text:
Honorificabilitudinitatibus

Honorificabilitudinitatibus (honōrificābilitūdinitātibus, ) is the dative and ablative plural of the medieval Latin word honōrificābilitūdinitās, which can be translated as "the state of being able to achieve honours". It is mentioned by the character Costard in Act V, Scene I of William Shakespeare's Love's Labour's Lost.

As it appears only once in Shakespeare's works, it is a hapax legomenon in the Shakespeare canon. At 27 letters, it is the longest word in the English language which strictly alternates consonants and vowels.

Use in Love's Labour's Lost
The word is spoken by the comic rustic Costard in Act V, Scene 1 of the play. It is used after an absurdly pretentious dialogue between the pedantic schoolmaster Holofernes and his friend Sir Nathaniel. The two pedants converse in a mixture of Latin and florid English. When Moth, a witty young servant, enters, Costard says of the pedants: "O, they have lived long on the alms-basket of words, I marvel thy master hath not eaten thee for a word; for thou art not so long by the head as honorificabilitudinitatibus: thou art easier swallowed than a flap-dragon."

Use in Baconianism
The word has been used by adherents of the Baconian theory who believe Shakespeare's plays were written in steganographic cypher by Francis Bacon. In 1905 Isaac Hull Platt argued that it was an anagram for hi ludi, F. Baconis nati, tuiti orbi, Latin for "these plays, F. Bacon's offspring, are preserved for the world". His argument was given wide circulation by Edwin Durning-Lawrence in 1910, complete with a cryptonumerical attempt to prove it justified. The anagram assumes that Bacon would have Latinized his name as "Baco" or "Bacon" (the genitive case of which is "Baconis") rather than, as Samuel Schoenbaum argues, "Baconus", with genitive "Baconi".

It is far from the only possible anagram. In 1898, Paget Toynbee noted that the word contains a glorification of Dante by himself as its letters could be rearranged to form the phrase Ubi Italicus ibi Danti honor fit (Where there is an Italian, there honour is paid to Dante). In the 1970s, John Sladek noted that the word could also be anagrammatized as I, B. Ionsonii, uurit [writ] a lift'd batch, thus "proving" that Shakespeare's works were written by Ben Jonson. In 2012, in a column for the Calcutta Telegraph, Stephen Hugh-Jones mocked it with the deliberately anachronistic "If I built it in, is author ID Bacon?", attributing this to a derisive William Shakespeare; and counter-"proved" that Shakespeare wrote Bacon by converting the latter's famous opening phrase "What is truth, said jesting Pilate..." into "Truth? A lasting jape. Hide it. WS".

Other uses
Long before Love's Labour's Lost, the word and its variants had been used by medieval and then Renaissance authors.

Medieval
The unusually long word had apparently already been in circulation among scholars by the time of Petrus Grammaticus, 8th-century Italian poet, deacon, grammarian, and Charlemagne's primary Latin teacher. It can be found in Codex Bernensis 522 (Burgerbibliothek of Berne, Cod. 522), an early-9th-century manuscript copy of his work.

Italian lexicographer Papias used it circa 1055.

Honorificabilitudo appears in a charter of 1187 by Ugone della Volta, second Archbishop of Genoa.

Various forms of the word were also discussed in Magnae Derivationes, an early etymological treatise of circa 1190 by Uguccione, Italian canon lawyer and Bishop of Ferrara: "Ab honorifico, hic et hec honorificabilis, -le, et hec honorificabilitas, -tis et hec honorificabilitudinitas, et est longissima dictio, que illo versu continetur: Fulget honorificabilitudinitatibus iste."

It also appears in Ars poetica, treatise on rhetoric of circa 1208–1216 by English-born French scholar Gervase of Melkley: "Quidam, admirantes huiusmodi magna dictiones, inutiliter et turpissime versum clauserunt sub duobus dictionibus vel tribus. Unde quidam ait: Versificabantur Constantinopolitani; alius: Plenus honorificabilitudinitatibus esto."

Italian grammarian Johannes Balbus used the word in its complete form in his hugely popular 1286 Latin dictionary known as Catholicon (in 1460, it became one of the first books to be printed using Gutenberg's press). Quoting Uguccione, it says regarding honorifico: "Unde haec honorificabilitudinitatibus et haec est longissimo dictu ut patet in hoc versu, Fulget honorificabilitudinitatibus iste."

A late-13th-century example can be found in an anonymous sermon in a manuscript in Bodleian Library (MS Bodl. 36, f. 131v).

In his linguistic essay De vulgari eloquentia (On eloquence in the vernacular) of circa 1302–1305 Dante, drawing on Uguccione's Magnae Derivationes, cites honorificabilitudinitate as an example of a word too long for the standard line in verse: "Posset adhuc inveniri plurium sillabarum vocabulum sive verbum, sed quia capacitatem omnium nostrorum carminum superexcedit, rationi presenti non videtur obnoxium, sicut est illud honorificabilitudinitate, quod duodena perficitur sillaba in vulgari et in gramatica tredena perficitur in duobus obliquis."

Honorificabilitudinitas occurs in De gestis Henrici septimi Cesaris (1313–1315), a book by the Italian poet Albertino Mussato which chronicled 1310–1313 Italian expedition of Henry VII, Holy Roman Emperor: "Nam et maturius cum Rex prima Italiæ ostia contigisset, legatos illo Dux ipse direxerat cum regalibus exeniis Honorificabilitudinitatis nec obsequentiæ ullius causa, quibus etiam inhibitum pedes osculari regios."

It was for this work that in 1315 the commune of Padua crowned Mussato as poet laureate; he was the first man to receive the honour since antiquity.

It is also found on an Exchequer record, in a hand of the reign of Henry VI (1422–1461).

The word appears in Adagia, an annotated collection of Greek and Latin proverbs, compiled by Dutch humanist Erasmus; he recalls a humorous couplet about a man called Hermes who was fond of using foot-and-a-half words: "Hamaxiaea: Extat jocus cujusdam in Hermetem quempiam hujuscemodi sesquipedalium verborum affectatorem:Gaudet honorificabilitudinitatibus HermesConsuetudinibus, sollicitudinibus."

First published in 1500, by Shakespeare's time it was a very popular book, widely used as a text-book in English schools. The couplet itself was a popular schoolboy joke, current both in Erasmus's and Shakespeare's times, and beyond.

In the foreword to his 1529 translation of Lucan, French humanist and engraver Geoffroy Tory used the word as an example of bad writing, citing the Hermes couplet.

It also occurs in the works of Rabelais and in The Complaynt of Scotland (1549).

The word in its various forms was frequently used as test of the pen by scribes. One example is found in a fourteenth-century Pavian codex. It may also be seen, with some additional syllables, scribbled on a page of a late-16th-century heraldic manuscript (British Library, MS Harley 6113). Alternative form in honorificabilitudinacionibus is attested from manuscripts in Bamberg (Bamberg State Library, Q.V.41) and Munich (Bavarian State Library, Cgm 541). Other examples include Erfurt O.23, Prague 211 (f. 255v), Bratislava II Q.64 (f. 27r), Pembroke 260 (flyleaf), and a manuscript of Hoccleve.

The word is also known from at least two inscriptions on medieval tableware. A small goblet inscribed with honorificabilitudinitatibus around it was found at Kirby Muxloe Castle in Leicestershire, England. A pewter cruet engraved with an abbreviated version of the word (honorificabiliut) next to the owner's name (Thomas Hunte) was unearthed in a well filled in 1476 during 1937 conservation works at Ashby de la Zouch Castle, also in Leicestershire. The cruet was cast around 1400 and is currently in Victoria and Albert Museum, London.

