which Central-West Friuli was part of, with Lombardy (previously divided between Austrian Empire and Venetian Republic), to constitute the Kingdom of Lombardy–Venetia. Eastern Friuli was not included in the puppet state. In 1838, the District of Portogruaro was removed from the Province of the Friuli due to the Austrians' wishes and assigned to the Province of Venice. Portogruaro was for long time part of Friuli, even under Venetian Republic, and Friulian language was spoken in the area. In 1866, central Friuli (today's province of Udine) and western Friuli (today's province of Pordenone) were annexed by Italy together with Veneto after the Third Italian War of Independence, while eastern Friuli (County of Gorizia and Gradisca) remained under Austria until the end of World War I.

The Ethnographic map of Karl von Czoernig-Czernhausen, issued by the k. u. k. Administration of Statistics in 1855, recorded a total of 401,357 Friulians living in the Austrian Empire. The majority of Friulians (351,805) lived in that part of Friuli that belonged to the Kingdom of Lombardy–Venetia, the others (49.552) in the Friulian parts of the Austrian Küstenland. Friulians were registered as their own category separate from Italians.

During World War I, Friuli was a theater of battle that had serious consequences for the civilian population, specifically the Battle of Caporetto.

Autonomist movements
After World War II, the pro-devolution movement gained momentum in 1945. Friuli got entangled in the maze of opposing forces acting in the territory. Yugoslavian Titoists pursued an annexation of Friuli to the rising communist Yugoslavia. By contrast, in 1945, the traditionalist association Patrie tal Friul was founded by Tiziano Tessitori with a view to establishing an autonomous Friuli within Italy. The draft autonomic project was launched with the support of the Christian Democratic Party.

In January 1947, the poet and filmmaker Pier Paolo Pasolini went on to found the party Movimiento Popolari Friulano, with the same purpose of devolution. Pasolini opposed a possible Yugoslavian annexation, but at the same time lashed out at those who aimed at using regionalism for their immobilist, "backwards Conservatism". Pasolini dropped membership in his party after the Christian Democrats came to pull its strings. The Communist Party of Italy opposed devolution, sticking to an Italian centralist agenda.

Around 350,000 people claim Friulan as their native language, though it is sparsely used in public life. There are some movements and political parties that advocate a more autonomous, or even an independent Friuli in line with historical borders, such as the Friuli Movement, Front Furlan, Patrie Furlane and Republiche dal Friûl – Parlament furlan.

Regional languages and dialects

While standard Italian is the primary official language of the region, several other regional languages and dialects are spoken in Friuli.

Friulian is spoken in the provinces of Udine, Gorizia, and Pordenone.

Venetian and its dialects are usually spoken (for historical reasons) on the western border regions (i.e. Pordenone), sparingly in a few internal towns (i.e. Gorizia, etc.), and historically in some places along the Adriatic coast.

In the southeastern part of Friuli, a Venetian transitional dialect is spoken, called Bisiaco, that has influences of both Slovene and Friulian.

Slovene dialects are spoken in the largely rural border mountain region known as Venetian Slovenia. German (Bavarian dialect) is spoken in Val Canale (mostly in Tarvisio and Pontebba); in some of Val Canale's municipalities (particularly in Malborghetto Valbruna), Carinthian Slovenian dialects are spoken too. Slovene is also spoken in the Collio area north of Gorizia. In the Resia valley, between Venetian Slovenia and the Val Canale, most of the inhabitants still speak an archaic dialect of Slovene, known as Resian. According to the official estimates of the Italian government, between 45,000 and 51,000 Slovene speakers live in Friuli: around 11,000 in the Province of Gorizia, and the rest in the Province of Udine. Due to emigration, most Slovene speakers in the Province of Udine live outside their traditional compact zone of settlement.

German-related dialects (like Rogasaxon) are spoken in several ancient enclaves like Timau, Zahre (Sauris) and Plodn (Sappada).

Only Friulian, Slovenian and German are allowed to be local secondary official languages in their historic areas, but not their related dialects.

Asteroid
Asteroid 212705 Friûl was named in honor of the region. The official was published by the Minor Planet Center on 25 September 2018 (M.P.C. 111803).

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

title: Friuli


text:
Talk:Natural units

In particle physics/Gaußian units: 4πε₀=1, μ₀=1, c=1
Well, that is impossible. ;) --Chricho ∀ (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Because c2 = 1/(ε0μ0)
 * Just granpa (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

 * It's grossly inaccurate to say that "In Gaussian units, 4πε₀=μ₀=c=1". See Gaussian units. The differences between Gaussian and SI units cannot be summarized by saying what the values are of ε₀ and μ₀ and c. It's far more complicated than that, and much better to just link to the other article (Gaussian units) than to try to explain it here. I just cleared out this and many other misleading oversimplifications of electromagnetism quantities. --Steve (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 * That edit was a major improvement. What may still be a little understated relates to this confusion, especially the assumption (from SI) that $c^{2}ε_{0}μ_{0} = 1$.  Along with the normalization choices in a system of units, there are some complications, such as choices in the form of equations.  I guess this could also be treated as a normalization, in the sense that SI clearly makes the normalisation/assumption expressed in this equation that some of the other systems do not make.  I would think that mention of this is appropriate in this article, as it serves to confuse many.  — Quondum☏✎ 11:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 * I added a little note about that. I think it's better to describe this as a specific complication of electromagnetic units, rather than try to fit everything into a grand framework, which this article does far too much already :-/ --Steve (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree with the special treatment only in the EM case. I've extended it, since I feel the specific case mentioned is confusing to anyone first trying to figure it all out, and an early pointer on this aspect may save such a person a lot of trouble (even though it is possibly misplaced in this specific article: revert it if you feel so).  — Quondum☏✎ 15:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Thank you, it is much better that way. Indeed, I was confused by $$\varepsilon_0 \mu_0 c^2=1$$, which was even used in the table. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

