text:
Talk:Body mass index

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hkim188, Gpechero.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2021 and 14 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Drostinatorr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 May 2019 and 2 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yeeeshanb.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Updated chart
I've created a new BMI chart that I'd like to add to the article. My aim was to make it easier to read, and since our readers may come here to do just that I have a suggestion; Rather than simply swapping out the infobox image I'd like to place the new BMI chart in the article as a wide image, as shown below. So to avoid duplication I suggest that File:Obesity & BMI.png be moved to the infobox.

I was going to boldly edit the article myself but, since it's quite a drastic change, I thought I should mention it here first. nagualdesign 19:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Having made the edit a few hours ago, looked at it on desktop and on mobile, then thought about it for a while, I changed my mind. The wide image looks okay on a desktop browser and it's kind of readable on mobile but being so far down the page lacked prominence, particularly on mobile where you had to scroll quite a way to even see it. What I was trying to do was avoid having to click through in order to read the chart but, for readers who come here specifically looking for a chart, having to click on it (in the infobox) is far simpler than having to scroll down to even find it. Plus, the infobox image will show up on Google search results so the chart is more appropriate. In the end I've essentially just swapped the old chart for the new one. nagualdesign 23:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

These are just suggestions for improving your image, so no offense towards your hard work. I'm only commenting because you brought it up in another discussion. This image can be viewed outside the scope of the "Body mass index" page and even Wikipedia without the caption, both by people familiar and unfamiliar with BMI, so it would be best to have enough labels to accommodate everyone. I would suggest adding category names for each color (under chart) or on each color (overlay) to identify them. I would add the two missing underweight cut-off points (16 and 17) and add severeness colors similar to overweight/obese, which can make overlaid labels tight. Finally, these cut-off points only apply to the "Adult International Body Mass Index (BMI)", so you may want to add that label to the top of the graphic. Jroberson108 (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

BMI table's BMI Prime
In the "Categories" section's BMI table, should the "BMI Prime" column be removed? Technically it is an alternative to BMI listed in the "Alternatives" section, which I don't think the WHO mentions in their study report. I'm not even sure if it is widely used or popular. The WHO does further divide some of the BMI categories, which could replace that column. Jroberson108 (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Boundaries between categories
Several times edits have been made that leave gaps between the categories. For example if one ends at 24.9 kg/m2 and the next starts at 25 kg/m2, what is the category if one measures 24.95 kg/m2? The boundaries should be single numbers. In the practically impossible case that the measurement is exactly 25, one can exhale once and be under that value.−Woodstone (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, what you changed it to has incorrect ranges and is unsupported by the cited sources. BMI categories with overlapping ranges doesn't exist anywhere that I could find, and for good reason since it can cause confusion. I found and fixed many pages that spoke about one BMI category with an incorrect end value similar to your version and not the WHO's version. I wouldn't worry about some gap of .999 and just keep it the way the source presents it, which they felt was good enough to present to the entire world. When it was .99, you complained at that time too about gaps and excessive pressicion, even though the source had the same. Also, most people understand if the table has one decimal point precision, then do a lookup in that regard. Just present what the source has without changing it to what you personally want. Jroberson108 (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Dividing a continuous scale into categories requires a single number between two adjacent categories. The number itself can be arbitrarily assigned to either. This has been stable in the article for quite a long time, by having two columns "from" and "up to" (not including), with full clarity and no gaps between the intervals. That other sites dumb down the display is no reason to follow an unscientific presentation. At very absolute minimum there should be a remark how to solve the gaps after measurement.−Woodstone (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Your claim of stability is unfounded. Also, the original table did not have an "up to" (not including) column as you claim, but a "to" (inclusive) column. What is clear is that what was being maintained was very wrong from the sources until I fixed it in this edit on 02:19, 9 July 2021, which you blindly reverted in this edit on 13:58, 9 July 2021 without checking the changes or sources. Ex. The "Underweight" categories were very wrong in both name and range, and put a BMI of 16 as the start of underweight when it should be a BMI of 17. The entire Singapore BMI table was wrong. My second attempt was to reduce the precision as a compromise from .99 (what the source has) to .9 in this edit on 01:38, 15 July 2021, which you again reverted, ignoring the edit summary yet again with a false claim of "using popups" and started this discussion. Giving your opinion about other sites that aren't sourced is unnecessary; just stick to the sources. Your presentation based on your opinion/interpretation that it is "unscientific" or otherwise is unfounded and appears to be against Wikipedia policy. WP:REPUTABLE: "...we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Jroberson108 (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 * The main category table in this article has had category boundaries without gaps since more than ten years (with very few exceptions). First simply by stating from-to, later by dividing in columns. Why do not consider that "stable"?. Looking at the differences, it seemed that the edit was purely introducing gaps between the categories. If there were also corrections to the category boundaries themselves, I apologise for reverting too hastily. The task of an article is to explain as clearly as possible what the sources mean, not the literal text in them. Leaving gaps between categories makes some BMI values undefined. However, by interpreting the sources correctly, it appears that the intervals are meant to be low-inclusive and high-exclusive (but a measurement will in practice never exactly hit the boundary value). It would be good for the article to show that clearly. Indeed the heading used to be "to" (with implied "not including"). That might be added. −Woodstone (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I don't feel like we are getting anywhere with this discussion, so I asked for a 3rd party opinion. WP:3O Jroberson108 (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (here from WP:3O) My initial reaction is that there are likely enough reliable sources on BMI that we could cherry pick a solid set of citations in support of either inclusive or exclusive upper boundaries. In other words: per WP:CALC and a bit of artistic license, I'm sure it's technically fine to play with the numbers a bit within reason, but it shouldn't be necessary to diverge from WP:RS in this case. I also don't see a fundamental problem with ending at 24.9 and the next one starting at 25.0. If it's clear that we're doing 1 decimal point, I don't think it's worth worrying about that someone might be confused about 24.9X. Perhaps it needs to explicitly say "bounds are after rounding to nearest 0.1" or some such. Leijurv (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