Shakespeare's times
The year after the publication of Love's Labours Lost it is used by English satirist Thomas Nashe in his 1599 pamphlet Nashe's Lenten Stuff: "Physicians deafen our ears with the honorificabilitudinitatibus of their heavenly panacaea, their sovereign guiacum."

Nashe is referring to the exotic medicinal plant Guaiacum, the name of which was also exotic to the English at that time, being the first Native American word imported into the English language.

The word also appears in John Marston's 1605 play The Dutch Courtesan, Act V, Scene II: "For grief's sake keep him out; his discourse is like the long word Honorificabilitudinitatibus, a great deal of sound and no sense."

In John Fletcher's tragicomedy The Mad Lover of c. 1617 the word is used by the palace fool: "The Iron age return'd to Erebus,And HonorificabilitudinitatibusThrust out o'th' Kingdom by the head and shoulders."

John Taylor ("The Water Poet") uses an even longer version of the word, honorificicabilitudinitatibus in the very first sentence of his 1622 pamphlet Sir Gregory Nonsence: "Most Honorificicabilitudinitatibus, I having studied the seven Lub berly sciences (being nine by computation) out of which I gathered three conjunctions four muile Ass-under, which with much labour, and great ease, to little or no purpose, I have noddicated to your gray, grave, and gravelled Prate ection."

After Shakespeare
Following the tradition of medieval scholars, Charles du Cange included both honorificabilitudo and honorificabilitudinitatibus in his 1678 Latin lexicon Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis, quoting Ugone della Volta and Albertino Mussato.

Thomas Blount listed the anglicized form of the word, honorificabilitudinity (defined as "honorableness"), among the 11,000 hard or unusual words in his 1656 Glossographia, the largest English dictionary at the time. The entry was quoted by Elisha Coles in An English Dictionary, published in 1676. It was also repeated by Nathan Bailey in his influential 1721 An Universal Etymological English Dictionary.

While honorificabilitudinitatibus was not included in Samuel Johnson's famous dictionary, Dr Johnson did comment on its length in his 1765 edition of The Plays of William Shakespeare: "This word, whencesoever it comes, is often mentioned as the longest word known."

Commenting on this, antiquarian Joseph Hunter wrote in 1845: "This Dr. Johnson calls a word, and says that "it is the longest word known." This is a very extraordinary hallucination of a mind so accustomed to definition as his was, and so apt to form definitions eminently just and proper. Word, when properly understood, belongs only to a combination of letters that is significative; but this is a mere arbitrary and unmeaning combination of syllables, and devised merely to serve as an exercise in penmanship, a schoolmaster's copy for persons learning to write."

In 1858, Charles Dickens wrote an essay Calling Bad Names for the weekly magazine Household Words he edited at the time; it starts with the Love's Labour's Lost quote and uses it to satirize the scientific publications that use too many Latin words: "He who by the seashore makes friends with the sea-nettles, is introduced to them by the scientific master of ceremonies as the Physsophoridae and Hippopodydae. Creatures weak, delicate and beautiful, are Desmidiaceae, Chaetopterina, and Amphinomaceae, Tenthredineta, Twentysyllableorfeeta, and all for the honour of science; or rather, not for its honour; but for it honorificabilitudinitatibus."

James Joyce also used this word in his mammoth 1922 novel Ulysses, during the Scylla and Charybdis episode; when Stephen Dedalus articulates his interpretation of Hamlet: "Like John o'Gaunt his name is dear to him, as dear as the coat and crest he toadied for, on a bend sable a spear or steeled argent, honorificabilitudinitatibus, dearer than his glory of greatest shakescene in the country."

In 1993 U.S. News & World Report used the word in its original meaning with reference to a debate about new words' being used in the game of Scrabble: "Honorificabilitudinity and the requirements of Scrabble fans dictated that the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary makers be open-minded enough to include dweeb (a boringly conventional person), droob (an unprepossessing or contemptible person, esp. a man), and droog (a member of a gang: a young ruffian)."

In the American animated television series Pinky and the Brain's 1995 episode "Napoleon Brainaparte", the word is defined as "with honorablenesses".

Jeff Noon 2001 book of experimental poetry, Cobralingus, used the fictional Cobralingus Engine to remix this word in the style of electronic music to create a prose poem entitled "Pornostatic Processor".

In the 2005 episode "Sick Days & Spelling" of the Nickelodeon TV show Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide, Ned Bigby enters the spelling bee, having easy words until he comes across the word "honorificabilitudinitatibus" and gives up.

In Suzanne Selfors' 2011 children's novel Smells Like Treasure, her spelling champion character, Hercules Simple, uses the word.

General and cited references

 * Nathan Bailey (1721). An Universal Etymological English Dictionary. 1726 edition.
 * Brian C. Ballentine (2010). How to Do Things with Hard Words: The Uses of Classical Borrowings in the English Renaissance. Doctoral thesis, Brown University.
 * Thomas Blount (1656). Glossographia. 1972 facsimile edition.
 * Elisha Coles (1676). An English Dictionary: Explaining the Difficult Terms that are used in Divinity, Husbandry, Physick, Phylosophy, Law, Navigation, Mathematicks, and Other Arts and Sciences. 1973 facsimile edition.
 * Charles Dickens (1858). "Calling Bad Names", in Household Words, volume 18.
 * Charles du Fresne, sieur du Cange (1678). Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis. 1883–1887 edition (searchable version).
 * Samuel Johnson (1755). A Dictionary of the English Language. 1785 edition.
 * Samuel Johnson, George Steevens (1765). The Plays of William Shakespeare. 1801 edition.
 * James Joyce (1922). Ulysses. online.
 * Falconer Madan, Edmund Craster (1922). A summary catalogue of Western manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Volume II, part 1.
 * Giovanni Nencioni$(it)$ (1967). "Dante e la Retorica", in Dante e Bologna nei tempi di Dante.
 * Notes and Queries (1881). Series 6, volume IV.
 * Nicholas Royle (2010). "The distraction of 'Freud': Literature, Psychoanalysis and the Bacon-Shakespeare Controversy", in Shakespeare and His Authors: Critical Perspectives on the Authorship Question.
 * Richard Sharpe (1996). "Vocabulary, Word Formation, and Lexicography", in: F. A. C. Mantello and A. G. Rigg (editors), Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide. Washington, D.C.: CUA Press. ISBN 9780813208428.
 * Geoffroy Tory (1529). La Table de l'ancien philosophe Cebes. Scans online at Bavarian State Library.
 * Henry William Weber (1812). The Works of Beaumont and Fletcher, volume 4.
 * Rosemary Weinstein (2011). The Archaeology of Pewter Vessels in England 1200-1700: A Study of Form and Usage. Doctoral thesis, Durham University.
 * Samuel Johnson (1755). A Dictionary of the English Language. 1785 edition.
 * Samuel Johnson, George Steevens (1765). The Plays of William Shakespeare. 1801 edition.
 * James Joyce (1922). Ulysses. online.
 * Falconer Madan, Edmund Craster (1922). A summary catalogue of Western manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Volume II, part 1.
 * Giovanni Nencioni⇭⇭⇭ (1967). "Dante e la Retorica", in Dante e Bologna nei tempi di Dante.
 * Notes and Queries (1881). Series 6, volume IV.
 * Nicholas Royle (2010). "The distraction of 'Freud': Literature, Psychoanalysis and the Bacon-Shakespeare Controversy", in Shakespeare and His Authors: Critical Perspectives on the Authorship Question.
 * Richard Sharpe (1996). "Vocabulary, Word Formation, and Lexicography", in: F. A. C. Mantello and A. G. Rigg (editors), Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide. Washington, D.C.: CUA Press. ISBN 9780813208428.
 * Geoffroy Tory (1529). La Table de l'ancien philosophe Cebes. Scans online at Bavarian State Library.
 * Henry William Weber (1812). The Works of Beaumont and Fletcher, volume 4.
 * Rosemary Weinstein (2011). The Archaeology of Pewter Vessels in England 1200-1700: A Study of Form and Usage. Doctoral thesis, Durham University.
 * Geoffroy Tory (1529). La Table de l'ancien philosophe Cebes. Scans online at Bavarian State Library.
 * Henry William Weber (1812). The Works of Beaumont and Fletcher, volume 4.
 * Rosemary Weinstein (2011). The Archaeology of Pewter Vessels in England 1200-1700: A Study of Form and Usage. Doctoral thesis, Durham University.
 * Henry William Weber (1812). The Works of Beaumont and Fletcher, volume 4.
 * Rosemary Weinstein (2011). The Archaeology of Pewter Vessels in England 1200-1700: A Study of Form and Usage. Doctoral thesis, Durham University.
 * Henry William Weber (1812). The Works of Beaumont and Fletcher, volume 4.
 * Rosemary Weinstein (2011). The Archaeology of Pewter Vessels in England 1200-1700: A Study of Form and Usage. Doctoral thesis, Durham University.
 * Henry William Weber (1812). The Works of Beaumont and Fletcher, volume 4.
 * Rosemary Weinstein (2011). The Archaeology of Pewter Vessels in England 1200-1700: A Study of Form and Usage. Doctoral thesis, Durham University.