 * You know, Steve, I don't think this edit is so good. It plops in some interpretation of the differences between rationalized and non-rationalized units that is from a particular POV.  Someone else may very well say the opposite, that non-rationalized units are more complicated than rationalized.  Putting the 4π in the denominator with the r2 in an inverse-square law is more natural (and simpler) because it connects the denominator of the inverse-square law directly to the surface area of a sphere in 3-space and to the concept of flux density which gets integrated with Gauss's law to yield the contained charge.  It's pretty flimsy to claim that that
 * $$ F = G \frac{M m}{r^2} $$
 * is less complicated than
 * $$ F = G' \frac{M m}{4 \pi r^2} $$  where   $$ G' = 4 \pi G $$
 * just because the latter has this extra 4π in the denominator. Rationalized units are conceptually less complicated than non-rationalized units. 70.109.178.237 (talk) 03:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You misread what I wrote. The "complication" is the fact that the symbolic law of physics is different depending on the system of units. The "complication" is not the factor of 4pi. I will add a few words to make it clearer. --Steve (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look any better. And I don't think I am misreading you.  The main difference between rationalized and unrationalized units is that one puts a 4π in the denominator with the r2 in an inverse-square law (where it belongs in my opinion) and the other doesn't.  (There may remain a scaling constant in the law if the units are not "natural" in some sense.)  The complication that electrostatic cgs units have is that charge (or current) is not considered to be a fundamental quantity like it is in SI.  So they do to charge like what nearly every unit system does with force, they infer the dimension of something new (force or electric charge) out of what exists (time, length, mass).  In cgs electric charge becomes dimensionally force1/2 × length.  And it isn't true, except for convention that "Newton's law is F = ma in every system of units."  We could define our unit of force to be whatever force is needed to compress some prototype spring (stored in Sèvres) by 1 cm, and then Newton's 2nd law would be F = kma where k would be a constant that would be experimentally determined and listed at the NIST site.  And k would be dimensionally (force × time2)/(mass × length).  It would not be dimensionless and force would not be the same thing as (mass × length/time2).  That is what the complication is about regarding cgs electrostatic units.  It is not about "rationalized" vs. "unrationalized".  The complication regarding electrostatic units is that some people have defined the Coulomb constant to be the dimensionless 1 and others have defined charge as a unique dimension of physical quantity (so with them, generally the Coulomb constant is not dimensionless).  But natural units usually whack the Coulomb constant anyway. 70.109.178.237 (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I am saying that the complication is not the 4pi, which I personally like in Coulomb's law just as much as you do. The complication is that 4pi might or might not be there depending on the system of units.
 * Can you make mechanical units as complicated and inconsistent as electromagnetic units are? Yes, if you are sadistic! You can torture students of physics by inventing a new system of units where force is a fundamental quantity, etc. etc. Thank heavens, no one has ever done that to my knowledge! Therefore, in the world we live in, with the unit systems that are actually in use in the world, mechanical units are "simple". There is no unit system I've ever heard of where F=ma is not the correct equation to use.
 * Many readers looking at this article will have already had the experience of using the same formula, like "F=ma" or "distance = velocity * time", in various different units like meters and centimeters (and inches in USA). They will naturally draw on this experience when thinking about how unit conversions work in general. Therefore it is helpful to point out that the simplicity they might have expected from experience with mechanical equations will not be present in the more complicated world of electromagnetism equations. You seem concerned that readers will get the impression that electromagnetism units are more complicated because there is something fundamentally different about electromagnetism units. I'm happy to add some text clarifying that EM units are complicated because of human reasons (history and sociology) not physics reasons.
 * Out of the multitude of differences between Gaussian and SI units, I agree with you that rationalized versus nonrationalized is not a particularly important difference. Charge-units being fundamental in SI but not Gaussian would be a more important difference. BUT, this is not a section comparing Gaussian and SI units! It is comparing Gaussian and Lorentz-Heaviside units! In BOTH of those systems, charge is not considered to be a fundamental quantity. In fact, I believe the only difference between them is rationalized versus nonrationalized. That's why it's used as an example! --Steve (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, if we agree (and other interested editors) that the complication regarding rationalized units is not because the 4π in the denominator with the r2, and that the complication regarding electrostatic cgs units is because the Coulomb constant, 1/4πε0=1 which forces electric charge to take on a derived dimension of force1/2 × length rather than being some unique dimension of physical quantity, then we should state it as so in the article.  If you disagree with this essential assessment of what complicates EM units, then we are not in agreement here about what the facts are.  If we are in agreement about the facts, then we should write it differently in article.  Since Gaussian units seems to be the only Wikipedia discussion of what is meant by "rationalized", I tried to spell this out there.  But the issue of a derived dimension for charge (because 4πε0=1) is not the same issue as rationalized units vs. unrationalized.  And I cannot tell that from what is in this article now. 70.109.176.173 (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried to rewrite again. I guess I had structured the section a bit strangely, with the last paragraph being redundant with the others. Maybe that helped cause confusion.
 * The fact that electric charge has a derived dimension is true in both Gaussian and Lorentz-Heaviside. So again, if we're contrasting these two systems, the fact that charge has a derived dimension is not one of the differences. But...when I think about it, it is a relevant fact for the article anyway so I put it in at the top before introducing the two variations.
 * I don't understand why you think it is unclear or misleading to say that the two EM unit systems are very inconsistent because there are two natural-units versions of Coulomb's law but only one version of Newton's laws. But whatever. I deleted that and tried a different approach: I described how to get either Gaussian or L-H units starting from SI. I think that is an equally good way to convey the information. --Steve (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Dimensional consistency and natural units.
In this edit, another IP added