BMI values and categories are only a rough guide. If we say that normal weight is 18.5–25 and overweight is 25–30, that's perfectly fine and easily understandable. Anyone with a BMI of precisely 25 is obviously on the cusp (and may benefit from losing a few pounds). The idea of overcomplicating things by adding decimal places, and introducing gaps, overstates the specificity of BMI categories. If you do have a BMI of precisely 25 and then you use the toilet, you may drop to 24.99 or whatever but you're still on the cusp of being overweight. (Fun fact: My brother once weighed himself before and after using the toilet and he'd lost 2 pounds! That's a BMI drop of around 0.3. True story.) nagualdesign 17:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt and in-depth response, which I agree with. Thank you for your response and the example that I can't un-read/un-imagine. I will add that there are industries that use strict BMI cut-off values that deny life insurance or a doctor's ability to recommend help with eating disorders just because you don't quite meet the requirements, and I have never seen any BMI examples more than two decimal places long (maybe researchers who already know this stuff). I did find an odd presentation of the ranges where they added a less than symbol in front of the range's end value like so: "25 to <30". Yet another option? I still prefer using "25.0 – 29.9" or "25.0 to 29.9", which most everyone uses, but "25 to <30" may work, although odd in my opinion? Would like to hear more opinions. Jroberson108 (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Yet another 3rd Opinion here. The answer is easy, we should stick to RS. Having said that, the source on the first table (which is bionity.com) fails WP:RSMED. A general note, article focuses too much on numbers and variations, instead of the history of the term, meaning, interpretation, significance and associated conditions. Cinadon36 14:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. nagualdesign 16:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 * The source for the first table is The SuRF Report 2. The one you provided is for the BMI Prime column, which I don't know why that column is there to begin with since it is an alternative to BMI. Sticking to RS would mean the ranges need to change to values like this: "25.00 to 29.99". Jroberson108 (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Yes, I hadn't look at the chart. The same problem arises at intro as well. At intro, the ref is webpage of WHO but is not a paper and I am not sure if we should consider it a RS. So, I would suggest we review the literature and observe what is the most common way to separate categories. The burden of doing so falls on the users who want to change the stable version, I guess. Cinadon36 19:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 * At the very least, the ref you pointed out in the lead doesn't appear to have any information related to the statement it supports, just a bunch of links to articles. It seems a lot on the page needs to be verified. As for the discussion in this section, it is more about whether the categories in the table should display BMI ranges as they appear in the The SuRF Report 2 source (e.g. "25.00 to 29.99", "30.00 to 34.99"), or as most websites present it with one less decimal precision (e.g. "25.0 to 29.9", "30.0 to 34.9"), or rounded up as it is now to prevent gaps like 29.999 (e.g. "25 to 30", "30 to 35"). Rounding up, in my opinion, creates possible confusion with a BMI of 30 in two categories. So far it seems the majority, you included, are in favor of repeating the source values. If that is so, then shouldn't it be adjusted? I've tried twice only to have it reverted as described above. Jroberson108 (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Having sleep on it, I find the problem on the category table, is not that it could confuse those on the margin, but it is not accurate. A number can not exist in both groups, that is a logical fallacy. Wikipedia should be accurate. I see the solution of followed by most websites, most suitable. Cinadon36 06:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 * A single number logically separates two adjacent categories. That precise number can be arbitrarily assigned to either category (in a systematic way, such as left-inclusive), but will in practice never occur as result af a measurement. On the other hand, having different bounding numbers between adjacent categories leaves the measurements that fall in beween them undefined in all cases. −Woodstone (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 * The consensus is to stick with WP:RS and that one decimal precision (e.g. "25.0 to 29.9", "30.0 to 34.9") is good enough. To address your concerns about gaps, suggested adding a footnote to that column, which I agree with. Jroberson108 (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 * you have a good point, nonetheless, other editor also has a good point. Since this is a Style issue, maybe it should be addressed at Manual of Style. If there is no guidance at MoS, we should follow RS. If you are too strong minded about it, I would advice you to take it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, since your proposal could be applied elsewhere as well. Cinadon36 06:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Reverted ranges back to single decimal precision w/o overlap and added a note to each table to address gap concerns per consensus. Jroberson108 (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I do not see any consensus here. Moreover I find it quite objectionable that the instigator of contested changes to a ten-year stable display takes it upon himself to declare a conclusion. And the wording is wrong as well: there never was an overlap, just touching between categories.−Woodstone (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