title: Honorificabilitudinitatibus


text:
User talk:Alexandros (usurped)/I have given up on Mother Teresa

Have you really though? -- Mattworld 21:50, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * yes. I will never edit Mother Teresa again Alexandros

 * And we can quote you on that? Morwen

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


text:
Wikipedia talk:Verbatim copying under the GFDL

Wikipedia and Wikipedia users do not give legal advice

A requirement to mirror?
Does this mean if one publishes more than 100 copies they must also maintain a mirror web site of the entire Wikipedia site if the URL at Wikipedia is to be considered unstable? Is that really reasonable? Why would the article disappear and if it was moved wouldn't the previous name be left as a redirect? Of course if Wikipedia disappeared that could create a problem, but is that a possibility? Just a thought. — Alex756 21:51, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Thanks for reading. :)

 * An article would disappear because it was deleted, which happens quite often - check the deletion log for an idea as to frequency - it's perhaps 100 a day, roughly? I lost count. When articles are moved, typically the redirects are left behind, but sometimes the redirects are deleted, or turned into disambiguation pages, etc. Still, one only has to be "reasonably prudent", so maybe these things aren't a problem?

 * If you don't want to rely on Wikipedia, you don't have to maintain a complete mirror of it. The simplest option for verbatim copiers would be to download the database and rehost that. I'll add some details to the article. Martin 19:27, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Histories
Removed from article:
 * === History Subunit ===

 * As the GFDL was never intended for wiki articles, things get complicated. Some allege that the "page history" link is the history subunit and that you should include this "by reference" by linking to it.

 * However, the "page history" is not in the correct format for the GFDL, is missing information that would be required under the GFDL if it were the history subunit, and is not "Entitled" History. Further, there has been no official declaration from either Bomis or the Wikimedia foundation that the "page history" is intended to represent the history subunit. Further, it is possible to download the Wikipedia database without downloading the full history.

 * As a result, some allege that you may ignore the "page history" for the purposes of verbatim copying. If the text includes a section Entitled "History", then you should of course copy that along with the rest of the body text.

 * I'm not sure what this is trying to get at. If you copy an article under the GFDL, verbatim or otherwise, you have to preserve the "history" section (whatever it might be called).  On Wikipedia it's called "Page history"; it was given this title precisely because that's the name mentioned in the GFDL.  If you copy the document, you have to preserve the history.

 * All that's pretty clear from the GFDL. The above paragraphs don't seem to be interpreting the GFDL in a meaningful way.  I don't think they add anything useful; I'd be interested to hear other people's views.  Enchanter 00:14, May 16, 2004 (UTC).

 * In fact, "Page history" is not the title mentioned in the GFDL. The GFDL says "History". Please re-read the text of the GFDL. One of the relevant sections is 4I:

 * I. Preserve the section Entitled "History"...

 * Thus, it is disputable whether Wikipedia's "page history" is supposed to be the GFDL "History" subunit, as the Title is wrong, and for the other reasons given in the paragraphs above. The paragraphs explain the dispute (though apparently not clearly enough), and point out the two differing interpretations that people have taken on the subject. Martin 22:32, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * As far as I am aware, the page history has always been intended to mean the history section of the GFDL. When the original Wikipedia software was written, the link was called "history" for precisely this reason (the link was subsequently changed to "page history", presumably for clarity).  There was quite a bit of fuss when the software was introduced because the page histories weren't always preserved, which meant that we weren't fully GFDL compliant.

 * Furthermore, if the page history section isn't considered as part of the document, that means that wikipedia is not GFDL compliant. The history section is not optional.

 * I'm concerned that this page is giving too much credence to what I see as a marginal and tenuous argument. Enchanter 18:28, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, pages such as the GFDL History that Cunctator created suggests that, right from the start, this issue was unclear. As far as I know, The Cunctator never got a definitive response on this. I suspect that this is deliberate - Jimbo doesn't want to leave any hostages to fortune, especially with the possibility of renegotiating the GFDL in the future.
 * That page shows that one individual thought the issue was unclear two years ago; it doesn't reflect the outcome of any debate or decision. As far as I'm aware, Cunctator never got a definitive response on this because he didn't even press the question - he let the matter drop.Enchanter

 * So do we agree then, that neither of us know whether or not the "page history" was intended to mean the history section of the GFDL, or whether it was intended simply as an editorial tool? Martin 00:35, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that the original intention is unclear; the link was originally put in by Magnus Mansk when he wrote the software, and I doubt he thought very hard about these issues. At the time, there were lots of ways in which our GFDL compliance was not very good; for example, we didn't have a proper copyright notice.  There is some ambiguity, and I think it would be nice to resolve it in some way. Enchanter 22:56, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

 * The history section is optional, in this sense - you can write an essay, have no history section, and place that essay under the GFDL. It is only if you create modified versions, and only have permission to do so from the GFDL, that you require a history section. For example, if I'm the sole author of a document I've released under the GFDL, I can modify it, release the modified version, and not have to put in a history. As Wikipedia is a collaborative work, and most articles are created solely on Wikipedia, they may fall into this category. Or they may not.