"... but it creates more confusion (see below Greater ambiguity paragraph) because the equality is dimensionally inconsistent as mass and momentum have different dimensions or qualities and therefore cannot be summed to give the dimension of energy."

These quantities that are represented in whatever system of natural units are dimensionless. E.g. in Planck units, the mass term is really the mass divided by Planck mass and the momentum and energy are also scaled by the reciprocals of their respective Planck units. I guess my reversion of the edit needed more explanation. 70.109.178.237 (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I understand the phrase "whatever system of natural units are dimensionless" to assert that Dimensional analysis is simply a pseudo algebra created by our choice of measurement. I believe the situation is different and related to the edit by User:86.125.179.179. If we are measuring mass in Planck units of mass, energy in Planck units of energy and speed in Planck units of speed, I believe mass, energy, and velocity are still distinct concepts and measurements.  Surely we don't really mean that mass, energy, and velocity are identical and indistinguishable. (There would however be a certain beauty in saying that all equations reduce to 1 = 1.) I believe we still mean that a unit of (Planck) mass is related to (can be transformed to) a unit of (Planck) energy by a function of (Planck) velocity. I understand User:86.125.179.179 to be asserting that the Planck normalization of equations produces an appearance of simplicity which ignores selected unitary functions.  I believe we still must recognize that dimensional analysis reflects valid concepts that can help validate our equations of existence. SBaker43 (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Okay, I am saying that neither
 * $$E^2 = (pc)^2 + (m c^2)^2\,$$
 * nor
 * $$\left(\frac{E}{E_P}\right)^2 = \left(\frac{p}{m_P c}\right)^2 + \left(\frac{m}{m_P} \right)^2\,$$
 * are dimensionally inconsistent.
 * Physical law that says
 * $$ E = m c^2 \,$$
 * or
 * $$ \frac{E}{E_P} = \frac{m}{m_P} \,$$
 * isn't saying "this much mass is that much energy" or that "this mass is that energy", is it? Maybe it is.  Maybe not.  What is the correct interpretation?
 * Or does
 * $$ E = k_B T \,$$
 * or
 * $$ \frac{E}{E_P} = \frac{T}{T_P} \,$$
 * say that this much energy (per particle) is that much temperature? Is temperature simply another way of saying what the per particle energy content is?
 * Is Newton's law of motion relating two different kinds of physical quantity or are they the same?
 * $$ F = \frac{dp}{dt} $$
 * Is force the very same thing as the time derivative of momentum or is force only proportional to the rate of change of momentum and the two physical quantities are different "stuff"?
 * Physical law relates different quantities of different kinds of physical quantity together.  70.109.178.237 (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Physical law relates different quantities of different kinds of physical quantity together.  70.109.178.237 (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Normalization of α
The section "Choosing constants to normalize" contains the sentence "In a less trivial example, the fine-structure constant, α≈1/137, cannot be set to 1, because it is a dimensionless number." First thing, I agree with the section as a whole. In particular, I agree that it is "not possible to simultaneously normalize all four of the constants...". I'm not arguing about that. Taken in context perhaps the sentence is okay, but it seems to assert a particular idea on its own that is not correct.

There is no reason that α cannot be redefined to be 1 any more than the other constants, and certainly not because it is dimensionless. For example, define $$\alpha' = \alpha/137 = \frac{k_\mathrm{e} e^2}{\hbar c 137}$$ and likewise $$ e^\prime = e/\sqrt{137}$$. This entails scaling the primary electric charge. This is always allowable in defining a new system and the value of e could be scaled in any of the unit systems. There may be some confusion between basic numerical scaling and redefining an entity with different dimensionality (by absorption/multiplication of various constants) as what happens when defining natural unit systems. Both may produce different numerical values for certain entities; however, they are not the same operation, neither are they mutually exclusive.