 * It's inappropriate for you to change my comment just because you disagree; it has been reverted and is there for all editors. Protocol was followed for dispute resolution between two editors on a discussion started by you; a neutral third opinion was asked for and two different editors from that platform gave their opinions. Consensus (wide acceptance) was reached among all involved editors on what the content should be as well as a solution to address your concerns, which both were implemented and editors were informed. You are welcome to escalate in accordance with dispute resolution. Jroberson108 (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I agree with Woodstone. There's no clear consensus here. Nor do I think it's inappropriate to remove a prematurely placed resolved tag. I can understand you taking exception to having your post edited but the tag needs to be removed. nagualdesign 21:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Since you both feel the issue hasn't been resolved, I removed the resolved template; although, I disagree with your opinion that it was premature or that consensus hasn't been widely agreed upon to resolve all issues. Achieving consensus: "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached." Note that total agreement isn't required for consensus. Three of the five editors, myself and two neutral editors from WP:3O, are of the opinion that we should stick with WP:RS and feel one decimal precision is good enough. Two of the same editors (myself and ) suggested adding a note to the tables to address gap concerns, which no one objected to. Nagualdesign at first wanted rounded numbers, but then later agreed ("I couldn't agree more.") with opinion in favor of sticking with RS and never offered any opposition later on. In the end, Woodstone is the only one opposing single or double decimal precision from RS out of concern for gaps, which the unopposed table notes address. Maybe you both can elaborate on why you feel consensus hasn't been reached and/or raise any additional concerns that haven't already been discussed? Jroberson108 (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, re. "Nagualdesign at first wanted rounded numbers, but then later agreed ("I couldn't agree more.") with Cinadon36 opinion in favor of sticking with RS and never offered any opposition later on." - I clearly explained why I favoured rounded numbers but perhaps I wasn't clear that I was simply agreeing with Cinadon36's comment that the article focuses too much on numbers and variations, instead of the history of the term, meaning, interpretation, significance and associated conditions. I also agree with Cinadon36's earlier point that there are likely enough reliable sources on BMI that we could cherry pick a solid set of citations in support of either inclusive or exclusive upper boundaries, which means that WP:RS is somewhat moot, and also that this is a style issue that might be addressed at WP:MOS or taken to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Perhaps you already did that? (sorry I haven't checked) but in this discussion I see no clear consensus to change the status quo.
 * There's another option here, and that's to remove the table altogether since it's ambiguous, contentious and arguably not very helpful. The article prose is a much better place to explain exactly where categories begin and end (we can use phrases like "upto but not including"), and we also have File:BMI chart.png in the infobox that sums things up nicely (even if I do say so myself).
 * Please bear in mind that there's no rush to change the article, and quoting policy to experienced editors may bludgeon the process. If you feel very strongly about it you may wish to start an RfC (then take a step back). Regards, nagualdesign 17:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Thanks for clarifying your opinion; your agreement to Cinadon36's initial comment did come across as blanketed. As far as Leijurv's initial reaction, it would be nice if a RS was found in favor of rounded overlap (exclusive upper boundaries); otherwise, it is a moot point, but I agree with his conclusion that it isn't necessary to diverge from RS in this case. If a rounded overlap RS is found, I wouldn't conclude RS is moot, it may be that one is more reliable (e.g. primary source), especially since the content is data from a well established organization.
 * re: "I see no clear consensus to change the status quo" In reading the entire discussion of each editor, I find their preferences clear and a wide consensus reached (4:1, now 3:2) in favor of sticking to the RS with a preference for single decimal precision due to the two 3O editors' concluding remarks. Leijurv: no need to diverge from RS in this case; no fundamental problem with ending at 24.9; 1 decimal point clear, no need to worry about 24.9X confusion. Cinadon36: we should stick to RS; overlap not accurate and logical fallacy; website version most suitable solution ("25.0 to 29.9"). Granted, each person understands information differently, I can understand the difference of opinions on whether a consensus has been reached. If you feel I implemented the changes too hastily, then I apologize, but I still see wide consensus.
 * Regarding taking style issues to WP:MOS, that suggestion was directed towards Woodstone and his overlapping ranges, and I see no need for myself to pursue something that can potentially cause confusion. I agree with Cinadon36: if there is no guidance as MoS, we should follow RS. I did look to see if there was any guidance/discussion on the topic, but found nothing. Maybe Woodstone can let us know if he found anything or will pursue it? For the record, there were at least 10 attempts from various editors to fix/explain the overlaps, all reverted by Woodstone, indicating an obvious desire for clarity for many years. Not sure why a discussion was never started, but at least there is one now.
 * Removing tables, moving table data to prose, and/or replacing a table with your image doesn't seem like a fitting solution to the potential confusion of overlapping ranges, which can exist in all formats. Tables/Lists generally work best for simple data, where tables are best for more structured data, which both allow readers to quickly scan when compared to prose. Prose can still exist for simple data, but can be difficult to read with more structured data. Images aren't very search engine friendly (indexable) as compared to table/list/prose (text) since the only indexable things in an image are the filename and file meta, not the presented data.
 * As far as rewording to keep rounded numbers without overlap, in an earlier comment I suggested the odd use of "25 to <30" (see my 4th comment) as a possible solution, but no one responded, so I didn't bring it up again. Using words like "25 up to but less than 30" or "25 up to but excluding 30" can work, but seems too wordy/lengthy for a table/list/image; however, might work for prose, but can take longer to comprehend. A shorter option, which is partially done in the RS and may only work in table/list/image, is to only list cut-off points ("≥ 18.5", "≥ 25"), which simplifies the data, but can look odd and requires common sense to know the next category ends the previous; or rewritten as ("18.5+", "25+"). In my opinion, all these options are acceptable since they don't create potential confusion from overlaps. I find "25 to <30" and "25 – <30" more ideal, concise, and comprehensive compared to the rest; just not sure if it follows style guidelines? Just to be clear, I'm still most in favor of a single decimal precision ("25.0 to 29.9" or "25.0 – 29.9") that better matches RS, which appears to be more commonly used online and probably in print media too. Jroberson108 (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the last paragraph in my previous comment about rounded ranges without overlap. I looked at MOS:RANGES and MOS:COMMONMATH (didn't look at discussions) and saw no recommendations, but, if it were discussed, I would assume a recommendation for "25 – <30"; although, it can be argued that it isn't needed in this case of a consecutive (unbroken) set of ranges and should stick to "25.0 – 29.9". As far as the format recommendation goes, here is the logic. It says change "to" to an en dash; without spaces unless either element has a space. I would assume convert "less than" to "<", similar to "to". It says add spaces around "<", but the application here is more like the unary operators that are up against the number due to the dash. Unary operators are preceeded by a space, so add a space around the en dash. The first ("< 16") and last ("≥ 40") catch-all ranges remain spaced since no en dash, not used as unary operators, and binary operators are spaced.

A recommendation of only cut-off points ("≥ 18.5", "≥ 25") might be possible, but still has the common sense factor, looks odd, and only works with a consecutive (unbroken) set of ranges, which is the case in the table, but not the case in prose if categories are seperated by text (ranges too spaced out; appears broken; requires more reading) or only one category is discussed (broken set; works for first/last catch-all ranges). Jroberson108 (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Several editors keep talking about "overlap" between categories. That is mistaken. The categories "touch" each other in the bounding value. No values should be left between categories by having the next one begin at a different value than the previous one ends. This is easy to show in a table where limits of a category are indicated by "from >=" and "to <". The signs can also be written in a second line under the "from" and "to". That way there is absolutely no doubt over which category applies. Alternatively words in small print like "inclusive" and "non-inclusive" could be used.
 * {| class="wikitable"

! rowspan="2"| Category ! colspan="2"| BMI (kg/m2) ! from >= || to <
 * normal || 18.5 ||25
 * }
 * −Woodstone (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * −Woodstone (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I recommend sticking with MOS:RANGES and use an en dash without "from" and "to", whether they be inline or in column headers. Also, it is common to include both the lower and upper limits in a range: "pp. 1–2", "$1–2", "1–2%", "2001–2002", "M–F", etc. The same applies if "to" were used instead of an en dash with the optional "from". When you see "1–2" and "2–4", it is common to understand that "2" exists in both ranges (overlap); therefore, if you want to exclude, then clearly indicate it, or rewrite it as "1–2" and "3–4" (touching). The same applies to decimal point precision. As I indicated in my previous comment, MOS:RANGES doesn't have a style for exclusion and you would need to discuss it further there. Jroberson108 (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 * You are confusing rages of discrete numbers and ranges in a continuum. Pages and years are discrete. There is no page 2.5 or year 2001.5. In discrete cases it makes sense that the start of a category is one unit higher than the one ending. In case of a measurement of properties on a continuous scale, as is the case for BMI, categories much touch in a single value in order to define a category for all possible values. Your recommendation of "1-2 and 3-4 (touching)" makes no sense since there is a distance between 2 and 3, so they are not touching. If you insist on a single column, ranges like "18.5 to 25" followed by "25 to 30" can be made clear with a note stating (upper bound is non-inclusive). −Woodstone (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 * As I mentioned before, it is common and "The same applies to decimal point precision", which even the RS uses "18.50 – 24.99", "25.00 – 29.99" (touching) without notes about further precision, which consensus was in favor of following the RS and that one decimal precision is good enough "18.5 – 24.9". It is also common to round according to the same precision of the ranges you check against (e.g. "24.9999" round to "25.00" or "25.0"). If you haven't noticed, it was also suggested that a note could be added to address your concerns about precision, which is presently there in the column header of each table and in layman's terms so everyone can understand if confusion arises. If you want to ammend the style guide to include range upper limit exclusion, then discuss it at MOS:RANGES. Discussing style changes here on the BMI page will not change the style guide. Jroberson108 (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 * You are misrepresenting MOS. It discusses only single ranges. There is nothing about how adjacent ranges are to be represented. Introducing additional numbers other than the real category boundaries does not promote clarity. Instead of the obviously conveniently round and easy numbers like 25, 30 etc, now the reader has to consider 24.9 and 29.9 without those have any significance in separating the categories. I just read the well hidden note and it is laughable in its internal contradictiveness. Imagine the reader frown when contemplating that the range "18.5 to 24.9 includes 24.9999".−Woodstone (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC).