 * Copyright on Wikipedia articles is generally retained by the contributor. That means that when you modify an article, you do not hold the copyright to the version you are modifying, so the only way you can create a derived work is by following the provisions of the GFDL for creating a derived work.  That applies to more or less every edit on Wikipedia where an article has been modified by more than one person.Enchanter

 * Yes, copyright is maintained by the contributor. When you modify an article, you do not hold the copyright to the version you are modifying, so the only way you can do so is if the copyright holder has granted you a license. Fortunately, such a implicit license exists - the edit box warning that Wikipedia users will mercilessly edit the submitted content, and the result (as with all contributions) will be released under the GFDL, backed by the implicit license arising from contributing to a collaborative encyclopedia. As Wikipedia is a collaborative work, this interpretation is quite natural, maybe even "common sense". Martin 00:35, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I think arguing for such an implicit license is a bit of a stretch. For a start, when the warning that Wikipedia contributions would be 'mercilessly edited' was written, it wasn't with this interpretation in mind.  There was no discussion at the time along the lines of the one that we are having.  So I think what you are arguing for is a creative reinterpretation of something that someone wrote, which is not in line with what the writer meant.

 * Another issue is that the page history stores the history of the authors of the document. Whether or not we give an implicit licence for others to edit the work without invoking the GFDL, I'm not sure that we give an implicit licence for the authorship information not to be preserved.  It could be argued that it is important for both the letter and spirit of the GFDL that this information about who wrote what is kept. Enchanter 22:56, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

 * If a GFDL History is required, then Wikipedia is not GFDL compliant, as the "page history" does not meet the requirements set out in the GFDL, section 4I. This is the case regardless of whether or not one considers the "page history" to be included by reference in the article.

 * Just what is the problem with the requirements set out in section 4I? The GFDL asks that the "title, year, authors, and publisher" are given.  Year and authors are given; the title is the same for each revision, so it's obvious; similarly it's obvious that the publisher is Wikipedia, unless explicitly given otherwise in the edit summary text.  So I don't see anything seriously wrong with the format.Enchanter

 * See below. Martin 00:35, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Personally, I have grown resigned to the fact that any interpretation of the GFDL arising from actually reading it are either tenuous, result in Wikipedia being non GFDL-compliant, are hideously impractical, or a combination of all three. However, I do understand your concern about emphasis, so I will edit that section of the page. Martin 18:39, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Agreed, interpreting the GFDL is not for the faint hearted!Enchanter

To clarify my concerns about the page history, this is my response to the reasons given in the article, that the Wikipedia page history:
 * ... is not in the correct format
 * The GFDL asks that the "title, year, authors, and publisher" are given. Year and authors are given; the title is the same for each revision, so it's obvious; similarly it's obvious that the publisher is Wikipedia, unless explicitly given otherwise in the edit summary text.  So I don't see anything seriously wrong with the format. Enchanter

 * The title is not the same for each revision, as articles can change title. I don't believe the GFDL provides an exception for things that are "obvious". It says "for each item, state the publisher". The history doesn't do that. Also, it doesn't distinguish between "authors" and "new authors". Martin 00:35, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Again, I agree that Wikipedia is not fully compliant; I don't agree that this warrants the conclusion that the page history does not represent the GFDL history. Enchanter 22:56, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

 * ... is missing required information
 * You can give whatever information you like in the edit summary; what is "missing"? Enchanter

 * My bad - I confused myself when I added this. Removed. Martin 00:35, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * ... is not "Entitled" History (though it was in the past)
 * Saying that the history section isn't the history section because the title says "Page history" or "Revision history" rather than "history" seems a bit silly to me, and not a strong argument either in legal terms or according to common sense.Enchanter

 * I'm happy for third parties to judge the strength or weakness of the argument, and act accordingly. Martin 00:35, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think that that is adequate. If you're using something under license, and there's ambiguity about how the license is to be interpreted, the natural response is to ask the owner of the materials you are using (the Wikipedia contributors) what they think - after all, they are the people who could sue you!  I think Wikipedia ought to have a view on this, and that this view should be reflected in the copyright pages. Enchanter 22:56, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

 * ... is incomplete in many articles, notably those that have been merged or split, in very old pages, in pages moved or translated between wikimedia projects, or in pages sourced in part from external GFDL sources.
 * Agreed, the history isn't merged as the GFDL says. But in general, the edit comments should give enough information to give a proper history (admittedly, assuming people fill in the box fully!)Enchanter

 * Yes, a proper history could in some cases be reconstructed in theory. That doesn't invalidate the point. Martin 00:35, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree the point that the page history is not fully compliant with the GFDL history. I don't agree that because it is not fully compliant, you could reasonably conclude that it's not actually the history at all, as defined by the GFDL. Enchanter 22:56, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

 * It is possible to download the Wikipedia database without downloading the full history.
 * So what? You can download any combination of pages you like; it doesn't change how it is licensed.Enchanter

 * It would be odd to make a download available which, were anyone to take advantage of that download, they would be in violation of the GFDL, as it was not a verbatim copy. Martin 00:35, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The download can be used to produce another site, which effectively includes the history by linking back to Wikipedia - which is what we have always suggested that people reusing Wikipedia data do. Enchanter 22:56, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

There are various interpretations. The interpretation you favour is more conservative, but also less practical. My favoured alternative interpretation is more questionable from a legal POV, but also more practical. A more conservative interpretation still is that Wikipedia is systematically non-compliant, and no legal copying is possible. Third parties have to choose which interpretation they favour, weighing legal risk against other factors. Martin 00:35, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think this is just a matter to leave to third parties - it has relevance for all Wikipedia contributors. For example, my interpretation requires that the information about who authored what is preserved, whereas yours implies that contributors give up their right to be credited with their contributions under the GFDL.

 * Also, we want other people to be able to reuse our material with a minimum of fuss - leaving this unresolved makes understanding how to reuse our material more difficult. Enchanter 22:56, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

All I want is for this page to tell the truth, no matter how inconvenient that may be. The truth is that currently there are some uncertainties regards what is required for a verbatim copy of a Wikipedia article to be compliant. If you manage to change the truth, I'll be happy for the article to change to reflect that. Martin 00:45, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

To make one thing clear - I know that both interpretations have problems. Both of their problems could be patched up in various ways, both technically and legally. My problem with your favoured interpretation is that including the entire history verbatim, even in printed copies, is incredibly impractical, and I suspect not what most contributors actually want. It seems to me that the desire is rather one of (a) author credit and (b) requiring a link back. Fortunately, both of these things can be done in my interpretation, and I hope this will be done in a future version of mediawiki. Martin 23:01, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Changes and removals
edit summary: "some changes and removals to clarify what the GFDL says"... yeah, I'd like more explanation than that, please.

Some content regards the handling of links - removed the two legally questionable exceptions. Why? Section two just says "verbatim copying". Verbatim means "word for word", so it should be entirely possible to change formatting details like links while still making a verbatim copy. This is what happens when I take a print out of a Wikipedia page, for example.

"Wikipedia's current License and Copyright Statement is itself questionable" - just removed. Well, it is questionable, certainly. Would you like me to explain why?

"Embedding a Wikipedia Document within a larger webpage" - removed "legally questionable". Well, it is questionable - the question is whether such embeds are considered "aggregation" or "derivative works". That question would have to be resolved in court - there have been some cases around this subject, IIRC, but nothing conclusive.

"Relying on Wikipedia is legally questionable because pages on Wikipedia may be deleted from public view" - removed. Well, why? This is just true - some pages on Wikipedia are deleted, and to the extent that this happens, Wikipedia will not be a machine-readable copy of the distributed text, and thus the sublicensee will not be in compliance with the text of the GFDL. So, it's questionable. People can do this, but they need to be aware that there may be issues with doing so. Martin 22:47, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Images
As we have a formal statement from Jimbo that the aggregation interpretation is go, I've used this to draft a couple of sections.