Next, it's not clear what "less trivial" is supposed to mean. I understand the importance the fine-structure constant in modern physics, but when it comes to the game of normalizing constants and redefining various symbols, I think there is nothing significantly different about the value of alpha. If it is indeed "less trivial" or in any way different than the constants on the other side of the equation or the mass of elementary particles, it needs to be qualified. Also as a matter of pedagogy, "trivial" is overused and should be avoided. There is nothing "trivial" about this subject or even a single example--especially to a student learning these ideas--in choosing and using a well-defined, correct system of units and converting between them. A suggested phrase is "In a more overarching example, ...". --cperk (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree. The section is reformulated as to not make any explicit claims. YohanN7 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Don't share your perspective. It's not just a claim.  It's a fact.   $$\alpha = \frac{e^2}{(4 \pi \epsilon_0) \hbar c } $$ cannot be normalized to a predetermined dimensionless number.  You can, with choice of units, normalize three of the four dimensionful constants that define α, but not all four.  Neither can you, simply with the choice of units, normalize the Proton-to-electron mass ratio, which will always be around 1836 and dimensionless. 71.36.148.25 (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Where does that attitude come from? My perspective is both as an educated physicist, but also as a student continuing to learn.  My perspective as the student sees the "sacredness" of alpha as rather arbitrary.  I added this section so that there could be an insightful discussion about the "why" of the claims, prompting further edits or discussion to improve the article.  But now I'm just supposed to bow to an anonymous contributor that essentially tells me to shut up and just take Wikipedia as "fact"?  I showed that it is perfectly possible to mathematically set $$\alpha$$ to 1 without destroying any physics.  I did not contradict the statement about normalizing more than three constants since I showed that to do this, another of the constants must be scaled (e.g. electric charge).  Other than some historical and practical reasons, there is also no universal sacredness to the numerical value of the electric charge.  User 71.36.148.25 essentially just repeated what is said in the article, adding no additional insight or explanation.  I said nothing of the proton-to-electron mass ratio, so that isn't relevant unless 71.36.148.25 meant it to explain the reasons for claims about $$\alpha$$.  Besides, masses are of the same dimension, so scaling one value scales the other and the ratio remains unchanged.  $$\alpha$$ is not a simple ratio of only two values, but multiple values of different dimensions of which the scaling can be shifted from one to another without destroying the physical relationships between the constants.  Please don't just restate what is in the article and demand that it is fact.  Please share insightful details rather than being the article's dictator. cperk (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Sure, you can, I suppose, redefine 2 to be 1 by redefining it to be $$\frac{2}{2}$$. Why not?
 * Actually, if I were dictator of the world, instead of the current definition of $$\alpha$$, I would define the primary dimensionless value to be $$\sqrt{4 \pi \alpha} = \frac{e}{\sqrt{\epsilon_0 \hbar c}} = 0.30282212$$ (and derive the $$\frac{1}{137.036}$$ number from that). And that is " a simple ratio of only two values": the ratio of the elementary charge to the natural unit of charge in rationalized Planck units.  And it's not 1.  (But it's in the ball park.)
 * And $$e$$ and $$ \sqrt{\epsilon_0 \hbar c} $$ are every bit the same dimensions as are $$m_p$$ and $$m_e$$ the same dimension of stuff. Then, again, we could just redefine $$\mu=\frac{m_p}{m_e}$$ to be $$\frac{m_p}{1836.15267245 \cdot m_e}$$ and then that value is 1 too, and we didn't destroy physics.  Dunno why we can't do that. 70.109.187.202 (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Normalizing $$G$$ and not $$4\pi G$$
Seriously, by removing $$4\pi$$ in the denominator we neglect the connection between inverse square laws and how the surface area of a sphere relates to its radius.--195.194.89.243 (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Totally agree. Take a look at the Planck units article.  The problem, 195, is historical and some understandable inertia in the discipline.  Whether it's $$G$$ or $$4\pi G$$ that is normalized to 1 (by the judicious choice of units) or if it's $$4 \pi \epsilon_0$$ or $$\epsilon_0$$ that is normalized, the Planck scale is still about the same order of magnitude.  So a lot of physicists think "why bother" regarding changing the meaning of something, even if the change is more optimal and more natural.  65.183.156.110 (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Silliness about Planck units
revert (Several issues. k_e is not as well known as epsilon_0. In this article, Planck units do not necessarily normalize k_e.) seems a little POV, so I summarily re-reverted it. Look a little closer: Technically speaking, Planck did not introduce an electromagnetic unit at all. Perhaps we should simply omit the Planck charge from this entry (as well as in Plank units)? A system of units should not be artificially extended by Wikipedia. —Quondum 06:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * k_e is not as well known as epsilon_0: This seems to be a difficult claim to justify. Looking at the Google Ngram viewer, it is known pretty well.
 * In this article, Planck units do not necessarily normalize k_e: Whyever not? One could argue that ε0 could be normalized in Planck units, I guess, but the choice of normalization would have to be stated. Consistency with the article Planck units would require normalization of the Coulomb constant, and no justification is given in this article for any other normalization. The text explicitly says: "Planck units are a system of natural units that is not defined in terms of properties of any prototype, physical object, or even elementary particle. They only refer to the basic structure of the laws of physics ...", so to introduce a rather arbitrary choice of the elementary charge and the fine structure constant (and then to normalize a complicated expression of these) goes directly against that.
 * There apparently are sources for the unit Planck charge. Whether it was created by Planck or named for him later, it seems appropriate to include here. Bcharles (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Gravitation (Misner, Thorne, Wheeler), for example, mentions Planck units for time, length and mass, but makes no mention of charge or temperature. I managed to find an explicit naming in a "reputable" reference (Roger Penrose, The Road to reality), but even here it is rather unsatisfactory, as he gives the normalization choices leading to Planck units, but these choices (G = c = ℏ = kB = 1) do not determine a Planck charge, yet he then concludes what the value of the Planck charge is (about 11.7 proton charges). Several sources say something like "one could define a Planck charge as...".  I have no in-principle objection to the idea that charge and temperature could have been considered to be part of the system post-dating Planck, as long as we get this from a reputable source. At least all the sources that do give a value that I looked at were consistent in their choice, not giving the alternate CGS-Gaussian version of Planck units that I reverted.  Whatever the origin, Planck charge and temperature seem to have some momentum. —Quondum 03:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Greater ambiguity?
I am deleting this bullet point under "advantages and disadvantages". There is no reason to presume that mP and lP would be omitted when stating values in Planck units. Bcharles (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