I'm glad you reconfirmed my findings at MOS:RANGES that, although there is a style for a range of numbers, there is no style for a range that excludes the upper limit or the like. Feel free to discuss a new/amended style further at MoS. Until then, it is best to follow the current style for a range of numbers, whether it be a single range or a series of ranges.

As far as the footnote goes, I'm not attached to the text and put something together in layman's terms that I felt would accomodate your gap concerns. It can certainly be changed to the suggestion given by, which is short and simple: "Bounds are after rounding to nearest 0.1". Jroberson108 (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I cannot bear to look at the utterly cluttered table with unnecessarily added digits where only round numbers are intended, and then hear that you call the clarification clutter. Such neglect of clarity is unbelievable.−Woodstone (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

 * 100% agree with every word of 's previous comment. nagualdesign 21:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 * , yes, we are aware of your support for Woodstone's opinion(s). I was just in the process of requesting RfC when you commented, something either of you could have easily done just as I requested the same from WP:3O; although, I'm not sure it will change opinions. Jroberson108 (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I posted this about 24 hours ago, as suggested you do. As you're aware, the onus is really on the person who wishes to change the status quo (that's you), but regardless, you're welcome. Good idea starting an RfC too. It may not change individual's opinions but it does tend to result in a clearer consensus. nagualdesign 00:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 * since you still feel strongly about your opinion, I requested further comments in the section below. I've added a summary as neutral and straight to the point as I could while covering major concerns related to content, policy, and style from all editors along with some of their preferred vernacular (e.g. gap, touch, overlap). I added the "policy" and "style" topics so people following those topics are informed. Since you tend to use mathematics to argue your points, I included the "sci" topic, which covers "Maths, science, and technology". Jroberson108 (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Same comment I had when this was raised at WT:MOS: There's a self-contradictory argument inherent in this. If x.99 is so precise it's like weighing a fart, then it cannot be said that x.99 (versus something much more precise like x.9999999) leaves gaps in any meaningful sense. This is much preferable to having overlapping and directly contradictory values as in ”18.5 – 25” and ”25 – 30”, which results in the reader having no idea how 25 is classified. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

 * It's just opposite to what is said above. The point is that a category division on a continuous measured value needs a single number to separate adjacent categories. On which side that single value is included is irrelevant because of measurement inaccuracy and it can arbitrarily be defined to be in the upper category by a footnote. On the other hand, introducing numbers like 29.9, where only the round number 30 is needed is just clutter and makes that the readers think they must remember all these extra numbers, or decipher how they have been created.−Woodstone (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC on boundaries between categories
BMI categories are defined by ranges of numbers per this reliable source (The SuRF Report 2, p. 22), which uses two decimal precision (e.g. Overweight: 25.00-29.99; Obese I: 30.00-34.99). Some feel "29.999", etc. are "gaps" unaccounted for that can cause confusion and feel it unscientific and want to include all numbers by rounding the upper limits/boundaries (25-30; 30-35) implying ranges that exclude the upper limit (30 and 35 respectively) and barely "touch" the next category's lower limit. Others feel worrying about "29.99X" unnecessary, MOS:RANGE includes the upper limit, "30" in two categories is inaccurate and a confusing "overlap", and we should stick to WP:RS with one decimal precision being clear enough (25.0-29.9; 30.0-34.9). The latter is presently on the article page (see Categories) along with explanatory footnotes (efn) with text of "After rounding." added to each BMI table in their column headers to accommodate "gap" concerns. The opinions have not budged after discussion. Jroberson108 (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You really think that's neutrally worded? As has already been pointed out, there are many reliable sources, some of which use "18.5 to 25" while others use "18.5 to 24.99", etc. and we can cherry pick our sources for the article. Cherry picking one source for an RfC that suits your preference is a bit cheeky. Please can we just follow established procedures, explaining our personal preferences without POV pushing, otherwise it's all rather tedious. Cheers. nagualdesign 00:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not one other RS was provided, so I referenced the only one we have, which is used on the article. You refer to a hypothetical comment that the same editor denounced as not needed in this case, as I responded to you on the 26th, which you never responded to. You should read the discussion thoroughly. Chill out, we have already discussed everything we could and it isn't changing our opinions. Now let other editors give their opinions, which any one of them can and should read the entire discussion. It's just a summary of major content concerns. Jroberson108 (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This nit simply not worth picking. BMI levels are not scientific concepts, they're general guidelines, and controversial ones at that. Nor is it practical to even calculate BMI to more than one decimal point. Let it go. — Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The proposer conveniently forgets to mention that a version with only round boundaries like 25,30, 35 has been in the article for more than 10 years with very occasional exceptions and that he is the one who recently changed it. It must be clear that everyone agrees that the real boundaries between categories are these round numbers. The discussion is about how to represent this towards the reader as clearly as possible.−Woodstone (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The history of edits was ignored since it is irrelevant when discussing actual content. Jroberson108 (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to comment. I agree that we don't need to worry about "29.9X" and one decimal precision is practical enough. BMI guidelines do seem unscientific and controversial as you say. Jroberson108 (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That is the point. The category boundaries are rough and round numbers like 25, 30 etc. Therefore it makes no sense to burden the table with numbers such as 24.9 and 29.9, which are not category boundaries, because clearly 24.95 is still not meant to be seen as overweight. −Woodstone (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is that you don't need to worry about "24.95" or any further precision, which it appears four editors (myself included) now agree is unnecessary and that one decimal precision is clear enough. Also, you are forgetting that MOS:RANGE doesn't have a style to exclude the upper limit as you want, nor is there a need in this case. If your only argument is that it burdens the table, then go with consensus. Jroberson108 (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RFCBRIEF. That aside, I have never seen BMI done to more than a single decimal place. A very brief search reveals one place seems to be the standard. BSMRD (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The MOS:RANGE also does not have a section of how to classify values that do not fall in any of the given ranges, so that argument is void. A fundamental requirement is that all measured values should fall in a range. Leaving a gap between ending at 24.9 (or 24.99) and beginning at 25 makes the list incomplete. On the other hand, having 25 both as end and beginning does not create overlap, since in that cases it is fully arbitrary which category is chosen, because of measurement uncertainty. A repeated more accurate measurement could break the tie. For simplicity (not necessity) one could specify all categories to be left-inclusive only. For the reader the point is to see and remember only the simple round 25, 30 etc numbers without being distracted by intervening meaningless and unnecessary 24.9 and 29.9 etc. −Woodstone (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your argument against using MOS:RANGE for a range of numbers makes no sense; a number (20) outside a range (1–10) is simply the number (20). We have ranges, so follow MOS:RANGE for each range regardless of their relations. One decimal precision is clear enough ("18.5–24.9", "25.0–29.9"). If you have a BMI with further precision (24.9999), then you naturally round it (25.0) to match the same precision of the table. There are no gaps due to the obvious precision restriction. Since ranges are inclusive, ending a range and starting the next with the same cut-off point (25) is both inacurate and a confusing overlap. I understand you don't see it that way and your intentions are to exclude the upper limits, but your intended usage is not supported by MOS:RANGE and you should discuss it further at MoS, as many editors have repeatedly said. Jroberson108 (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to comment. Keeping it brief was difficult, but I see now the details could have been a followup post. Regarding the standard, I agree that most websites, and possibly print media, use one decimal precision. Jroberson108 (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Use only one decimal, and make no mention of “rounding”. That seems the norm.  I think typically measurements and BMI reports are only able to do one decimal.  Besides, the measurements of height/weight are not 5 digits precise, two measurements in a row might vary by a pound or quarter inch.  Having it to 3 digits is already tiny - about +/- a tenth of a percent. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point about the precision of weight and height used to calculate BMI. Usually one or two decimal precision is used, but not more. A BMI with one decimal is precise enough. I also feel mentioning "After rounding." isn't needed. It was only added to console gap concerns. Jroberson108 (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe that including any special discussion (even just a few words or mathematical symbols) is downright silly for this topic. This article is about body mass index, not mathematics. Fine details of the theory of quantization are not necessary. The above discussion of adding ("rounding to nearest 0.1") doesn't even resolve it, because the nearest 0.1 for 24.99 is 25, not 24.9, but that is clearly not what is attempted to be expressed. BMI is only a rough guide anyway, and fluctuates for everyone, and the difference is swamped by the measurement error of the weight scale and the height measurement as well. For our purposes, I think it's fine for the upper bound of one interval to be equal to the lower bound of the next interval, or to use "X.9" as an upper bound (without adding any special further explanation) if that's what authoritative sources tend to do. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. If I understood correctly, you are neutral (rounded or X.9) as long as reliable sources use it, but see no need for the "After rounding" explanatory note. Jroberson108 (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

BMI imperial/american units
Well, you should add more conversions if 'isolated conversion' was the problem. Username142857 (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

 * The conversion makes no sense since nobody uses that unit. It does not help any reader.−Woodstone (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, America STILL hasn't converted to metric so... Username142857 (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Except for BMI, which is universally metric. Can you show any sources That use these units? −Woodstone (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, but it would help Americans to do less math. Having to convert your height to inches, then dividing mass by height, then having to multiply your output by 703 is harder than just dividing mass by height. Username142857 (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is BMI universally metric? Username142857 (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 * I agree with Woodstone that it seems unnecessary since the units are commonly metric. I haven't seen any sources that use imperial/American units. Under Body mass index there is info on converting it, which uses "in". Perhaps "ft" can also be added to accommodate your concerns? Jroberson108 (talk) 06:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They are useful because it is easier for Americans to calculate their BMI in lb/ft^2, so it would help them do less math! Username142857 (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You just multiply by 703/144 Username142857 (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 * For a calculation in feet one would need to measure in decimal feet, not feet and inches. But anyway, the borders of the categories are given in kg/m2, so the values in lb/ft2 or lb/in2 are not useful to know. Remark also that the conversions show too many decimals and throw a very peculiar light on the gaps between the categories.−Woodstone (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What's a decimal foot? Username142857 (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The feet and inches problem can be solved if we switch to duodecimal, or my personal favorite, senary! Using the formula lb/(ft+in/12)2 can help as well! Username142857 (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's like saying that if you know the height of a building in feet, its height in meters is not useful to know. Username142857 (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I fixed the 'too many decimals' problem. And what kind of 'very peculiar light on the gaps between the categories' does it give? Username142857 (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Units of the BMI
It is much repeated that BMI is expressed in kg/m² which is scientifically not correct, it associates a weight to a surface, like for example paper thickness is associated and expressed as g/m², where this unit makes better sense, as its actual thickness is rather difficult to measure or comprehend, and as it is distributed evenly over the surface (See also Paper Thickness and Weight Explained - Action Press (action-press.co.uk)). And even with paper, you have to differentiate between types of paper (see link)

However, we are not expressing the body surface with the measurement, (look at duBois formula for that: Body Surface Area Calculator)

but making up a number that helps us understand roughly how the relation of bodysize and bodyweight is situated, (with all its shortfalls - see body-builders BMI) this number roughly fits for adult men between 20 and 40 Years with median bodysizes, it won't fit tall or small, women, children and elderly people...

It is NOT an exact measurement. In Pediatry we use percentiles adapted for age and sex to make up for some of the shortfalls. However we should abandon the Unit for it which ist not the correct one.

I hope that this becomes clear when for example using the following Measurements for a woman: body height: 161cm body weight: 66.5kg BMI : 25.7 Skin surface after DuBois formula: 1.7m²

In the above link (Body surface calculator) the BMI is also expressed as kg/m² with the table above quoting the surface area as 1.7m² calculating the weight of the person would be: 1.7m² * 25.7kg/m² = 43.69kg which is misleading bullshit. 188.94.98.93 (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)(triple5)

 * The units of BMI are kg/m2. This is a fact and inarguable. That area the weight is divided by is not equal to the skin surface area is irrelevant. It's also not equal to the bone, eye or teeth surface area, but that does not mean the units are anything different. 2A02:8071:680:3F00:9D5C:8CCC:E5F6:9F (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

BMI & Racial Bias
Hi all, I was curious to see that there was no section on racial bias in the BMI and the eugenicist history of the BMI. I was considering adding a subsection to this page to discuss this topic, perhaps under the History section or as a new section. I would like to cite Sabrina Strings' highly influential book "Fearing the Black Body" in this subsection, as well as other topics. Please let me know if anyone has any objection to this addition. SarahLalevee (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Honestly, this part should just be removed. For example the last sentence ("[...]the BMI is largely inaccurate for black people especially, disproportionately labelling them as overweight even for healthy individuals.") might imply that black people can be healthier at higher body fat percentages. This impression is also supported by the reviews and summaries of the book I found online, e.g. it talks about the perception of black female slaves by a white man as "plum", and all-in-all seems to support the fat-acceptance movement. Looking up the primary sources in Sabrina Strings book might be more relevant, however, and I don't have it.
 * The section send me down a pubmed rabbit-hole to research if there really are relevant medical differences for obesedy between what is perceived as races. Spoiler-alert: There is not. There are differences in the US, but the causes are unknown, and probably environmental. E.g. a pubmed search found "Why are there race/ethnic differences in adult body mass index–adiposity relationships? A quantitative critical review" (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fobr.12358), which indeed finds be a small but real difference between BMI in ethnic groups, more specifically Non-Hispanic black subjects seem to have a lower body-fat-percentage. Now this information is more specific and might be interesting in itself, but also is only relevant for the US, and might have little to do with the work of the book.
 * Again, the primary sources the book itself used might be more enlighting, and I might be wrong. But then these primary sources should be used. This looks more like US-centric activism and intersectionalism in an article about a serious medical topic of international relevance. 84.153.156.47 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Science and colonialism
— Assignment last updated by Edarden1 (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Body mass index


text:
Northern bottlenose whale

The northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus) is a species of beaked whale in the ziphiid family, being one of two members of the genus Hyperoodon. The northern bottlenose whale was hunted heavily by Norway and Britain in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It is one of the deepest-diving mammals known, reaching depths of 2,339 m (7,674 ft) and capable of diving for up to 130 minutes.

Description
When physically mature, northern bottlenose whales can reach 9.8 m in length, smaller than giant beaked whales, and larger than known records of southern bottlenose whales. Their foreheads, or melons are sexually dimorphic, so that mature males have larger melons, which are flattened or square shape, while mature females and juveniles have rounder melons. Melon coloration can vary, though it appears the head of most males becomes more white or buff colored with age. The beak is not as long as other beaked whale species, and only mature males have two small teeth, which erupt at the front end of the bottom jaw, but are not easily seen. Females also have teeth, but they are buried in the jaw and do not erupt. The dorsal fin is relatively small, at 30 – and about two thirds of the way back on their bodies. It is falcate (sickle-shaped) and usually pointed. The back is mid-to-dark grey with a lighter underside. They weigh approximately 5800 –. The oldest recorded age, determined by counting annual growth layers from a tooth in a whaled specimen was 37. Calves have prolonged weaning and nursing continues until juveniles are 3–4 years old. Males become sexually mature between 7 and 11 years old, females between 8 and 12 years old. They live in ocean areas deeper than 6,500 feet.

Behaviours
Unlike many species of beaked whale, northern bottlenose whales are known to approach and appear curious about vessels, which made them relatively easy targets for whale hunters. However they have demonstrated avoidance to certain sounds such as those emitted by naval sonar in controlled dose response studies.

Underwater recordings have found that northern bottlenose whales produce regular high frequency clicks in click trains, which have a characteristic frequency modulated pulse or "upsweep", commonly found in other species of beaked whales. Northern bottlenose whales live in social groups, and are typically found at the surface in groups of 4 to 20.

Feeding
Northern bottlenose feed mainly on deep water squid, primarily Gonatus sp., and bottom fish, such as Greenland halibut. Foraging dives can last an hour or more at depths reaching over 1000 meters. A small percentage of northern bottlenose whales have also been observed feeding on redfish, rabbitfish, spiny dogfish, and skate.

Population and distribution
The northern bottlenose whale is endemic to the North Atlantic Ocean and populations are found in the deep (>500 m) cold subarctic waters of the Davis Strait, the Labrador Sea, the Greenland Sea and the Barents Sea, but can range as far south as Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. As of 2017, the population in the North East Atlantic is estimated to be between 10,000 and 45,000. However their population number is very poorly understood.

"The Gully", a large submarine canyon east of Nova Scotia, is the home of the "Scotian Shelf" population of 164 whales, currently listed under Canada's Species at Risk Act as endangered. This population is the focus of a long-term research project conducted by the Whitehead Lab, at Dalhousie University since 1988.

In 1976 the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission identified a single population across the North Atlantic. In 2011 COSEWIC determined that there are two populations off eastern Canada (Scotian Shelf and Labrador-Davis Strait Designated Units), which recent studies have confirmed are genetically distinct from each other. Individual northern bottlenose whales have also been sighted off the Azores and Canary Islands.

Extant (resident) as per IUCN Redlist November 2020
Canada; Faroe Islands; France; Germany; Greenland; Iceland; Ireland; Netherlands; Norway; Portugal; Spain; Svalbard and Jan Mayen; Sweden; United Kingdom; United States

Presence Uncertain as per IUCN Redlist November 2020
Denmark; Mauritania; Morocco; Russian Federation; Western Sahara

On 20 January 2006, a female northern bottlenose whale was spotted in Central London in the River Thames. The River Thames whale reached as far up river as Albert Bridge. She was moved onto a barge and rescuers hoped to take her out to sea, but she died following a convulsion on 21 January during its rescue. Her skeleton is now in the Natural History Museum in London.

There was another sighting on 6 August 2019 at Loch Linnhe, a sea loch located off the West coast of Scotland. At the time it was thought to be searching for food in the area. There have been 21 previous live sightings of the northern bottlenose whale in Scotland since 2000. It is speculated that these whales may migrate to north west European shelf waters in the summertime.

On 1 October 2020 a rescue group ushered a group of northern bottlenose whales out of Loch Long, north of Glasgow, it is speculated that these whales moved to shallow water in response to a military sonar exercises.

History of discovery
It was first described by Johann Reinhold Forster in 1770, basing the name on the "bottle-nosed whales" seen by Pehr Kalm in his Travels into North America, and on Thomas Pennant's 1766 description of Samuel Dale's "bottle-head whale" found stranded above a bridge in Maldon, Essex, in 1717.

Conservation
Prior to the beginning of whaling, it is estimated that there were upwards of 100,000 northern bottlenose whales in the North Atlantic. Between 1850 and 1973, commercial hunting of the species, focused on populations found off Norway, Iceland, Greenland and Labrador, greatly reduced their numbers across their range. Current conservation concerns include threats from human activities such as disturbance related to offshore oil and gas developments and naval sonar, as well as entanglement in fishing gear, pollution, ingestion of plastic and ecosystem shifts related to climate change.

The International Whaling Commission designated the northern bottlenose whale as a protected stock in 1977 and set a zero catch quota. Northern bottlenose whales are still killed in the Faroe Islands. Faroese regulations only allow the killing of bottlenose whales which have beached themselves and cannot be driven out again. Long term statistics indicate that the most frequent beachings are in the villages of Hvalba and Sandvík on Suðuroy.

The northern bottlenose whale is listed under Canada's Species at Risk Act as endangered, as near threatened under the IUCN red list and on Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). In addition, the northern bottlenose whale is covered by the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas (ASCOBANS).

The northern bottlenose whale has among the lowest known mitochondrial diversity of any cetacean. Due to their low genetic diversity and slow reproductive rate, recovery of their populations may be vulnerable to human stressors and stochastic events.

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

title: Northern bottlenose whale


text:
DVD Forum

The DVD Forum is an international organization composed of hardware, software, media and production companies that use and develop the DVD and formerly HD DVD formats. It was initially known as the DVD Consortium when it was founded in 1995.

History and mission
The DVD Forum was created to facilitate the exchange of information and ideas about the DVD format, another evolution of the LaserDisc format, and to enable it to grow through technical improvement and innovation. The organization hopes to promote worldwide acceptance of DVD for entertainment, consumer electronics and information technology applications. Membership in the DVD Forum is open to any company or organization involved in DVD research, development, or manufacturing; software firms and other DVD users interested in developing the format are also encouraged to join. Forum members can support other formats in addition to DVD.

The DVD Forum is responsible for the official DVD format specification. The group handles licensing of the DVD format and logo through the DVD Format and Logo Licensing Corporation (DVD FLLC), which also publishes the official "DVD Book" format specifications. Reference materials and newsletters are published for DVD Forum members.

In 2003, the DVD Forum had 213 members. In 2007, it had 195 registered members. In 2008, it had 159 registered members, and in 2010, it had 98 registered members. In 2012 this downward trend continued with the membership standing at 80 members. Since 1 April 2012, the Forum is in a "Reduced Activity Mode", however the DVD FLLC is still active as of 2020.

Structure
The DVD Forum is governed by an elected Steering Committee. It has a Chair Company, and three Vice-Chair Companies: one from each of the consumer electronics, information technology, and content industries. The Chair and Vice-Chair Companies are elected for two-year terms.

In addition to the Steering Committee, the DVD Forum has the following committees:
 * Technical Coordination Group – to coordinate activities of the Working Groups and submit technical proposals to the Steering Committee
 * a number of Working Groups – to work on various aspects of the DVD format.
 * Promotion & Communication Committee – to promote the exchange of information among participants
 * Verification Policy Committee – to maintain compliance of DVD products with the DVD Formats adopted by the DVD Forum
 * Format/Logo Advisory Group – to advise the Steering Committee on matters relating to names and logos and the licensing of DVD Formats and DVD logos

Founding members
Ten companies founded the organization:
 * Hitachi, Ltd.
 * Panasonic
 * Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
 * Pioneer Electronic Corporation
 * Royal Philips Electronics N.V.
 * Sony Corporation
 * Thomson
 * WarnerMedia
 * Toshiba Corporation
 * Victor Company of Japan, Ltd. (JVC)
 * NBCUniversal
 * The Walt Disney Company

Rival formats
Competing standards developed by the rival DVD+RW Alliance are for the "plus" formats (DVD+R, DVD+RW). Alliance leaders Philips, Sony and Thomson were also founding members of the DVD Forum, established in 1997. , both plus and dash formats seem equally popular with customers, and both are compatible with the vast majority of DVD players.

title: DVD Forum


text:
F6

F6, F06, F 6, F.6 or F-6 may refer to:

Science and technology

 * 246 (number), in hexadecimal
 * Nikon F6, an SLR 35mm camera
 * F06, an ICD-10 mental and behavioural disorder code
 * F6, a function key on a computer keyboard
 * F6, a theoretical level on the Fujita scale of tornado strength
 * Force 6, a level on the Beaufort scale of windspeed
 * F6, the octave name for the F (musical note) at a frequency of 1396.913 Hz.

Air

 * Caproni Vizzola F.6, an Italian prototype fighter of 1941 (F.6M) and 1943 (F.6Z)
 * F-6 Mustang, a reconnaissance variant of the North American P-51 Mustang World War II fighter
 * F-6 Skyray, originally Douglas F4D Skyray, a 1950s/1960s US Navy jet fighter
 * FaroeJet (IATA code)
 * Grumman F6F Hellcat, an American World War II fighter aircraft
 * Hannover F.6, civil configuration of the Hannover CL.V, a 1918 German ground attack aircraft
 * Hunter F.6, a 1954 production variant of the Hawker Hunter fighter aircraft
 * Shenyang F-6, an export version of the Chinese Shenyang J-6 jet fighter
 * System F6, a DARPA program on developing fractionated spacecraft
 * Västgöta Wing, or F 6, a former Swedish Air Force wing

Automotive

 * BYD F6, a Chinese-made midsize sedan
 * FPV F6, an Australian-made series of cars by Ford Performance Vehicles
 * Princes Motorway, or F6, a motorway between Sydney and Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
 * F-6, a version of the 1948-1952 Ford F-Series pickup trucks

Other

 * Milwaukee Road class F6, a 1925 American 4-6-4 steam locomotive model
 * Mosman Bay ferry services (F6), a commuter ferry route in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
 * LNER Class F6, a class of British steam locomotives
 * This may also refer to LNER Class F5 No.789 and 790, who were incorrectly classified F6 by the LNER

Other uses

 * f6 (cigarette), a German brand
 * F6 (classification), a wheelchair sport classification
 * F-6, Islamabad, a sector of Islamabad, Pakistan

title: F6


text:
Alleghany Corporation

Alleghany Corporation is an American investment holding company originally created by the railroad entrepreneurs Oris and Mantis Van Sweringen as a holding company for their railroad interests. It was incorporated in 1929 and reincorporated in Delaware in 1984. On March 21, 2022, Berkshire Hathaway made an $11.6 billion offer to acquire the company, which completed in October 2022. After the company's bankruptcy in the Great Depression, control of the company fell into the hands of Robert Ralph Young and Allan Price Kirby. Young used the company as a vehicle for his vendetta against the J.P. Morgan banking interests, who had financed the Van Sweringens and managed to defeat them and the Vanderbilt interests in a 1954 proxy fight for the New York Central Railroad. The failing New York Central was in worse shape than Young had bargained for and he committed suicide shortly after being forced to suspend the dividend in January 1958. After Young's death, his role in NYC management was assumed by his protégé Alfred E. Perlman. Although much had been accomplished to streamline NYC operations, in those tough economic times, mergers with other railroads were seen as the only possible road to financial stability. The most likely suitor became the NYC's former arch-rival Pennsylvania Railroad. During the early 1960s, New York Central negotiated a merger with the Pennsylvania Railroad (PRR), which was led by Stuart T. Saunders after 1963. Saunders had most recently led the Norfolk and Western Railway through a successful expansion through acquisition and mergers including the Virginian Railway, Nickel Plate Road and Wabash Railway. There was great hope that success would result from the NYC-PRR combination. Penn Central Transportation Company was formed by the merger on February 1, 1968. However, the underlying financial weakness of both former railroads, combined with the fact that the ICC forced the chronically weak New Haven Railroad into the system, doomed the Penn Central and bankruptcy was declared a little over 2 years later, on June 21, 1970. Many of the Penn Central railroad assets ended up in Conrail, formed in 1976. The bankruptcy of the Penn Central railroad mostly ended Alleghany's involvement in the railroad business.

The company's residual railroad investments led to president and CEO John J. Burns serving on the board of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation from 1995 to 2004.

Now Alleghany Corporation focuses on the insurance business (property, casualty, surety and fidelity insurance). Until his death in February 2011, Allan Kirby's son, Fred M. Kirby 2nd, was the chairman of the board and a sometime member of the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans.

Current portfolio
Alleghany's current portfolio includes:
 * TransRe, a reinsurer acquired in 2012
 * RSUI, an insurer acquired in 2003
 * CapSpecialty, formerly Capitol Insurance Companies, an insurer acquired in 2002
 * Alleghany Capital, which owns and manages middle market businesses, including:
 * Precision Cutting Technologies, a holding company for machine tool manufacturers Bourn & Koch, Diamond Technology Innovations, CID Performance Tooling, and Supermill
 * R.C. Tway Company (dba Kentucky Trailer), a trailer manufacturer for the moving industry
 * W&W/AFCO Steel, a steel fabricator and erector
 * Wilbert Funeral Services, concrete burial vault manufacturer
 * IPS-Integrated Project Services, a pharmaceutical and biotechnology service provider
 * Jazwares, a toy and consumer products company, and owner of Kellytoy and Wicked Cool Toys
 * Concord Hospitality, which develops, owns, and operates hotels for Hyatt, Hilton, Mariott, and other brands
 * Alleghany Properties, a property company

Former holdings
Former holdings include:
 * Chesapeake and Ohio Railway, now CSX Transportation
 * PacificComp, an insurer acquired in 2007 Sold to CopperPoint Mutual in 2017.
 * World Minerals, sold to Imerys in 2005
 * Chicago Title, spun off in 1997, owned by Fidelity National Financial since 2000
 * Underwriters Reinsurance Company, sold to Swiss Re American Holding Corporation in 2000
 * IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company, sold to American Express in 1984
 * The Shelby Insurance Company, sold to The Associated Group in 1991
 * Stranded Oil Resources Corporation, an oil exploration and production company, sold to Laredo Oil at the end of 2020.

title: Alleghany Corporation


text:
Crittenden–Johnson Resolution

The Crittenden–Johnson Resolution (also known as the Crittenden Resolution and the War Aims Resolution) was proposed in the United States Congress early in the American Civil War, as a conciliatory message to the slave states assuring them that the Northern war effort was not aimed at interfering with their rights to slavery, but solely towards restoring the Union. It was passed almost unanimously in July of 1861 after the shocking defeat at the First Battle of Bull Run. It was later rejected in December of that year during an attempt to reaffirm the resolution by congress.

The resolution is sometimes confused with the "Crittenden Compromise," a series of unsuccessful proposals to amend the United States Constitution that were debated after slave states began seceding, in an attempt to prevent the Confederate States from leaving the Union. Both measures are sometimes confused with the Corwin Amendment, a proposal to amend the Constitution that was adopted by the 36th Congress, which attempted to put slavery and other states' rights under constitutional protection; it passed Congress but was not ratified by the states.

Historical background
The Crittenden–Johnson Resolution was passed almost unanimously by the 37th United States Congress on July 25, 1861. The bill was introduced as the War Aims Resolution, but it became better known for its sponsors Representative John J. Crittenden of Kentucky and Senator Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, both slaveholders. The American Civil War had begun on April 12, 1861, with various Southern states seceding in the following months. Both houses of Congress passed this resolution days after the First Battle of Bull Run made it clear that the war would not end quickly. It passed almost unanimously in July, but later that December, congress made an attempt to reaffirm the Crittenden–Johnson Resolution. This was an effort to maintain the initial promise of non-interference with slavery in both contended and rebellious states. However it was instead rejected during this session by a party vote motioned by Thaddeus Stevens.

President Abraham Lincoln was concerned that the slave states of Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland in the crucial upper south might leave the Union to join the Confederate States of America. If Maryland were lost, Washington, D.C. would be entirely surrounded by Confederate territory. Both Missouri and Kentucky were slave states of questionable loyalty to the Union that bordered on important Union territory; Lincoln was born in Kentucky and losing his birth state would be seen as a political failure. Also, the Ohio River marks Kentucky's northern border and was strategically important as the economic lifeline of Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana--each of which shipped goods down this river to the Mississippi River for sale or further shipment in New Orleans, Louisiana. Delaware (the other slave state that remained in the Union) had so few slaves that its loyalty would not be questioned.

Meaning and context
Introduced as the War Aims Resolution, the bill defined limited conservative goals for the Union effort during the Civil War. Although it made no mention of slavery, the resolution intended that the Union Government would take no actions against the peculiar institution of slavery. Its second clause, discussed below, stated the war was fought not for "overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States," but to "defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union." The resolution intended to retain the loyalty of Unionists in the slave-holding border states, as well as reassure Northerners who would fight to save the Union but not to free the slaves. It implied the war would end when the seceding states returned to the Union, with slavery intact.

Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, an abolitionist, had opposed the bill when it was introduced on the grounds that, in war, Congress and the President had the right to take “any step which would subdue the enemy,” but he abstained from voting on the measure. By the December of 1861, opinion had shifted and during an attempt by congress to reaffirm the resolution Stevens was able to motion a successful party vote for the resolution's rejection.

Legislative action in the House
The resolution was introduced on July 19, 1861, as troops massed at Manassas Junction, Virginia, about 25 miles from Washington, two days before the Battle of Bull Run. The House passed it immediately after the battle, when Union forces were routed by the Confederate army, creating intense concern in Washington about southern soldiers “in arms around the capital.”

The House vote was in two parts, or "branches". The first branch read: "Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the southern States now in revolt against the constitutional government, and in arms around the capital." This branch passed the House 121–2. Two congressmen voted against it, Henry C. Burnett (Kentucky) and John W. Reid (Missouri). Both were expelled at the next session of the 37th Congress for taking up arms against the United States.

The second branch read: "That in this national emergency, Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not waged on their part in any spirit of oppression, or for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, or purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease." This second branch passed the House 119–2. Two congressmen voted against this branch, John F. Potter (Wisconsin) and Albert G. Riddle (Ohio).

The House passed the complete measure on July 22, 1861, immediately after the battle.

Senate action
On July 25, 1861, the Senate rejected the two branch division, and passed the entire resolution 30–5. The five senators voting against the resolution were: John C. Breckinridge (Kentucky), Waldo P. Johnson (Missouri), Trusten Polk (Missouri), Lazarus W. Powell (Kentucky), and Lyman Trumbull (Illinois). Breckinridge, Johnson, and Polk were expelled from the Senate at the next session of the 37th Congress for supporting the Confederate rebellion. A motion was brought to expel Powell, but was defeated, in part due to a defense given by Illinois Senator Trumbull.

title: Crittenden–Johnson Resolution


text:
Talk:Ostwald process

Untitled
The equation for the conversion from ammonia to nitric oxide should be: 4NH3 + 5O2 <===> 4NO + 6H2O

Not match with my book
The process here in Wikipedia of manufacturing Nitric oxide isnot match with my book Harrie Sani (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Overall reaction when carried out in the air
As a beginner in chemistry, I'm confused about one thing. If everything is divided by 2 at the end, Why does and  become  and  respectively, as if the equation was divided by 4 instead? Eugenio0027 (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ostwald process