We also want buy in from our contributors, so in due course such a statement should go into Submission Standards. This will allow redistributors to rely a little more confidently on that interpretation. Martin 13:01, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * It says "If you do not wish to use this aggregation interpretation, and choose to consider images as part of the article, then it follows that you cannot add or remove images in verbatim copies of Wikipedia articles, and you cannot make verbatim copies of those Wikipedia articles which rely on the aggregation interpretation to include images." However, I think this interpretation is vital.  Otherwise, we are distributing the images under the GFDL.  We don't have the right to do that for many of them (some are under CC, etc.).  I'd like to remove this statement. Superm401 - Talk 00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

 * The aggregation interpretation is vital for us, certainly. If it were found invalid in a court of law, we'd need to make some fair scything changes to many of our articles.
 * Rethinking it, I can't see any reason why a redistributor would not wish to rely on the aggregation interpretation. One risk they take by doing so is being sued by Wikipedia contributors. That sounds low risk - surely any contributors disgruntled by mixing their content with non-GFDL content would first want to take it up with Wikipedia, rather than a mere redistributor?
 * I have no problem with you removing the statement in question. I've also added some text on using GFDL images in non-GFDL works. Martin 22:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. Hopefully, no one will object later. Superm401 - Talk 09:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Are we serious?
I have a small static site called [fixed reference] which I am trying to keep compliant with the various developments in interpretation of licence, but I have to say that the history is the most problematic. In principle I don't see why this discussion assumes the edit history contains adequate history in evolution of the article: a lot of the text is built by team on the talk pages as well: do we need local copies of all versions of all those to be compliant? I for one do not want future users of my work to have to carry hundreds of pages of discussion and versions around before they are allowed to use it and trying to include all this in, say, a CD version for schools is ridiculous: so what do we do? What if there is indecent material in the discussion pages: are we legally obliged to include it in a version for five year olds? Britannica must be laughing all the way to the bank. I would take an aggressive line that stating the content comes from WikiPedia and that WP will prvide the next step of information up the chain. This is the only workable route for this project to have any value to anyone. 99% of it comes under the additional agreement submitters have accepted "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." in any case. --BozMo|talk 09:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Personally, I'd want you to make available a copy of every version of the document which ever existed, since that's what the history does. It's also what I'd do if setting up a mirror... . But so long as you linked to a copy of the history somewhere, I'd be happy enough and I expect most of the other authors to have the same view. You need the complete history, including every difference between revisions, to track who is the copyright holder for each portion and to preserve both the ability to deal with copyright infringment and the moral rights of authors to be associated with their works - which appears to be the fundamental purposes of the history section in the GFDL. The talk pages are not considered part of the encyclopedia, so no, you don't need to include them. The "additional agreement" you referenced is not an additional legal agreement but a caution that this is a wiki, added to stop people from being too concerned about others modifying what they write, after some people took an excessive territorial interest in their own wording. The legal agreement is the GFDL. Jamesday 19:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Title page
The section Title page does not really say if the title page (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) should exist in the verbatim copy. I'd prefer not because the text is quite naïve and changing over the time. (Actually, I am not doing any verbatim copies but the question is interesting) --Etu 02:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that you do not have to include the the title page. Brianjd 09:57, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

 * I think verbatim copy is copy of the whole document, and anything that is part of the licensed document should be kept the same.
 * Besides, this page currently says that the Title Page is below title, but it is near the title. See the first section of the license where terms, including Title Page is defined. Tomos 04:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

License and Copyright Statement
License and Copyright Statement - currently, "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details). Disclaimers.".

Note the link to GNU FDL, which redirects to GNU Free Documentation License. However, the actual license and copyright statement links to Text of the GNU Free Documentation License.

Title
From Verbatim copying:

 * You may not change the Title. For example, in this document, the Title is Wikipedia:Verbatim copying.

It's my understanding of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) that we must change the title unless the original publisher of "a" (does that mean "any"?) previous version gives permission to do use the same title as that version, in which case it is up to us.

In summary: The Wikimedia Foundation cannot make that restriction. Brianjd 06:38, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

 * In case of verbatim copying, I think everything has to be kept, including the title. In case of modification, title has to be changed, because of the provision 4-A. So I take this part as simply rephrasing what verbatim copy means in the context of GFDLTomos 03:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * You seem to be saying that copying is verbatim if and only if the entire Document (including the Title) is the same. Then if we change the title, we have created a Modified Version, and everything will be fine if and only if we follow section 4. Brianjd 10:10, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Title Page

 * The "Title Page" is the text just below the title, before the start of the article proper. This is currently "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", but was previously (briefly) "Find out how you can help support Wikipedia's phenomenal growth", etc.

If I remember correctly, then on the MonoBook skin, for a short while, there was no "Title Page".

 * Where Wikipedia has imported text from a third party, such as Nupedia, the Title Page may additionally extend to some italicised block text immediately after the title, and before the start of the main text.

That seems a bit vague. I would expect at least a link to an example of such an article ("Document" according to the GFDL). Brianjd 06:38, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

 * I looked at some articles linking to Nupedia, and italicized texts were after the main text. I suppose that is technically not very good, though it is hard to miss that piece of text anyway. Tomos 10:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

History Section
As the GFDL was never intended for wiki articles, things get complicated.

I don't think the GFDL was ever intended for use by non-lawyers. The GFDL already seems a lot more complicated than it needs to be. Brianjd 06:38, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Some interpret the GFDL as applied to Wikipedia such that the "history" link (known as the "page history" in non-standard skins) is the GFDL History Section.

"Non-standard skins"? Can't we just say "some skins"? And I don't think that the page pointed to by the "history" link - not the "history" link itself of course - is the GFDL History section, because the GFDL History section needs to be a "section" of the "Document" in the usual sense, and the Wikipedia history is not. Brianjd 06:38, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

There are some issues with this interpretation, making it legally questionable: the "page history"...

 * (3 other points)
 * It is possible to download the Wikipedia database without downloading the full history.

I would rather see a more consistent wording:

 * ...is not always included when the Wikipedia database is downloaded. Brianjd 06:38, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

License and Copyright Statement
Here you have more freedom, chiefly because Wikipedia's current License and Copyright Statement is itself questionable.

Well I hope they're doing something about it then! Brianjd 06:38, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

You must link to a local copy of the GFDL.

See Wikipedia talk:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License for some more discussion regarding this point. I note there that the Wikimedia Foundation's website doesn't seem to have a local copy of the GFDL - the links at the bottom of pages point to http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html - and here that Wikipedia is the only wiki I know that has a local copy of the GFDL. Brianjd 06:38, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

 * It sounds like then, Wikipedia is following GFDL better than other wikis and Wikimedia Foundation. That's good. Section 6 of the GFDL says that in a collection of GFDL documents, GFDL licenses in individual works could be replaced by just one copy. Tomos 04:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * It sounds like then, Wikipedia is following GFDL better than other wikis and Wikimedia Foundation. Agreed, but they are still not doing enough.
 * Section 6 of the GFDL says that in a collection of GFDL documents, GFDL licenses in individual works could be replaced by just one copy. How is this relevant? Brianjd 10:03, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

 * As far as having a copy of full license-text, Wikipedia is doing perhaps all it needs to do. If we regard Wikipedia as a collection of independent documents, that is. We have a full text in our collection, and it is linked from the bottom of each content page. Or you have a different take? Tomos 10:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Printed copies
If you accept this interpretation, then you would need to print out the entire "page history" of the article (you may need to URL-hack to get the entire page history on a single webpage).