 * This does not really hold: it is reasonable that when using Planck units, many people would omit their explicit mention, and examples are not difficult to find. For example, Penrose says "... in terms of Planck units, gram = $4.7$", where he omits mP. Nevertheless, the point was made rather fuzzily in the article, and I'm not going to argue that it should be retained. —Quondum 04:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Same dimension of space and time
In natural units space and time have the same dimension due to c=1. This statement deserves further details.--5.2.200.163 (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Bohr atom in Heaviside Lorentz Units
The bulk of the NIST CODATA tables can be explained in terms of Bohr's atom, since this provides the units for further calculations, and this is what the CODATA values do. Since the bohr atom throws up a dimensionless constant (fine-structure constant), setting the base to this allows many more units to become simple values. Everything relating to the electron are simple values of π or the reciprocals of 137/π.

One then uses K=137.036 etc, as an exponent-marker like E=10, so as E5 = 10^5 then K^5 means 137.036^5. The tables are set so that the speed of light, the electron mass and the electron charge are set to K-units (eg K4 'm/s'). The unnamed K-units occupy the same space as the given SI unit.

There is a thread on Dozensonline->Applications->New Systems of Measure->Other measurement systems->Ku And Ko

KU follows much of modern metric theory, CGS lightly rationalised to SI. If the same light rationalisation is applied to give a HLU theory, then the charge is reduced by a factor of \sqrt{4\pi}. We see that the electron mass is K-2 (so the unit is about the size of a boron atom, and N_a is a number bigger than 1), and the speed of light is K3. The unit of charge is K-1.

KO shows the results of calculating Bohr's atom in HLU theory, from first principles. We still have the electron charge at K0, and the electron mass at K-2, but the speed of light is set to K4. One will notice that lengths and times are increased by a factor of 4π, which represents a change from radius to circumference or surface of a sphere, and from radian-times (\lambdaba and \hbar) to cycle-times (\lambda and h). The value of h changes from 2pi to 1/2.

The tables represent the 'exact values' of the CODATA variables, since the errors have been moved into conversion from this system.

--Wendy.krieger (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

length units
under the flag of "natural units" often dimensionless length units are in use like M~rG=rs/2. These are usually built using Planckunits, or G c° kB ke and h°, I denominate them with a sub-"r": I think these should be mentioned in the article too. Ra-raisch (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * m_r=lP*m/mP
 * Q_r=lP*Q/QP
 * L_r=lP*L/h°
 * T_r=lP*T/TP

codata
codata2014 lists (table VI) natural units and atomic units: further several electric au, based upon Q_au=e and ε_au=e²/(a_0·E_au). Ra-raisch (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * v_nu=c, v_au=α·c
 * L_nu=L_au=h/2π
 * m_nu=m_au=me
 * E_nu=c²me, E_au=E_h=α²c²me
 * p_nu¹=c*me, p_au¹=L_au/a_0
 * l_nu=L_nu/(me·c), l_au=a_0
 * t_nu=L_nu/c²me, t_au=L_au/E_au

 * Before you change anything, we might appreciate it if you express exactly what you are proposing to change, with both text and with equations and expressions written with the use of $$ \text{LaTeX} $$. It will be easier to understand exactly what you are saying.  Now I am just guessing. 96.237.136.210 (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

 a.u. units With CODATA 2014 the following "a.u." (atomic units) as well as 15 other derived units were defined:  n.u. units with CODATA 2014 the following "n.u." (natural units) were defined: something like that? Following the articel not mentioning these CODATA natural units should be considered exotic? Ra-raisch (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * charge e
 * mass me
 * action ℏ
 * length a0 (Bohr radius)
 * velocity α·c ≈ c/137 (maximum speed of an electron in Bohr's model with fine structure constant α)
 * energy Eh (Hartree energy)
 * time ℏ/Eh
 * permittivity e²/a0Eh
 * velocity c (vacuum speed of light)
 * action ℏ
 * mass me
 * energy c²me
 * momentum c·me
 * length ℏ/(c·me) (reduced Compton wavelength of the electron)
 * time ℏ/(c²me)

or may-be rather like this Ra-raisch (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 7 natural units ("n.u.") and 18 atomic units ("a.u.") were published in CODATA 2014 Table VII.