This is unacceptable. I don't think this needs much explanation. Brianjd 06:38, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

 * I'm confused. Say I want to collect a number of entries and compile them into a academic study book for my church group.  This book would be made available for purchase on a printing service like LuLu.  Would I be required to print the complete text of the "history" tab for each entry?  As I understand the discussion above, that would make printed reproduction of any wikipedia entry nearly impossible.  We can't have 1,000 line entries for each page of definition.  Obviously I donn't want to violate any user obligations.

In any event, your ability to redistribute Wikipedia articles beyond the terms of the GFDL are extended (at least in the United States) by the fair use and first-sale doctrines.

I don't know much about those but I presume that they are subject to change. Why are we singling out the United States here? Brianjd 06:38, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

 * I think it is okay to add non-US examples. But there seems to me an uncertainty what the relevant law would be when a user outside of the US uses Wikipedia contents and Wikimedia Foundation finds it a breach of the license. Always U.S. law? Depends on where the breach happens? I don't know. But it seems there is a fair chance that U.S. law is the strongest candidate for the governing law in case of some dispute. And that is perhaps why. I hope I knew better. Tomos 10:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Copying in quantity
''If you are copying more than 100 copies, then section 3 (copying in quantity) comes into play. Chiefly this means that you must include either:''

 * (2 other points)
 * (legally questionable) A URL for Wikipedia - note that "(legally questionable)" was originally in italics

''Relying on Wikipedia is legally questionable because pages on Wikipedia may be deleted from public view, or Wikipedia as a whole may be taken down for legal or financial reasons. However, it is clearly the easiest solution, and Wikipedia is pretty stable.''

Is this really specific to Wikipedia? This doesn't seem to be consistent with the GFDL, in spirit at least. Brianjd 06:38, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Extra Redistribution and Copying in Quantity
I've removed the vague sentence, "In any event, your ability to redistribute Wikipedia articles beyond the terms of the GFDL are extended (at least in the United States) by the fair use and first-sale doctrines." Fair use rights are limited, and there is no guarantee it will apply to the redistribution. First-sale doctrine does not apply unless they are transferring the copy they have(without keeping their own). Of course, they might then get another copy, but on the whole things somewhat questionable. At any rate, we don't need to encourage GFDL non-compliance. Als I'd like to address the "copying in quantity" section. The GFDL text says in the "verbatim copying" section, "If you distribute a large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3." It doesn't say if you distribute a large enough number of printed copies, so I think this applies in general to web sites too. The "Copying in quantity" section contains the text "If you publish printed copies (or copies in media that commonly have printed covers)...". That paragraph (and the closely related following one) doesn't apply to web sites. However, I think the next part, which says, "If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, or state in or with each Opaque copy a computer-network location from which the general network-using public has access to download using public-standard network protocols a complete Transparent copy of the Document, free of added material." I think that applies to all copies. I've tried to clarify the situation on the page by moving some things around. Please look over the Verbatim copying and Verbatim copying sections and see what you think. Superm401 | Talk 20:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

What to do about copied material?
It seems that is a verbatim copy of Wikipedia's Wine_making article. There's no license or source information on vinopinions.org, at least none that I can find. I'm sure there must be a process for reporting and investigating this, but I can't find it. Gregmg 22:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Mirrors and forks. Martin 00:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Question
Am I allowed to copy an article and then change the content?
 * Yes. You must follow the same conditions for Verbatim copying, except that you must also follow the requirements in section 4 of the GFDL.  See Text of the GFDL and Copyrights. Superm401 - Talk 09:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Essay template
I've added the "essay" template to this page. Previously it was not clear whether or not this page was intended to be "official" policy or not. Looking at the page history, the page has not been worked on by many editors, and it doesn't look to me that it has received detailed scrutiny from experts in the topic, or from the Wikimedia foundation. So for the time being, I think it's best to view it as an opinion piece - hence the essay template. Ideally it might be good to get more input from experts, or the Wikimedia foundation, for this page. Enchanter 00:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" == ==

 * There have been objections to including this text at mirrors because in web searches a page with this text will appear to be the original at wikipedia.org, misleading people about where they are going to go if they follow the link. Including this text may be a trademark infringement.

Given that it is mandatory to include this text in order to satisfy the GFDL, surely the Wikimedia foundation must grant permission to use the Wikipedia trademark in that way? Martin

 * I would have thought that saying that an article copied from Wikipedia is "From Wikipedia" is a simple statement of fact, and wouldn't be a trademark infringement. The "objection" doesn't make much sense to me either.  Enchanter 00:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Example of breach of GFDL ?
Whilst running a Google search on the Rapier missile I came across the following copy on an advertising website which omits the GFDL licence. Does anyone enforce the licence requirements ? John 20:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 * The copyright owner(s), typically the major contributors to the article in question, may choose to enforce their license if they wish, but are not required to do so. There is a page on wikipedia mirrors at WP:MIRROR. Martin 11:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


text:
The Inheritors (Conrad and Ford novel)

The Inheritors: An Extravagant Story (1901) is a quasi-science fiction novel on which Joseph Conrad and Ford Madox Ford (writing as Ford M. Heuffer) collaborated. Written before the first World War, its themes of corruption and the effect of the 20th century on British aristocracy were prescient. It was first published in London by William Heinemann and later the same year in New York by McClure, Phillips and Company.

In the novel, the metaphor of the "fourth dimension" is used to explain a societal shift from a generation of people who have traditional values of interdependence, being overtaken by a modern generation who believe in expediency, callously using political power to bring down the old order. Its narrator is an aspiring writer who himself makes a similar transition at a personal level only to feel he has lost everything.

Plot introduction
The inheritors are a breed of cold materialists, calling themselves Fourth Dimensionists, whose task is to occupy the earth. Arthur, an unsuccessful English writer, meets a fascinating woman by chance, who seems to talk in metaphors. She claims to be from the Fourth Dimension and a major player in a plan to "inherit the earth". They go their separate ways with her pledge they will meet again and again.

At their next meeting, the woman freely reveals her "identity" and two others in their circle, one a cabinet minister (Charles Gurnard) and Fox, the editor of a new paper – all of them competing with each other. She has taken on his name and pretends to be his sister, invading firstly his down-on-their-luck aristocratic family by financing improvements to their estate, until she moves with his aunt, to Paris. Each time she turns up, she is in greater connection with prominent political people and appears more dazzlingly beautiful and more desirable to Arthur.

Plot summary
The authors introduce the story via science fiction tropes such as the uncanny – coincidences, ESP, unearthly lighting effects, distorted visions, supernatural aural frequencies and scenes dissolving into another – pointing to the underlying threat of instability that drives the novel. The story is told through the eyes of Arthur, a writer turned journalist who feels he is compromising his art. Although Arthur at first holds to high ideals (he values "literature" over journalism, sacrificial literary types over opportunists), he gradually moves away from them because he wants to be a somebody.

After first compromising his work, and obsessed with the woman, he is seduced into thinking that he has a chance with her. He further believes he has a choice between being phased out without making his mark or being "one of them", one of the inner circle who inherits power along with Them. She accurately chooses him for his weaknesses: his sense of failure and impotence as a writer with a need for significance; his isolation and willingness to join society; his snobbery and openness to flattering attention. While her reasons for bringing Arthur into play are not clear at first, they are complex. Inevitably Arthur is her tool for bringing down her opponent. For the authors, Arthur serves as an observer and an experiment at the hands of the Dimensionists, proving their effectiveness on an individual's psyche.

The story is a Machiavellian labyrinth involving the British Government's tenuous support for a railway baron, a bid to annex Greenland, and a tilt at party leadership. Themes of unrealised potential, the cold-blooded manoeuvering, and the upward climb of the influential mystery woman, fictionalise the intricacies and interactions of class and power in Britain at the time. Two contrasting mindsets of society are delineated by generational values or lack of them and the changes they portend for the everyday people they effectively rule.

By chance Arthur is offered a job writing "atmospheric" pieces for a new journal put together by an editor (Fox), a well-respected writer (Callan) and the Foreign Minister (Edward Churchill). Although Fox is a Fourth Dimensionist, his group represents the more humanitarian version of the Dimension threesome. Arthur is to write about celebrities. In this way, and through his own sense of superiority and lack of sympathy for others, he is drawn into the machinery of politics and the players who aim to inherit the earth. Although he frequently thinks of ways to expose their plan and tries to warn others such as his aunt and Churchill against the woman and Them, he is outwitted. As her brother, people see it as sibling rivalry, contaminated by jealousy, and ambition. His every move outmatched, Arthur lapses into passivity on that front. Instead he tries to win her favour.

Using the ploy of hinting that she cares, the woman leads Arthur into believing there's hope if he can impress her. The ailing and exhausted Fox admits his own defeated position, trusting him with editorial power for a few hours. The climax comes when Arthur has the chance to insert an article that would avert history, to stop the presses at The Hour. But with a desire to show how much he is like her kind, to earn her favour, he decides not to. He learns to his dismay that he did just what he was meant to do, undermine Fox – Gurnard's opponent – that he never had a place in her scheme, and has betrayed anyone who would have meant anything to him, such as Churchill, Callan and Fox. Learning she is marrying a triumphant Gurnard, realising there is no going back and no future for him, he has a minor breakdown at his Club, where people speak of him as "the one they got at".

Textual notes
The Inheritors contains the themes that preoccupied both its authors in their respective bodies of work. Themes of universality and the corruptibility of human nature, loneliness, isolation, self-deception, and the outworkings of a character's flaws are signatures found throughout most of Joseph Conrad's writings. In Ford Madox Ford's work, both The Good Soldier and Parade's End published much later, the author depicts a long undisturbed English aristocracy confused and bewildered by the arrival of the 20th century.

Main

 * Arthur – narrator, writer, of the Etching Grangers, an old family of aristocrats.
 * She – alias "Miss Etchingham Granger", the mystery woman who introduces the Fourth Dimension and their plans.
 * Lady Etchingham Granger – Arthur's elderly aunt and freedom activist.
 * Callan – famous writer and co-founder of a journal, The Hour. Gives Arthur a job.
 * Fox – editor of The Hour and Dimensionist.
 * Edward Churchill – Foreign Minister; offers Arthur the chance to collaborate on a book about Oliver Cromwell.
 * Rt Hon Charles Gurnard – Chancellor of the Exchequer and Dimensionist.
 * The Duc de Mersch – railway baron and foreign financier involved in the Greenland plan.

Others

 * Lea – Arthur's literary mentor and publisher's reader; encourages Arthur in his new venture.
 * Mr Polehampton – Arthur's literary publisher.
 * Miss Churchill – Churchill's sister.
 * Baron Halderschrodt – de Mersh's banker in chief.

title: The Inheritors (Conrad and Ford novel)


text:
Robert Cecil

Robert Cecil may refer to:

 * Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury (1563–1612), English administrator and politician, MP for Westminster, and for Hertfordshire
 * Robert Cecil (1670–1716), Member of Parliament for Castle Rising, and for Wootton Basset
 * Robert Cecil (MP for Old Sarum) (died 1657), English politician
 * Robert Cecil, 1st Viscount Cecil of Chelwood (1864–1958) British lawyer, politician and diplomat
 * Robert Cecil (British diplomat) (1913–1994), British diplomat and writer
 * Robert Gascoyne-Cecil (disambiguation), several people

title: Robert Cecil


text:
Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is one of the two entities composing Bosnia and Herzegovina, the other being Republika Srpska. The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina consists of ten autonomous cantons with their own governments and legislatures.

The Federation was created by the 1994 Washington Agreement, which ended the Croat–Bosniak War within the Bosnian War, and established a constituent assembly that continued its work until October 1996.

The Federation has a capital, government, president, parliament, customs and police departments and two postal systems. It occupies about half of the land of Bosnia and Herzegovina. From 1996 until 2005 it had its own army, the Army of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, later merged in the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The capital and largest city is Sarajevo with 275,524 inhabitants.

History
<!-- ALL THE SECTION ABOUT THE BOSNIAN WAR IS SUPERFLUOUS AND NOT IN TOPIC WITH THE ACTUAL ARTICLE --

Bosnian War
The Serb-dominated Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) attacked Croatia from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Their first target was the village Ravno that was attacked on 2 November 1991 and completely destroyed. Yugoslavia effected an economic blockade of Bosnia and Herzegovina, thus trying to keep it as part of Yugoslavia.

Later, Yugoslavia claimed territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina with a Serb majority and the capital Sarajevo. Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was declared on 27 March 1992 with the goal to incorporate parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina into Yugoslavia. The objective of Serbian politics in Bosnia and Herzegovina was to unite Serbian autonomous provinces into a single unit that would join Yugoslavia, and with total blockade of Sarajevo, break Bosnia and Herzegovina into smaller, unconnected and hardly defensible enclaves. Because of superiority in armaments, support from Belgrade and an embargo on the importation of arms into Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Serbs achieved their goals by June 1992.

The Bosniak leadership was still indecisive concerning a major conflict, so the Croats were the first to participate in the war. They organized military units, Croatian Defence Forces (HOS) in November 1991 and the Croatian Defence Council in April 1992. Those units were partly composed of Bosniaks. The Territorial Defence of Bosnia and Herzegovina, later Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina effectively organized in autumn of 1992. In Serb-controlled areas, Serbs performed mass murders, ethnic cleansing of non-Serbs, primarily Bosniaks and Croats, established concentration camps and destroyed Bosniak and Croat cultural inheritance. By November 1992 Serbs had conquered 70% of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina and held Sarajevo in limbo by terrorizing its population by shelling and constant sniper fire.

The creation of a Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia was a matter of dispute for Bosniaks. Croats accused Bosniaks of Islamization of the country and attempts to create Bosniak domination in all areas. So they withdrew the ethnic Croat representatives from Parliament, Government and the Presidency. Due to expulsions by Bosnian Serbs, Bosniaks moved to other areas and thus disrupted the Croats' area and altered their pre-war ratio. Political disputes and minor incidents in central and northern Bosnia and in northern and central Herzegovina led to Croat-Bosniak War in November 1992.

The Vance-Owen plan was presented in January 1993. It was planned to create 10 cantons on the territory of the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This plan increased conflict between Croats and Bosniaks. The Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH) launched four offensives and conquered a large area which was under control of HVO; almost the whole Central Bosnia (except Novi Travnik, Vitez, Busovača, Kiseljak, Kreševo and Žepče and the wider areas around those towns and Usora, part of Municipality of Travnik, Zavidovići and part of Municipality of Vareš) and part of Herzegovina, Konjic, Jablanica and eastern and northern parts of Mostar.