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Natural units. 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/20090429035624/http://alpha.montclair.edu/~kowalskiL/SI/SI_PAGE.HTML to http://alpha.montclair.edu/~kowalskiL/SI/SI_PAGE.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) 17:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Clarification of lead section
There is a contradiction between the lead section, which limits "natural units" to physical constants. And the Introduction, where it is written: "Natural units are "natural" because the origin of their definition comes only from properties of nature and not from any human construct"  (For example, the mass of a cm3 of water, could be a "natural unit" -- but this does not seem to fit with the way the lead section writes about the "natural units".  Perhaps the lead section could add an indication that a "narrow" definition is being used.  Or maybe it could be expanded to indicated different meanings? Sdc870 (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Why no article on "absolute units"?
Some few articles in Wikipedia refer to "absolute units" such as watt, ohm, International System of Electrical and Magnetic Units, Centimetre–gram–second system of units, History of the metric system, History of the metre. There are about 30 articles altogether right now -- where some of these pages are referring to units in webpage design. It seems appropriate/useful to have such a page (so I can read more about it!) Sdc870 (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

How to represent the reduced Planck constant?
After modifying the section "System of natural units" to make the proper symbol U+210F ℏ PLANCK CONSTANT OVER TWO PI appear wherever I saw a plain italic h, I called up page history and noticed that it already was some kind of barred h with italics, probably U+0127 LATIN SMALL LETTER H WITH STROKE + italics. All I can say is that for some reason the original character looked like a plain italic h (with no stroke) in the CologneBlue skin I'm using. I suppose that in this case U+210F is the proper character to use anyway. — Tonymec (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that on different systems (browser default font selection, installed fonts, etc.) either if these may occasionally present a problem. U+210F often renders as though it is not from a matching font and is generally pre-italicized, making it non-ideal.  I had assumed that the Latin Extended-A character set, having been present from a very early version of Unicode, would have wider support than the Letterlike Symbols set, but this could have been wrong, and your experience might suggest otherwise.  Some Unicode characters are present for legacy reasons and are essentially deprecated (an example being U+00B5 micro sign).  My guess is that either way will present problems in some systems – the question probably being which works best on most.  —Quondum 12:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

"natural units" on NIST
The NIST website lists several "natural unit of ..." units. These are clearly based on $c$, $ħ$ and $m$$386.1 m$ and together form a mechanical system (no dimension of electric charge). There are several historical unit systems mentioned by Tomilin ("NATURAL SYSTEMS OF UNITS. To the Centenary Anniversary of the Planck System") that fit this, except that these all include an electrical dimension. This is not reflected in any of the systems listed in this article. Does anyone know or have a reference that might illuminate what NIST is basing this on? —Quondum 00:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 * I see that the 8th SI Brochure defines natural units of speed, action, mass and time based on these constants, and describes them as "used only in their own special fields of particle and atomic physics". It seems very probable that this is the basis of NIST's natural units that I described above.  I suspect that these fields also so routinely take ε0 and μ0 as being dimensionless 1 that it is rarely mentioned (as I can show, for example, that Wilczek does).  It seems that this would be a separate system of natural units, possibly worth adding, since it can readily be sourced.  —Quondum 01:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Boltzman Constant
$${2~\pi~\hbar \over c~Q_e}$$ is the boltzman constant in whatever unit system you are in though those units c, \hbar, q_e might be different values in different systems want multiple people to confirm this math is correct before I push the edit up

Summary table
where:
 * $α$ is the fine-structure constant, $α = e2⁄4πε0ħc$ ≈ 0.007297,
 * A dash (–) indicates where the system is not sufficient to express the quantity.
 * $Q_e$ is the electron charge

 * The newest Current Stoney Hartree Rydberg values are $${2~\pi \over \alpha}$$, $${2~\pi~\alpha}$$, and $${\pi~\alpha \over \sqrt{2}}$$ respectively. Provided my math is correct waiting for a few people to get the same answers
 * also may need to include something about avogadro constants in each system for instance avogadro for the planck mass is:
 * also may need to include something about avogadro constants in each system for instance avogadro for the planck mass is:

$$P_A = 1.310679E19 mol^{-1}={N_A \over m_p}={6.02214076\times10^{26}\over 2.176434\times10^{-8}}$$
 * Glas(talk)Nice User skin 18:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to change this into a summary of natural units.
This article accumulated a lot of detail. The tables are huge and why?

To me this article ought to introduce the concept of natural units and summarize the full articles. No tables are needed. The formulae are all in the main full articles. @Quondum ? Johnjbarton (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

 * This article has suddenly acquired a huge amount of detail, turning it into a monster. It has become reminiscent of what someone expanded it to before, before it was trimmed back; it even looks a lot like parts of the article previously introduced by now-banned editors has been re-inserted (a bad omen?).
 * Yes, the article should introduce the concept of natural units without expanding on much detail for individual systems, deferring detail to the individual articles. I quite like the idea of removing the tables altogether.  These have, in any event, acted to attract addition of excessive detail that does not belong here, and as is happening now.  Even in the specific articles, this level of detail makes it look like some undergrad's doodle pad.  —Quondum 20:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

All conversions should be to SI units.
The current text has some cryptic notation, "LH" and "G" with an unspecified purpose. If all of the comparisons to units were in SI, the article would be much clearer. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

 * @61.224.130.40 I would appreciate you input since it looks like you added these notations. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The 'original', 'G' and 'LH' are all apparently synthesis. The "original" case is pure nonsense for Planck units: Planck did not reference charge in his system of units, and in thinking he used (which was inherently Gaussian, given the role of G in the F = mM/r2 formulation of Planck units), would inherently have led to the 'G' form only .  The 'LH' form seems to be the rationalized Planck units, so why invent a name ("LH") in WP without reference that is used exactly to mean "rationalized", and then link to Heaviside–Lorentz units (which makes the intended meaning obscure, since these are not natural units)?
 * The latest "Summary table" in the current version is strikingly similar to in this version (but for an added column).  —Quondum 21:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If that's the "summary" table, I'd hate to see the full one. XOR'easter (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah, well, I guess the heading referred to summarizing of the article contents, but the table (and the article) then became a compendium of possible variants of these systems. But in line with the thread above, perhaps the table should be removed altogether.  —Quondum 19:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

nondimensionalization?
We have whole article on nondimensionalization with no references and here in the intro it takes up one of the two paragraphs. Anyone know anything about it? Johnjbarton (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

 * I may be guilty of introducing the wording here. The problem is that there is a tendency to conflate nondimensionalization (which is achieved by defining a dimensionless scaled version of a quantity, and substituting, e.g. define v$9.109 kg$ = v/c, then substitute v → cv$1.288 s$) with defining the units in a way that certain constants that often appear in fundamental physics formulas have numeric value 1 but are not dimensionless (e.g. c = light-second/s).  These are absolutely nonequivalent.  This tendency is common in sources (they often do not make clear or are confused about which they are doing), but perpetuating this in WP seems unencyclopaedic.

 * The article Nondimensionalization is likely primarily an essay by editors, but since it is not nonsense, it is handy for clarifying the distinction elsewhere, whether sourced or not. Ideally, we should just be able to find a suitable source that discusses the topic more fully, and add it to Nondimensionalization.  —Quondum 20:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's helpful, thanks. But also confusing ;-)
 * If I apply the v → cv$0.529 m$ procedure to E=mc2 I end up with En = m just as if I had set c=1 as my units. I have a hard time distinguishing the procedure from a change of units. In nondimensionalization, in setting constants to one, and in changing units, the procedure looks the same to me and the end result is the same? Johnjbarton (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Removed time unit
, I don't follow this edit at all. Can you explain your rationale? —Quondum 22:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Because the table had not caption nor explanation in the text, I chose to interpret it as a tabular form of the defining constants with their values in SI. In that case the time value is no correct. Perhaps you have some other caption where the value makes sense? Johnjbarton (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

This edit also removes critical information. You need to take into account the convention that an author is using. When using the Gaussian system of quantities (i.e., where the equation $F = qQ/r2$ is used), "electric charge" is the name given to a quantity that differs from electric charge in the SI by a dimensional constant, and $4πε0$ is already inherently a defining constant. Everything falls apart if you do not have this. —Quondum 23:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

 * I am only going by the sources and up through Shull and Hall (see Hartree atomic units) that is what they say. However I have another ref that will change the Hartree page and add back the charge. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * See the first part of
 * Wilczek, Frank. "Fundamental constants." Visions of discovery (2020): 75-104.
 * As far as I understand it, the atomic units place the conversion factor $$4\pi\epsilon_0$$ in the formula, eg $$F = qQ/(4\pi\epsilon_0 r^2)$$ rather than the units.
 * "The first procedure, which regards quantity of charge as a separate concept, independent of its mechanical effects, appears natural if the concept quantity of charge has some other independent physical meaning. In atomic physics, of course, we learn that it does. There is an operationally defined, reproducible unit of electric charge, the charge of an electron. We can express other charges as numerical multiples of that unit. Then ǫ0 becomes a measurable “fundamental constant”, parameterizing the Coulomb force between electrons."
 * To me, this is the kind of material we should discuss in the article. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

 * On details like this (use of a factors of $4π$, $ε0$, $4πε0$), Wilczek seems to be rather inconsistent, even within the same paper. He is switching conventions without properly signalling when he does so.  And for the principle of what he is trying to communicate, this is not central.  Which make him an unreliable reference for details.  He uses phrases such as "in this system", without being clear that the only way to collectively analyze different "systems" is to avoid treating quantities of different systems as the same thing any more than you would not treat the radius and diameter of a circle as the same quantity in different systems, even though they each parameterize the size of a circle just as well and use the same name for them.  Using expressions like $ħ = c = 1$ in such a discussion is guaranteed to create confusion where it should be avoided.  For example, when discussing natural unit systems, he says "...  since the fine structure constant 1=α = $9.109 kg$ is a pure number ...", it should be clear that locaqlly in the discussion of the three natural systems, he is using quantities for which the equations are all written like the SI equations, except that $ε0$ has been replaced by 1 (inconsistently with the paragraphs just preceding your quoted passage).  In other papers he replaces $4ε0$ with 1.
 * There are references such as Tomilin,that list the underlying constants more explicitly. For the Hartree system, on p. 291 Tomilin explicitly includes $ke$, unlike Wilczek.
 * In short, the only way I find to successfully navigate sources on this topic is to infer the underlying system of quantities being used, ensure that this is consistent (with corresponding quantity translation) with the standard SI equations, and then to present the source translated to the corresponding to SI quantities. Where the quantities to be presented are not the SI quantities (or more correctly, quantities of the ISQ), for clarity I annotate them distinctly, despite having a shared name.  —Quondum 01:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In the Tomilin source the discussion of the EM units is conspicuously positioned after the citation of the primary source, as if the original authors were silent on the subject (as I claim).
 * I suppose what we do depends on what we think our goal should be. The current page (or maybe the page before I mucked with it ;-) seems to focus on treating the multiple system on equal footing. In that case the EM units issue needs to be sorted. I'm more interested in what the sources said and less in making them all line up; in that case the EM only comes up to the extent the authors discuss them.
 * As long as we are clear in referencing Tomilin (or whatever) for the source of EM choices, I'm fine with add this info. I just don't think that Planck/Stoney/Hartree should be spoken for.
 * More broadly I'm interested in trying to get across "what and why natural units". and "Why natural units vs SI"? These are very different use cases. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Context matters, especially in WP. I see that Hartree atomic units has been partially translated into one or more unstated anachonistic systems of quantities, and may now use a mix of equations from Gaussian, Heaviside–Lorentz and SI systems.  It then goes on to say that "The atomic units can related to the International System of Units" and provides the SI value of e, which produces garbage in the formulae already given.  This is mixing presentations from different eras, which produces internal inconsistencies.
 * It is the responsibility of any editor who is deviating from the system of quantities (and units) used in the SI to make this clear to the reader. It makes much more sense, as almost any author does, to translate the concepts into the modern framework rather than expect the reader to learn an anachronistic framework just to properly understand what is being said (very few people, even trained physicists, are properly capable of this).  Presenting a mishmash of statements from sources from disparate frameworks is just ... irresponsible.  —Quondum 14:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm confused by your comment. I didn't change anything in the tables relating to the SI values on Hartree atomic units. I certainly did no translation. Rather, I reported what the sources said. To be sure, maybe we need more content to relate these these historical discussions to modern uses. Since I did not know this was an issue I didn't look for sources to add such content. Perhaps we should discuss this on Talk:Hartree atomic units? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As for irresponsibility, the problem with the Hartree atomic unit page is lack of verifiable references. If the page had reliable references explaining the historic and modern usage issues, then I would not have changed the page. Asserting the modern values in place of what the sources say is also not responsible. So the right fix is to have both the historic references and the modern changes with sources. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

 * I apologize: I'm overreacting, especially given what you are doing. And yes, that talk page is the place to discuss it.  But, for the next little while, I had best take a break from units and unit systems – I'm clearly being overly cranky at the moment.  —Quondum 21:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The topic is much more intricate than I expected. Very specific concerns would be helpful so I can research appropriate solutions. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It confounds the majority of people, in my experience, although few are aware of it. Give me a few days to get myself on an even keel, and I should be able to contribute some interpretation of specifics.  —Quondum 01:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Natural units


text:
Talk:Grandfather clause

Trimming of "Examples"
If no one opposes, I will trim the current Examples section down to a handful of properly-cited entries covering the different topics now present. Editors seem to have turned it into an exhaustive list, rather than merely examples, and many of the entries are not sourced. The article is worse for it, because most are highly specific examples (e.g., regarding particular sports leagues) of trivial explanatory value. Knight of Truth (talk)
 * Please do. Any entry without a source calling it an example of a grandfather clause should be removed. Only a few good examples are needed. Rezin (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect about Truman
I'm not sure the best way to correct this (I may try to later if someone else doesn't beat me to it) but Truman did in fact attempt re-election in 1952; however due to a poor showing in the Democratic primaries, he chose to drop out of the race early in the primary elections. It is true he never attempted to run for president in any election after 1952 though. 2601:1:C100:2C90:59A8:48CB:D6BC:A8A4 (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate text in Origin section
The section explains three times the same concept (namely restriction of voting rights). It should be trimmed down and sources unified. 2001:620:618:5C0:2:80B3:0:5E (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Grandfather clause


text:
Druse

Druse can refer to:
 * Druze or Durzi, a Middle Eastern religious community
 * Druse (botany), an aggregation of calcium oxalate crystals found in certain plants
 * Druse (geology), an incrustation of small crystals on the surface of a rock or mineral
 * Drusen, pathological deposits in the eye

title: Druse


text:
Weissenburg

The German names Weissenburg and Weißenburg can refer to:
 * Weißenburg in Bayern is a town in Germany
 * Weißenburg-Gunzenhausen is a Landkreis (district) in the west of Germany
 * Alba Iulia in Romania
 * Wissembourg in France (earlier known as Weißenburg)
 * Weissenburg Abbey, Alsace, former Benedictine abbey at Wissembourg
 * Weissenburg Castle, a ruined castle in the municipality of Därstetten of the Canton of Bern in Switzerland
 * , a resort in the Niedersimmental, above Lake Thun, Switzerland
 * Weissenburgbad (formerly Kuranstalt Weissenburg), a former spa in Därstetten, Canton Bern, Switzerland
 * Weissenburg, Ontario in Waterloo County, Ontario, Canada
 * Weissenburg, Ontario in Waterloo County, Ontario, Canada

title: Weissenburg


text:
User:Philipmullins

Sunday sales in Hopkinsville Ky. Comment from the general public.

title: User:Philipmullins


text:
Talk:Salou, Spain

Was this written by somebody employed by Salou's tourist board? Reads like it. "The Salou Product"? Yeuch!! Don't people live here? What about that? History? Demographics? The fact that the i love ryan shecklar and elvis presey! I want to bang them!!! of Cambrils is infinitely more plesant, and that Salou is a high-rise dustbin of pallid British holidaymakers, cheap and nasty fast food dives, overloud nighclubs and grisly hotels? GRAHAMUK 11:45, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Salou has cleaned up its act in last few years, the sanitation department has had a lot of money spent on it, and you no longer find overflowing bins like you referred to. Also many new strict laws have come into effect for bars and nightclubs, many loud cheap bars that played loud music, have had to close because they couldn't afford to install the soundproofing required to open at that time.

And yes Cambrils is also a very nice town.

title: Talk:Salou, Spain