Crimes against civilians were committed on both sides. Hostility between Croats and Bosniaks ended with mediation by the United States and the signing of the Washington Agreement on 18 March 1994. The cooperation between Croats and Bosniaks was renewed, and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a Bosniak and Croat controlled area was established. There was also a proposal to create a confederation of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republic of Croatia.

The joint command of ARBiH, HVO and Croatian Army (HV) was established in March 1995. The closer cooperation between Croats and Bosniaks was made through the Split Agreement where Bosnia and Herzegovina's Bosniak leaders allowed the Croatian Army to free western part of Bosnia and Herzegovina with cooperation with ARBiH. After the Operation Storm, the Serbian hoop around Bihać was broken and Croatian and Bosnian armies continued to liberate western Bosnia. The UN unsuccessfully tried to establish peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina by trying to create a successful structure for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Serbs launched an attack on the UN-protected town of Bihać, but they were stopped by the Croatian army during Operation Storm. Joint Croatian-Bosnian military successes made peace negotiations possible.

Creation
-->

The basis for the creation of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was laid down by the Washington Agreement of March 1994. Under the agreement, the combined territory held by the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Croatian Defence Council forces was to be divided into ten autonomous cantons along the lines of the Vance-Owen plan. The cantonal system was selected to prevent dominance of one ethnic group over another. However, much of the territory Croats and Bosniaks claimed for their Federation was at that point still controlled by the Bosnian Serbs.

The Washington Agreement was implemented during the spring of 1994, by convoking a Constitutional Assembly, which on 24 June adopted and proclaimed the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In 1995, Bosniak forces and Bosnian Croat forces of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina defeated forces of the Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia, and this territory was added to the federation (Una-Sana Canton).

Post-war
By the Dayton Agreement of 1995 that ended the four-year war, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was defined as one of the two entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, comprising 51% of country's area, alongside Republika Srpska. Cantons and federal structure were built rather slowly after the war. Separatist Croat Herzeg-Bosnia institutions existed and functioned parallel to Federation ones up until 1996–97, when they were phased out. On 8 March 2000, the Brčko District was formed as an autonomous district within Bosnia and Herzegovina and it was created from part of the territory of both Bosnian entities. Brčko District is now a condominium that belongs to both entities.

In 2001–2002, the Office of the High Representative (OHR) imposed amendments to the Federation's Constitution and its electoral law, in compliance with the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the political equality of the three constituent peoples (U-5/98). This triggered the grievances of Bosnian Croats, who claimed they were deprived of their rights to representation as Bosniaks had come to control the majority in the upper house as well. Dissatisfied Croat politicians set up a separate Croatian National Assembly, held a referendum parallel to the elections and proclaimed their self-rule in Croat-majority areas in the Federation. Their attempts ended shortly after a crackdown by SFOR and legal proceedings.

Dissatisfied with the representation of Croats in the Federation, Croat political parties insist on creating a Croat-majority federal unit instead of several cantons. SDA and other Bosniak parties strongly oppose this. In September 2010, the International Crisis Group warned that "disputes among and between Bosniak and Croat leaders and a dysfunctional administrative system have paralyzed decision-making, put the entity on the verge of bankruptcy and triggered social unrest". In January 2017, Croatian National Assembly stated that "if Bosnia and Herzegovina wants to become self-sustainable, then it is necessary to have an administrative-territorial reorganization, which would include a federal unit with a Croatian majority. It remains the permanent aspiration of the Croatian people of Bosnia and Herzegovina."

In 2010–14 the Federation's Government was formed by SDP without the consent of major Croat political parties, leading to a political crisis.

In parallel to EU-facilitated talks on the Sejdic-Finci issue at State level, in February 2013 the US embassy supported an expert working group which presented its 188 recommendations to the FBIH House of Representatives in 2013, aiming to address the costly and complex governance structures with overlapping competences between the Federation, the Cantons and the municipalities as currently entailed in the Federation Constitution. The initiative was finally not adopted by the Parliament.

Following an appeal by HDZ BiH Božo Ljubić, in December 2016 the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina abolished the electoral formula for the indirect election of the Federation House of People, stating that it did not guarantee the legitimate representation of constituent peoples. Notably, the ruling did not concur with an amicus curiae opinion of the Venice Commission on the same matter. Lacking legislative amendments to revise the Election Law, in Summer 2018 the Central Election Commission of Bosnia and Herzegovina provisionally enacted a new formula for the composition of the House of People, based on the minimal representation formula (one deputy per each constituent people per each canton) and on the 2013 census.

In 2022, the High Representative imposed amendments to the federal Constitution and the Election Law, implementing the Ljubic verdict. The changes also reconstructed the original balance of power between Croats and Bosniaks in the Federation, as envisioned in Washington Agreement.

In 2023, the High Representative suspended the federal Constitution for one day in order to impose a new government. This created a huge scandal and political crisis. Some see this as an act of "treason".

Geographic boundary
The Inter-Entity Boundary Line (IEBL) that distinguishes Bosnia and Herzegovina's two entities runs along the frontlines as they existed at the end of the Bosnian War, with adjustments (most importantly in the western part of the country and around Sarajevo), as defined by the Dayton Agreement. The total length of the IEBL is approximately 1,080 km. The IEBL is an administrative demarcation and not controlled by the military or police and there is free movement across it.

Five of the cantons (Una-Sana, Tuzla, Zenica-Doboj, Bosnian Podrinje and Sarajevo) are Bosniak-majority cantons, three (Posavina, West Herzegovina and Canton 10) are Croat-majority cantons, and two (Central Bosnia and Herzegovina-Neretva) are 'ethnically mixed', meaning there are special legislative procedures for protection of the constituent peoples.

A significant portion of Brčko District was also part of the Federation; however, when the district was created, it became shared territory of both entities, but it was not placed under control of either of the two, and is hence under direct jurisdiction of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Currently the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina has 79 municipalities.

Politics
The government and politics of the Federation are dominated by three large parties, the Bosniak Party of Democratic Action (SDA), the multi-ethnic Social Democratic Party (SDP BiH) and the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ BiH).

Entity-level institutions include:
 * Federal President with two vice-presidents (list of presidents of FBiH)
 * Federal Government with guaranteed ethnic representation (list of prime ministers of FBiH)
 * Bicameral Parliament:
 * House of Representatives as the lower house and
 * House of Peoples as the upper house, protecting the interests of the three constituent peoples;
 * Federal Constitutional Court.

Since Bosniaks compose roughly 70.4% of the Federation's population, Croats 22.4% and Serbs just around 2%, the Parliament's House of Peoples (with equal representation for all three nationalities) is supposed to ensure that the interests of Croats, Serbs and national minorities are fairly represented during government creation and in the legislative process.

The Federation is also divided into ten highly autonomous cantons. They each have their own governments, assemblies and exclusive and shared competencies. In 2010, the Federation's Constitutional Court ruled that two Federation's ministries – the Ministry of Education and Science and the Ministry of Culture and Sports – are unconstitutional since education and culture are an exclusive competence of the cantons.

Political divisions
The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina comprises ten cantons (Bosnian: kantoni, Croatian: županije):

Demographics
The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina comprises 51% of the land area of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and is home to 62.85% of the country's total population.

title: Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina