text:
Talk:Incorporation (business)

Untitled
I am throwing in GmbH as an international entry, which I believe is how corporations are described in Germany. My hope is someone with a knowledge of german law will edit it to something interesting. This is added in response to the article being too US centric in the vote for deletion debate of Feb 2004. Kd4ttc 02:01, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What does it mean for a *city* to be "incorporated"? Jorge Stolfi 04:37, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * If I recall correctly, means that the city is formally organized. Goodralph 02:27, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * This article really needs more about municipal corporations (as well as non-profits and other types of corporations). I think for a city to incorporate is something more than simply becoming formally organized. The nature of municipal corporations has evolved in the U.S.--in the past some cities were given charters to become self-governing entities (this is roughly equivalent to the current undestanding of incorporation). However, early on, many states applied the same charter to all cities. These were sometimes known as "general-law" cities. The state legislature passed a standard charter that defined what a city could or could not do and how it was to organize itself and conduct its affairs. At some point (sorry I can't provide dates--but the movement became popular in the early 20th century--it may have had a connection with the progressive movement and the reform of corruption in local governments), states began granting "home rule" powers to cities (as well as to other forms of municipalities). This meant that the municipalities could write their own charter and determine (with the consent of the city residents of course) how to govern themselves and how to organize and administer local affairs. Unfortunately, I'm too unsure of the details in all this to edit the article--but it does need something in this regard. older ≠ wiser 01:05, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

It would be good to generalise this to the process of incorporation for non-profits as well. This could also have its own page, but since the processes are very similar in both cases, it really should go here. --James 21:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Globalize Proposal
I propose that this page needs to be globalized as it currently only deals with incorporation in the United States and does not examine other ways of forming a company under the same heading. It needs to be expanded, and possibly the US section put to a seperate page. Davidkinnen 23:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that the Canadian law is also covered. I think that the Canadian incs are different from the American ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.80.78 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Please add a more international point of view.--217.227.63.167 20:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to internationalise this page as per Davidkinnen. I have added a section on incorporation in the United Kingdom with the detail in a separate article. My thoughts are that the page should cover the generic advantages and disadvantages of incorporation, with a short summary for each country on how to incorporate and run a company, along with a link to a detailed article on the process for each country. RonaldDuncan 22:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The US section needs to be taken out to a new US incorporation article which should have info on the process for each of the states since there are huge differences between the tax structures and the ease of incorporation e.g. Delaware and Nevada easy vs New York which is a real pain. RonaldDuncan 22:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merger
See discussion on the Corporation talk page. Smallbones 09:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Disadvantages
The legal benefits of a corporation are listed, but how about some of the disadvantages to incorporation?

The disadvantages of incorporation are jurisdiction specific, and would need to be covered in individual jurisdictions. i.e. States in the US and Countries/regions in the rest of the world. e.g. The UK has 3 different sets of Company Law, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland and two significant legislative systems England and Scotland. You could probably broad brush the disadvantages for the UK, but to be fully accurate you would need to go down to regional level.RonaldDuncan 22:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Inc. vs Corp.
The difference between the above acronyms (and their full forms) should also be explained in the text. Typofier 12:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

German Translations

 * "Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung", meaning "limited liability business association".

Gesellschaft is usually translated as "company", not "business association", so I think the natural translation is "company with limited liability" or just "limited liability company", which is what it is called in English anyway.

 * "Aktiengesellschaft", meaning "stock market traded business association"

Why not just "public company" or "publicly-listed company"? Mikel Ward (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia is twice in the list
In the list about different types in different countries, it says: "Singapore uses Pte. Ltd., meaning "private limited" which is the equivalent of a U.S. incorporated entity. Malaysia uses Sdn. Bhd., meaning "private limited" which is the equivalent of a U.S. incorporated entity." AND "Malaysia uses Sdn. Bhd., meaning "private limited" which is the equivalent of a U.S. incorporated entity." This could be merged! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.97.123.48 (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Australia
A section should be included to indicate Australia's incorporation practices. It seems to me they use "Pty." which, if I didn't know better, was an abbreviation for "Party" or "Private--"-something or other. GBC (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See Proprietary company, which is abbreviated Pty.  General Ization Talk  22:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Limited Liability
Limited liability only protects shareholders from contractual debts. Limited liability does not necessarily protect shareholders from debts that are the result of torts. Liability for torts is covered by "vicarious liability" laws. Being a shareholder of a company does not insulate a manager or major shareholder from financial liabilities that are the result of torts. Vicarious liability applies to those shareholders who play an active role in managing the firm, and the selection of employees of the firm.

In Defense of the Corporation

Mikem3307 (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Merger to Incorporation Page
The Stock corporation seems to me redundant in the light of this and other pages dealing with companies with share / stock owners. As such I've suggested that they be merged. D51386 (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I moved it to Joint-stock company, not here. Nonprofits and sports clubs can be incorporated, and never issue shares of stock. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Endorsement
If the holder of the bill puts his signature on the back of the bill with a view to transfer the property contained in it (right to receive money from the acceptor), then he becomes endorser, and the person to whom the bill of exchange is transferred will become endorsee. This procedure by which a bill is transferred from one person to another person for the settlement of debts is called "endorsement". eg: A drew a bill on B for INR 5,000 which is accepted by B at three months. A bought goods from C worth INR 7,000 on credit basis. Now C is creditor of A for INR 7,000. A endorsed the bill in favour of his creditor C for paying his debts up to the extent of INR 5,000. Thus C is now creditor of A up to the extent of INR 2,000 only; i.e. 7,000 - 5,000 = 2,000.

Trade Bills: These bills are drawn and accepted against the sale and purchase of goods on credit. These are drawn by the seller (creditor) and accepted by the buyer (debtor). Accommodation Bills: Such bills do not involve any sale and purchase of goods, rather they are drawn without any consideration. The purpose of such bills is to help one party or both the parties financially.

Demand Bills of Exchange: There is no fixed date for the payment of such bill. They become payable at any time, when they are presented before payee by the holder. Term Bills of Exchange: These bills are payable after specified period of time. The period after which these bill become due for payment is called tenor.

reference... Tijo Thomas (MBA, B.Com) Lead college of Management Palakkad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.239.155.106 (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiHow external link
Does the wikiHow article at the bottom of this page belong as an external link?The World's Signature (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Incorporation agreement?
we have a red link Incorporation agreement. Is it a definable concept? If not, then the redirect should be done or red links to be unlinked Estopedist1 (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Incorporation (business)


text:
Talk:Soviet empire

The nature of the article is propaganda
With that entails is a biased nature. To truly explain the "Soviet Empire" the article must revolve around the central NPOV theme titled "Theory for the Soviet Empire". Change the article now.

-G

I don't generally interact on Wikipedia articles, but this entire article is rightwing propaganda and should be flagged for removal.

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC) This article is NOT about Soviet Union, it is about Soviet Empire. JJ, your edit put eggs in wrong baskets and lost some of them. Mikkalai 02:05, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Would it, or would it not, be appropriate to list countries, régimes or governments that by Soviet's adversaries rightly or wrongly were seen as too friendly disposed towards the Soviet Union/the Soviet Empire? I think of such entities as pre-coup Greece, pre-coup Chile and plenty of African régimes — and some Arab (Iran at least) too. I realize, however, that such a list would be open-ended and easy to contest. --Johan Magnus 17:30, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The idea is good, but you are correct in your doubts; it is inherently faulty. There are so many different reasons various countries sought alliance with Soviet Union (or why USA was afraid them to fall under the influence of the Soviet Union). The most striking example is cannibal Bocassa. In any case, the list alone will not do. Every entry must be explained: time period, facts to support the claim, etc. Mikkalai 18:00, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your change of titles, Mikkalai, I think it is inappropriate because it inserts an inherent POV (from the Soviet side). The title "Allies of the Soviet Union", for example, is neutral. "Countries of developed socialism" would be Soviet POV, and "Communist puppet states of the Soviet Union" would be American POV. Also, I think we can include Laos in the section "Countries friendly towards the Soviet Union for brief periods" after all, because the Soviet Union did not last very long after the Lao People's Democratic Republic was founded. But Chile never had any connection to the Soviet Union. The fact that it "attempted to introduce Marxist-type socialism" is irrelevant, since we're talking about the Soviet Empire here. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:44, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I've seen the talk page. The Tudoreanu arguments fail to convince me. Quotation marks are a good thing. Countries are usually not friendly. As I stated before, régimes and governments may be, like segments of a public opinion. A list of friendly countries could be open-ended, and prone to disputes. --Johan Magnus 10:51, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid you'll have to come up with a better counter-argument than "I'm not convinced". Also, notice that I've removed the term "friendly", and replaced it with the more clear-cut term "pro-Soviet". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:41, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Alternatively could you come up with more convincing arguments. --Johan Magnus 13:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Like it or not, the Soviet Union WAS an empire. What about Reagan's quote about the "evil empire?" The Soviet Union was composed of the lands that did not secede from the Russian Empire, or rather some did, and were brutally crushed by the Soviets, aka Ukraine. The Soviet Union was imperialist and it made many of the nations around it communist, against their will. The Soviet Union was an empire, ruled by Moscow. It's not a pejorative term. The Soviet Empire was a real thing. It wasn't "propaganda" as this Pravda article suggests. I call it "Pravda" because you're just uttering communist propaganda about how they're not "imperialist" when they were.

I suggest that this article be merged with the Soviet Union article and added onto it. Patchman123 (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

"Developed socialism"
The term "allies" is bad because USA, GB were allies of USSR suring WWII. Iagree that "developed socialism" could be a poor term, but the section clearly says it is Soviet classification, which is fact, not POV of the authors of the article. You are welcome to add a section, kind of "pro-Soviet states" (and IMO it will be useful), with the explanation who used the term and when.

 * How about "Cold War Allies of the Soviet Union"? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Usage of the term "allies" must be based on the existence of alliance pacts. Soviet Union had plenty of them; some short-living; e.g., with Egypt under Naser. We still need to segregate "allies" somehow. Mikkalai 16:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Very well, then how about "Members of Comecon"? That is what those countries had in common, after all. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * To explain one of the points where I don't understand you too well, you could consider how many non-native English speakers may get confused by the way native English speakers use the term allies. The idea that "allies" constitute an empire is also somewhat illogical, to me. Basically, I don't understand your sensitiveness against using a term that by itself is clearly located in Soviet lingo and thoughts. To me, it seems very appropriate in this context, in this article, and as headline it gives the best logical structure to this article I've seen so far. --Johan Magnus 16:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, I have already agreed that the term "allies" is inaccurate. That's why I proposed "Members of Comecon" instead. And by the way, if you don't understand how allies can be part of an "empire", keep in mind that "Soviet Empire" is a pejorative term used by the opponents of the Soviet Union. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * "Can be parts of" is not the same as "constitutes" an empire. Regarding you "having already agreed", I'm sure you are sufficiently clever to read the time stamps above. --Johan Magnus 23:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think this should be "List of pro-Soviet and former pro-Soviet countries". -- User:Plarq Jul 25 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.217.162.8 (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Socialism of Marxist-type
This section is important, since it lists not only actual allies of USSR, but those who were considered potential threat to the "wistern world". Chile: you may claim tha Alliende didn't like USSR, but it did not prevent him to accept economic help. What is more Alliende sided with Cuba, which was enough for USA to go berserk. Again, I ceated the section with paricular meaning. You are welcome to create another one to reflect your category of countries. Please remember, unlike fauna and flora, with all genuses and families, there is no 100% absolute classificaion in politics. Mikkalai 15:47, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, the thing is that you are implying that the Soviet definition of "Marxist-type Socialism" is the correct definition - an idea which is highly POV, and hotly disputed by anti-Soviet Marxists (such as, for example, myself). There has to be some better title we can find. What's wrong with "Countries that had pro-Soviet governments for short periods"? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * This heading rightfully excludes Chile. Please keep in mind that the term "Soviet Empire" itself is a certain Point of View. The article attempts to describe it. Please don't confuse the notions of POV of the wikipedia authors (bad thing) and POV of some political entities (which is necessary to know and a fair game for an encyclopedia article). Chile was percieved as threat, a potential candidate into Soviet Empire. Mikkalai 16:32, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't see why excluding Chile would be a bad thing. After all, I thought it had already been settled that we should only include countries with real ties to the Soviet Union, not countries that were feared by the West to be covertly pro-Soviet, because that would launch us into pure speculation (and we'd have to include countless short-lived African governments). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:36, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You convinced me on this item. But a section about such fears definitely makes sense, especially to mention fears that were well-documented. Mikkalai 16:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed; however, that would require some serious research into obscure Cold War politics and events, and especially into various Third World governments. Chile is the best known example of American fears, but there were also many others. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Controversial, politically-charged, and perjorative." All true, but I don't see why we have to include this kind of description in the intro when it can be shown throughout the article. J. Parker Stone 02:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Protos99
This user adds all possible former states here. They are irrelevant to this article. For example, there was no Soviet Empire in 1918. Other entries require exact description of particular Soviet involvement, not just a bunch of books at the bottom. `'mikkanarxi 20:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am responding to the RFC on this subject. I fully agree with you, the list that the user keeps adding are completely irrelevant to this article. Nevertheless, I have to say that I am confused as to what the scope of this article is. I mean the term that serves as the title for the page was mostly used in a political context and usually in a negative sense, rather than in academic discourse. So it is difficult to define what time periods and what areas this article should encompass. TSO1D 21:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

 * The lists appear to be well outside the scope of this article. - Francis Tyers · 22:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is not relevant. Asterion talk 01:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

map
The map needs some kind of academic reference. The UN considers much of Western Europe to be socialist states, so it's suprising that the Soviet Union did not consider them "moving towards socialism"! The term enclosed in quotes - what does it quote? I've added a "citation needed" to the map. This page needs a lot of work though. Deipnosopher 12:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

soviet-empire.com?
The external link to soviet-empire forums has nothing to do with this topic. the only similarity is the websites name. Opetyan 07:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The map on the top of the article
I wouldn't even be bringing this up, if it weren't for a discussion over at American Empire and the consequent moving of a similar map to a lower point in that article. The story in a nutshell: the map at American Empire shows countries with American military bases, and it was moved from the top of the article for the concern that a brief reading of the article title accompanied by the map glaring from the top of the article might bring about the false impression that the countries on the map were somehow members of a phantom "American Empire". As the concern is the same here (not all communist countries were directly influenced by the Soviet Union, i.e. were not members of the counterpart phantom "Soviet Empire", although a brief glance at the article title and the map might suggest so), I'm changing the position of the two maps in the article. TomorrowTime 20:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

History Section
Shouldn't the Soviet Empire have a history index, along with the details of its happenings during its regain, like the articals of the more formal empires? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.0.177 (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

needs much more
the Soviet Union and its worldwide satellite states are commonly thought to be empire. This article needs seriously expansion, considering the American Empire one is huge. Also, its colonial instincts in the states friendly to it should be known.

2008 Map
While it is debatable as to whether Vietnam and Laos should be considered pro-China (Cuba is closer to the PRC politically than either of them), it should probably be noted that Cambodia is not even Communist anymore (multi-party constitutional monarchy) so is clearly not within the PRC sphere of influence.

Modern
Judging from the leftover post-Cold War Communist States, the Soviet Empire still exists to an extent, basically as some sort of Soviet "Imperial Remnant". 74.78.89.243 (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Redirected
I've redirected it for the following reasons:
 * 1) There is no empire. The USSR was a socialist state.
 * 2) The Soviet Union article covers it, and much more.

Anyone who disagrees is free to revert. → Σ  τ  c. 07:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There are many aspects of the soviet union that constituted an empire, calling themselves anti-impreialist, did not make them anti-imperialist, I will search for further references. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed mergeal of Red Empire into this article
Any reason why the two can not be combined? They are essentially the same idea, this article contains more hard facts, a new section could be formed for common terms, such as Red Empire, Evil Empire etc. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be pointless since it isnt just about the soviet union, as it says in the article it refers to many other nations and with a bit of work (which as usual will probably end up being me) it will be a pretty decent article. User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 22:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

 * That is a very good point, perhaps I will withdraw nomination,but I would like to see a few more responces first

 * If it refers to several completely different things, should "Red Empire" link to a disambiguation page that allows readers to select between the "Red Empires" of either USSR, British Empire, or Japanese Empire? Zujua (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Nomination Withdrawn, yeah I didn't think all that through, we'll keep things as is. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Member Republics?
A section on member states of the union has been a part of this article for years (seen below), has been deleted and reinserted by multiple users over a period of 2 days, Most of these users, myself included are in favor of keeping the segment as part of the article, the only person against it is a continuously changing ip address, last edited as 90.235.112.153. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Member states of the Soviet Union
Over time the number of the constituent republics of the Soviet Union varied. After 1956 the Soviet Union included the following 15 republics.

– Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Russian SFSR (which in turn included several autonomous republics)
 * Ukrainian SSR
 * Byelorussian SSR
 * Uzbek SSR
 * Kazakh SSR
 * Georgian SSR
 * Azerbaijan SSR
 * Lithuanian SSR
 * Moldavian SSR
 * Latvian SSR
 * Kirghiz SSR
 * Tajik SSR
 * Armenian SSR
 * Turkmen SSR
 * Estonian SSR

 * what "multiple users" are you referring to other than Mewulwe and yourself ?! and where are the sources for your pov personal opinions ?! 95.199.0.38 (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

When did it become an empire?
We have documents to when Russia and other countries became and ceased to be communist which includes the fall of the empire but what was the exact date to when communism was considered to be an empire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.247.133 (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I would assume it became an empire after the annexation of the Baltic states and the beginning of the military occupation of 6 eastern European states. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

So it was on June 14 1940? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.188.91 (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

 * The term "Soviet Empire" is an informal term of criticism. It is not a precise term, it is not meant to refer to a specific period in Soviet history with a clear beginning and end. It refers to Soviet actions during the Cold War in general. User1961914 (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Russia was an empire before the Bolshevik Revolution. None of the nations conquered by the Czars became free, and the Soviets had expansion plans of their own, -User:DanTD (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

What about Afghanistan?
Afghanistan was invaded by the USSR back in 1980 at which time they set up a communist government I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.124.30 (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What is your question? - Altenmann >t 20:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the anonymous IP wanted to know why the former Democratic Republic of Afghanistan wasn't included in the list of countries under Soviet imperialism. -User:DanTD (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Russian imperialism
I propose the creation of a broader article about the history of Russian imperialism (not just Soviet imperialism). After all, Russia has been involved in empire building throughout most of it's history (including today). Charles Essie (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 03:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Soviet imperialism → Soviet Empire – This was the previous title of the page, and it's a much more widely used term. It should be moved back. Charles Essie (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Support A cursory google books search produced 51K hits of "Soviet imperialism " -wikipedia but 214K for "soviet empire" -wikipedia.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME Red Slash 02:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Support as a more accurate reflection of the article's contents. As the nominator noted above, the topic of Russian/Soviet imperialism is for another article.  —  AjaxSmack   02:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

map
Portugal is yellow in the map but it never was a socialist country!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Califate123 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Was it never?

--OPAZL (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Uhh yeah, quite objectively it was never a socialist state, OPAZL. Fasscass (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

My recent edits
Hi Rauisuchian. Most of your recent changes virtually resulted in reverting mine, so I'll see that I justify some or most of my edits here, especially since not every one of them had to do with achieving a NPOV and was instead something less complex such as changing the 'façade' rare spelling to the more usual 'facade'.

I understand the article you sent and thus I'll avoid using such terms, and would add 'allegedly' and 'accused' to wherever I could use 'critics say [...]', or simply use quotation marks, just to avoid repetition.

 * Because the term 'Soviet Empire' is merely a scare-word meant for propaganda purposes, it cannot be used objectively to the same degree or hierarchy as simply 'Soviet Union'. As such, it should always be presented as "Soviet Empire". This is consistent with the fact that I intend to "mark" every claim, accusation, and such sentences that are either unverifiable or unnecessary to verify for the purposes of the article, so as to mantain the neutral point of view of everything that is claimed here as being, well, done so by critics of a specific POV. The article should acknowledge this constantly.

 * 'Soviet Empire' refers to multiple criticisms revolving around imperialism. What constitutes imperialism, colonialism, dictatorship and such, all things the Soviet Union is accused of in the article, has always been subject of interpretation for propaganda purposes. This means that whatever citation is given to each claim, it will only remain a claim rather than fact as it is merely an interpretation of the original information. As such, to simply state "The Soviets pursued internal colonialism in Central Asia" for example, is not unbiased and neutral as it blatantly pertains to a specific POV, that of the people who make these claims and criticisms of course. With the new article you sent however, we should end up in "The Soviets allegedly pursued internal colonialism in Central Asia", so as to achieve "objectivity" or neutrality.

 * Finally I'd like to make a request of you, and potentially anyone else who reads talk before editing the article. Whenever you interest yourself in a country, culture, government or such that is unusual to you for whatever reason, assume that it is normal. This way we avoid sentences such as:
 * The nations which were part of the Soviet Empire were nominally independent countries with separate governments that set their own policies, but those policies had to remain within certain limits decided by the Soviet Union and enforced by threat of intervention by the Soviet forces, and then the Warsaw Pact

 * This sentence, the unjustified removal of 'nominal republic' from it aside, essentially says that if a local government within the Soviet Union were to rebel or corrupt its own system, that the national government would intervene. It quite literally means nothing more than that. It is no different to, well, any other country in the world, and thus to have this sentence present despite every country's article having none, suggests that the Soviet Union was somehow different in this aspect, and, given the scope of the article, worse than other countries.

 * Another case for this last thing would simply be consistency within this Wiki project, which is of upmost importance. When it comes to a state defending and preserving its systems and status quo, no articles go out of their way to say something like 'the central government dominates the local nations and limits their powers through the threat of military intervention' which is true for every nation on Earth, so why should this article feature such a sentence?

And that's about it.

Fasscass (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 * I am not seeing much evidence that ‘Soviet empire’ is a “scare-word for propaganda purposes”. There is no existing Soviet Union to offend, and its discussion is historical in nature. An article about an instance of imperialism will include negative aspects of that imperialism.

 * In a general survey of reliable sources, the term ‘Soviet empire’ is used relatively widely, try site-specific Google searches. For example, here's all the mentions on The Guardian, ResearchGate, and Al Jazeera English.

 * The term is rarely even quoted, just used directly, and in non-opinion articles. Additionally, a search on Google Scholar shows a multitude of published academic sources that discuss Soviet empire as a concept.

 * The bulk or all of the citations in the article are reliable sources. The web and news sources are nearly all in the Perennial sources list and marked reliable after discussions. The book sources are academic in nature, so it can be seen that they are reliable references.

 * On the issue of wording such as “allegedly”, “accused”, etc. This is not any better than “so-called” and is mentioned in the same Manual of Style section MOS:ALLEGED. This is discouraged, except when the original source makes clear it is only an allegation, as it casts doubt on a statement when there may not be a reason to.

 * Making an attribution more direct is usually welcome, however the edits you made were making reliably sourced statements more indirect, as well as removing sourced content. If you'd like to use more direct quotes from the sources, that is welcome. Note that some of these quotes are more specific in stating negative aspects of the Soviet Union than the summarized versions in wikitext.

 * The conclusion drawn in the lead from the sources is, if anything, understated and the relatively soft version of a summary.

 * Feel free to find additional reliable sources to cover spots you think may be missing in the article. Rauisuchian (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 * I have to agree with Rauisuchian. To be fair, I think the whole claim that this term was supposedly used as "scare-word for propaganda purposes" has never been sourced by any kind of reliable source in the years this article existed.
 * Fasscass must provide reliable sources to support that this term was used as "scare-word for propaganda purposes". He can't just say "it's like that, because it's like that". While we can agree that "Soviet Empire" is mostly a term used to not define "an empire" in the classic sense, "Soviet Empire" is not the same as "Evil Empire" which carries much more political weight. Fasscass also removed some sourced content apparently for no reason.

 * Also, as noted by Rauisuchian, it must be said that the article uses a fairly neutral approach: it is by no means an anti-Soviet propaganda leaflet. It merely tells the fact that a good number of scholars agree on the matter and specifically why and about this, there is clearly a consensus among scholars to define the Soviet Union as "an empire with dominant role in other countries" to various degrees. There's a good amount of sources and further reading below. If Fasscass has reliable sources that question this fact, he should share and use them if they are worth.

 * If not, there's basically no ground for Fasscass' edits. Lone Internaut (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Scope of the article
I noticed that last November, an IP tried to change the scope of this article which is about the term "Soviet Empire" to also include today's Russia for some reason and also include apparent "allies" of Russia. Quite clearly by the article name, this is about the Soviet Union specifically, not Russian imperialism in general, so I have no idea why this was still included in the article, especially when the first sentence specifically states pre-1989, when there are other articles that make much more sense to include this kind of information. I have removed this part but if someone wants to keep this, please tell me why it should be in this article called "Soviet Empire" which should be about the Soviet Union. Mellk (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Post-Soviet reactions section
This section seems to talk about decommunization in general and the legacy of the Soviet Union in a few countries, rather than being about the term Soviet Empire specifically, so to me, it seems like this is out of the scope of the article. Perhaps these belong in a more relevant article if there is any? Mellk (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't appear off topic to me. Many of the news and academic articles about decommunization have included the phrase "Soviet empire" to describe the role/perception of said symbols, in the context of past Soviet military presence. When you search for both "decommunisation" and "decommunization" spellings with "Soviet empire" it's an obvious include for article scope. Rauisuchian (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If it is about the legacy of the Soviet Union, would it not make more sense to include it in Soviet Union instead? Or at least it could be written in a way that relates to the term more. Mentioning a diplomatic dispute in 2020 about the removal of a statue of Ivan Konev and nothing else looks odd here in my view. Mellk (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I could see it being on the Soviet Union subsection but that doesn't mean it isn't also relevant in Soviet empire, which specifically addresses the legacy in countries that were formerly Warsaw Pact members or formerly Soviet republics which is more in the area referred to as "Soviet empire". In that sense I am not seeing the off-topic part of it. Though, I can agree with "Or at least it could be written in a way that relates to the term more". The decommunization subsection could potentially include more 1980's and 1990's developments and focus on those. Rauisuchian (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Yes, that was obviously off topic. I moved it to page Decommunization. My very best wishes (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Israel as a Soviet Ally
Israel is listed as a Soviet ally during the years 1948–1953, and 1991. While I agree that Israel could be considered a Soviet ally from 1948-1953, I don't know what is meant by the year 1991, other than that Israel restored diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union in that year. By that logic, the USA was a Soviet ally.

There is also a problem with the source: it was published in the 1970s. How can a source from the 1970s be used as evidence as an event from the 1990s? Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Pax Sovietica?
Can we please get the citation added for this or have it removed from the page? Never in my years of study have I heard the term "Pax Sovietica" used interchangeably with "Soviet Empire." Wateredplant (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 26 April 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SkyWarrior  16:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Soviet Empire → Soviet imperialism – Whereas "Soviet Empire" is a concept, Soviet imperialism was a real thing. WP:COMMONNAME of today does not go in favor of 'Soviet imperialism', but it was prevalent during nearly entirety of its lifespan. It is comparable to American imperialism, which is nowadays struggling to keep its prevalence to the concept of 'American Empire', as well as modern-day Russian imperialism. We're talking about actual imperialism in these articles, hence WP:PRECISE needing to apply. –Vipz (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – Material  Works  16:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t understand the point about American imperialism, but the chart used to demonstrate something is wrong because lettercase counts. Turn on “case-insensitive” to compare apples to apples. —Michael Z. 14:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose. I don’t really understand the rationale to move. The only relation to the guidelines refers to the common name, which is clearly Soviet empire today and in the last four decades, accounting for over 90% usage. Why would we talk about a subject today by an archaic name from the 1950s? —Michael Z. 14:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, empire should be lowercased. —Michael Z. 14:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mzajac: what's not clear about the rationale? Which of these two existed: Soviet imperialism or Soviet empire? –Vipz (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Soviet empire is a very common name for the USSR, because of its imperialism. They both did, obviously. —Michael Z. 15:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Relisted to get a clearer consensus. – Material  Works  16:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Soviet Union has been notified of this discussion. – Material  Works  16:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Socialism has been notified of this discussion. – Material  Works  16:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Russia has been notified of this discussion. – Material  Works  16:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose Both terms are far from devoid of problems, but I think the original term is slightly less controversial. PatGallacher (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 10 May 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerium (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Soviet Empire → Soviet empire – Lowercase “empire,” because this is not a formal title but a description or nickname. This is supported by WP:COMMONNAME, according to recorded usage in reliable sources. —Michael Z. 19:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Seems straightforward. Walrasiad (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom—blindlynx 00:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - per nom. Probably could've been moved WP:BOLDly or at least listed at WP:RM/TR estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per nomination. –Vipz (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per ngram evidence and WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Was going to suggest this earlier, glad to see somebody else did. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Would have supported the move above to "imperialism" as well, but that got closed before I had the chance to. Regardless, should be sentence case, as this was not a proper name of a state.  -- Jayron 32 13:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

What kind of nonsense article is this?
The Soviet Union was not Russia. Stalin was Georgian, not Russian, and suggestions that he was some kind of Russian chauvinist are nonsense. See Marxism and the National Question.

The first source is WP:RECENTISM and falsely equivocates between the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation. It also falsely claims that "Stalin embraced Russian nationalism". It is therefore of questionable reliability. I decided to be WP:BOLD and removed it on this basis.

The second "source", which I have also removed, is written by the president of Poland and pushes Polish Holocaust denialism.

The text says that member nations were "nominally" independent, but at the same time that these parts of the "empire" depended on "subsidies from Moscow", so the text of the article isn't even coherent, which is to be expected when a bunch of editors try to make a hen out of a feather.

Richard Pipes was a CIA asset, that is a tool of US imperialism, and therefore nothing that he has written on the Soviet Union can be regarded as reliable.

The fact that Soviet member nations engaged in industrial specialization was in part necessary for the survival of a union beset by reactionary forces, most notably the genocide of Soviet peoples carried out by Nazi Germany. To call specialization imperialism is laughable, partly because no surplus value extraction took place. It is very much a result of the entire Soviet Union being one big workplace.

Characterizing the suppression of kulaks as imperialism is particularly egregious. A reader coming across this article is led to believe that liberating the peasantry from a parasitical class is equivalent to say the hecking Belgian Congo.

The entire article is also so full of loaded language that mentioning it all would take up as much space as the article itself.

I will finish off by noting that early versions of this article tacitly praise Ronald Reagan, because of course they hecking do. KetchupSalt (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Please remove any incivility (WP:UNCIVIL) from your comment. Try not to make derogatory references to groups such as social classes, it's a direct violation of Wikipedia policy (WP:IUC). Try also to avoid any form of profanity and express your opinion in civil and neutral manner. Marcelus (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me answer a bit; my skin is thick:
 * liberating the peasantry from a parasitical class is equivalent to say the <..> Belgian Congo
 * You know what? It was. I am not sure you want to hear why, but if you ask politely... - Altenmann >talk 18:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * to call specialization imperialism is laughable
 * no it is not. This was the same kind of "specialization" as in colonial Africa: extraction of natural resources for nothing. The best example for such comparison is Uzbek SSR, which was essentially turned into a cotton monoculture state. The life of Uzbek dehkans was directly comparable with that of Africans in nickel mines. - Altenmann >talk 18:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This was the same kind of "specialization" as in colonial Africa No. There is no valorization of capital going on for a start. Did the USSR consider Uzbek farmers to be expendable? Did they forego investment in Uzbek labour power such as was done in the African colonies? Did they cut off the hands of insufficiently productive workers as was done in the Belgian Congo? Did they forego developing the productive forces so as to attain a high rate of profit? The CIA doesn't seem to think so, though the process was somewhat slow. Did they raise taxes and conscripts by surrounding and entering villages, binding the "volunteers" in rope and, in case of resistance, take women and children and kill them with spears to set examples, as was done by the French in Sudan? Did they rip out insubordinate slaves' intestines through the anus as was done in (if I remember correctly) the French rubber plantations? KetchupSalt (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * these parts of the "empire" depended on "subsidies from Moscow"
 * and that was precisely because of Soviet colonialism: resources were sucked out for cheap and then some benefits were trickled back. There was no cost accounting nor market in the USSR so we never know how in fact Uzbek SSR was ripped off by Moscow, rather than given subsidies. - Altenmann >talk 18:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * resources were sucked out for cheap and then some benefits were trickled back The lowering of the value of goods is a primary goal of socialist economics, indeed the primary motivator for the heavy investment in productive forces carried out especially under Stalin. But if the produce is cheap then chances are high that goods received in return, for example cars and computers, embody more labour time than Uzbek workers contribute to the system as a whole. In that case it would be the Uzbek SSR exploiting the rest of the union, not the other way around. I don't have the relevant literature on hand at the moment with the necessary statistics to check whether this was the case or not, but from your wording I presume that you do?
 * There was no cost accounting This is incorrect. While the Soviet economy certainly had systemic biases that caused labour power to be squandered (indirect taxation being one) to say that costs were not accounted for is very wrong. Gossnab would have noticed at the very least. KetchupSalt (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Pipes
 * Being a CIA asset does not automatically disqualify the author. Well, his bio has little criticism of him. You are welcome to add it there, basing on reliable sources. - Altenmann >talk 18:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * All that said, Wikipedia is not perfect, and as I came out of my hiatus, I see many things deteriorated and editing activity appear to me worsened: 95% of edits in my watchlist come from wikignomes. If you have specific suggestions, we can discuss item by item. - Altenmann >talk 18:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the lead
I see my edits are being reverted, and rather than warring I am going to create a section here specifically for it rather than the article as a whole (which has many many problems). There are two major problems with the lead at the moment: At the very least the RSOPINION needs to be fixed. KetchupSalt (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * opinion pieces are presented as scholarly consensus, in violation of WP:RSOPINION
 * the Duda article is a form of Holocaust denialism, or "Holocaust distortion" as Jan Grabowski calls it

 * I again ask you to remove every profanity and incivility from this t/p Marcelus (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I cannot remove what isn't there, especially not when you don't explicitly point it out. Moreover it has nothing to do with the topic of this section. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, see this for what Holocaust denialism is. You also complain about an opinion piece being used in this page, while using an opinion piece to support what you consider to be "holocaust denial". Betelgeuse X (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Soviet empire


text:
Lord mayor

Lord mayor is a title of a mayor of what is usually a major city in a Commonwealth realm, with special recognition bestowed by the sovereign. However, the title or an equivalent is present in other countries, including forms such as "high mayor". Aldermen usually elect the lord mayor from their ranks.

Australia
In Australia, lord mayor is a special status granted by the monarch to mayors of major cities, primarily the capitals of Australian states and territories. Australian cities with lord mayors are Adelaide, Brisbane, Darwin, Hobart, Melbourne, Newcastle, Parramatta, Perth, Sydney, and Wollongong.

Canada
In Canada, the only town with a lord mayor in the traditional sense is Niagara-on-the-Lake, as recognition of its role as the first capital of Upper Canada. Unusually, the council of Brantford, Ontario took it upon itself to appoint an honorary Lord Mayor Walter Gretzky in addition to the elected mayor. This is the only example of a council granting the cachet itself, rather than it being granted by a higher authority, such as the Crown or national government.

United Kingdom
In England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, it is a purely ceremonial post conferred by letters patent. Most famously it refers to the Lord Mayor of London, who only has jurisdiction over the City of London, as opposed to the modern title of Mayor of London governing Greater London.

Uganda
In Uganda, the only jurisdiction with a lord mayor is Kampala, in recognition of its status as the capital city of the country.

Ireland
In Ireland, the posts of Lord Mayor of Dublin (granted under the Kingdom of Ireland) and Lord Mayor of Cork (granted when this city was part of the United Kingdom) still exist, and are symbolic titles as in the UK.

Province of Maryland
Annapolis, the only city in the Thirteen Colonies to receive a royal charter, used the title 'lord mayor' prior to the American Revolution.

Equivalents in other languages

 * In Denmark, as the translation of Danish Overborgmester, it is the title of the highest mayor of Denmark's capital city, Copenhagen.
 * In Germany, it is sometimes (and perhaps anachronistically or incongruously) used to translate German Oberbürgermeister, the title of the mayors of large, often county-free cities. Especially in large cities that consist of subunits governed by District mayors (Bezirksbürgermeister), the title Oberbürgermeister is usually used to distinguish the head executive of the entire city from those of the subunits. As in Austria, Germany's mayors serve as the actual executive leaders of their cities and are elected officials. However, the post of mayor in the three German city-states is equivalent to that of a Ministerpräsident (head of government of one of Germany's constitutive states) and the respective post is referred to as Regierender Bürgermeister (governing mayor) in Berlin, Erster Bürgermeister (first mayor) in Hamburg and Bürgermeister und Präsident des Senates (Mayor and President of the senate) in Bremen.
 * In Finland, the head city manager of the capital, Helsinki, is customarily given by the country's President the title ylipormestari [loosely translated: "high mayor"] (which then generally is much more used of the official than kaupunginjohtaja, the title of the office itself), a tradition that resembles closely the lord mayoralties in other countries.
 * In Romania and Moldova, the mayors of the capitals (Bucharest and Chişinău, respectively) are named Primar General which means general mayor. The name is ceremonial and it has no higher powers than mayors of other cities.
 * In Hungary, the mayor of the capital Budapest is called főpolgármester which means chief mayor or grand mayor. Only the capital has a főpolgármester. Between 1873 and 1945, the Lord Mayor of Budapest was representative of the Hungarian government at the capital's municipal authority.
 * In ancient China, jīng zhào yĭn (京兆尹) was the title given to the mayor of capital city, jīng zhào (京兆). Today, on the other hand, city mayor and party-appointed secretary (actual leader) of the four direct-controlled municipalities, Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, and Chongqing, though without special titles, share the rank of provincial governor and party-appointed secretary.
 * In Estonia, the mayor of the capital (Tallinn), was named Lord Mayor (Ülemlinnapea) from 1938 to 1940.
 * In Czech Republic, the mayor of the capital Prague and so-called statutory cities (listed in law, currently 25 cities) is called Primátor.
 * In Sweden, the titles of mayor and lord mayor have no direct equivalent since the 1970s. The executive leader of Swedish municipalities is one of sometimes several Kommunalråd in the function of the chair of the municipal board. In the capital Stockholm the chief executive is traditionally called Finansborgarråd (City Councillor of Finance)—"council" in this context referring to the executive rather than the legislative branch of local government.
 * The Welsh translation of lord mayor is Arglwydd Faer.
 * The Irish translation of lord mayor is Ard-Mhéara, which means "chief mayor".
 * The Malay translation of lord mayor is Datuk bandar, which means "city chief".
 * In the Ethiopian Empire, the Mayor of Addis Ababa was known as Lord Mayor (Kantiba).

Style of address
The style of address for the office of the lord mayors of Belfast, Cardiff, Bristol, the City of London, and York is The Right Honourable. All other lord mayors are The Right Worshipful. This refers only to the post, rather than the person. The title Sir can be used for salutations when a lord mayor is being addressed.

title: Lord mayor


text:
Talk:Radical feminism

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01
— Assignment last updated by Bbalicia (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-03
— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Radical feminism


text:
99 Bottles of Beer

"99 Bottles of Beer" or "100 Bottles of Pop on the Wall" is a traditional reverse counting song from the United States and Canada. It is popular to sing on road trips, as it has a very repetitive format which is easy to memorize and can take a long time when sung in full. In particular, the song is often sung by children on long school bus trips, such as class field trips, or on Scout or Girl Guide outings.

Lyrics
The song's lyrics are as follows, beginning with n=99: (n) bottles of beer on the wall. (n) bottles of beer. Take one down, pass it around, (n-1) bottles of beer on the wall.

The same verse is repeated, each time with one bottle fewer, until there is none left. Variations on the last verse following the last bottle going down include lines such as: No more bottles of beer on the wall, no more bottles of beer. Go to the store and buy some more, 99 bottles of beer on the wall...

Or: No more bottles of beer on the wall, no more bottles of beer. We've taken them down and passed them around; now we're drunk and passed out!

Other alternate lines read: If that one bottle should happen to fall, what a waste of alcohol!

Or: No more bottles of beer on the wall, no more bottles of beer. There's nothing else to fall, because there's no more bottles of beer on the wall.

Or the song does not stop at the last "1" or "0" bottles of beer but continues counting with −1 (Negative one) Bottles of beer on the wall Take one down, pass it around, −2 (negative 2) bottles of beer on the wall... continuing onward through the negative numbers.

Full-length recitals
Singing all verses takes an extraordinarily long time. The American comedian Andy Kaufman used this for comedic effect early in his career when he actually sang all 100 verses.

Atticus, a band from Knoxville, Tennessee, recorded a thirteen and a half minute live version of the song in its entirety at the Glasgow Cathouse in Scotland. It was included in the 2001 album Figment. Rich Stewart aka Homebrew Stew listed it as the number one drinking song out of 86 in an article for Modern Drunkard Magazine the following year.

Mathematically inspired variants
Donald Byrd has collected dozens of variants inspired by mathematical concepts and written by himself and others. (A subset of his collection has been published. ) Byrd argues that the collection has pedagogic as well as amusement value. Among his variants are:
 * "Infinity bottles of beer on the wall". If one bottle is taken down, there are still infinite bottles of beer on the wall (thus creating an unending sequence much like "The Song That Never Ends").
 * "Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall". Aleph-null is the size of the set of all natural numbers, and is the smallest infinity and the only countable one; therefore, even if an infinite aleph-null of bottles fall, the same amount remains.
 * "Aleph-one/two/three/etc. bottles of beer on the wall". Aleph-one, two, three, etc. are uncountable infinite sets, which are larger than countable ones; therefore, if only a countable infinity of bottles fall, an uncountable number remains.

Other versions in Byrd's collection involve concepts including geometric progressions, differentials, Euler's identity, complex numbers, summation notation, the Cantor set, the Fibonacci sequence, and the continuum hypothesis, among others.

References in computer science
The computer scientist Donald Knuth proved that the song has a complexity of $$O(\log N)$$ in his in-joke-article "The Complexity of Songs".

Numerous computer programs exist to output the lyrics to the song. This is analogous to "Hello, World!" programs, with the addition of a loop. As with "Hello, World!", this can be a practice exercise for those studying computer programming, and a demonstration of different programming paradigms dealing with looping constructs and syntactic differences between programming languages within a paradigm.

The program has been written in over 1,500 different programming languages.

title: 99 Bottles of Beer


text:
Mark Spencer (computer engineer)

Mark Spencer (born April 8, 1977) is an American computer engineer and is the original author of the GTK+-based instant messaging client Gaim (which has since been renamed to Pidgin), the L2TP daemon l2tpd and the Cheops Network User Interface.

Mark Spencer is also the creator of Asterisk, a Linux-based open-sourced PBX. He is the founder, chairman and CTO of Digium, an open-source telecommunications supplier most notable for its development and sponsorship of Asterisk. Spencer shifted from CEO to chairman and CTO in early 2007.

Early life
Spencer was born and raised in Auburn, Alabama. He attended Auburn University where both his parents were professors. In high school, he was mentored by another Auburn professor, Thaddeus Roppel, and Mark Smith, co-founder of Adtran.

Career
While attending Auburn University, Spencer co-oped at Adtran when he wrote l2tpd. He went on to start a Linux technical support business. Spencer did not have enough money to buy a PBX (private branch exchange) for his company so he decided to write Asterisk and later founded Digium.

As a pilot, Mark founded Avilution, LLC. to create Android apps including QuickWeather and AviationMaps. AviationMaps was later spun out to FlightPro, then DroidEFB. Adapting a similar strategy as Asterisk, he developed the eXtensible Flight System, XFS, a cross-platform avionics architecture. XFS has already been integrated in the Zenith CH750 STOL aircraft in the form of both a three-screen panel and the "Unpanel," a portrait-orientation (also landscape) screen to replace the entire traditional glass cockpit.

title: Mark Spencer (computer engineer)


text:
Black belt (martial arts)

In East Asian martial arts, the black belt is associated with expertise, but may indicate only competence, depending on the martial art. The use of colored belts is a relatively recent invention dating from the 1880s.

Origin
The systematic use of belt colour to denote rank was first used in Japan by Jigoro Kano, the founder of judo in the 1880s. Previously, Japanese Koryu instructors tended to provide rank certificates only. Initially the wide obi was used. As practitioners trained in a kimono, only white and black obi were used. This kind of ranking is less common in arts that do not claim a far Eastern origin, though it is used in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program.

Relative rank
Rank and belts are not equivalent between arts, styles, or even within some organisations. In some arts, a black belt may be awarded in three years or even less, while in others it takes dedicated training of ten years or more. Testing for black belt is commonly more rigorous and more centralised than for lower grades.

Ability
In contrast to the "black belt as master" stereotype, a black belt commonly indicates the wearer is competent in a style's basic technique and principles.

Another way to describe this links to the terms used in Japanese arts; shodan (for a first degree black belt), means literally the first/beginning step, and the next grades, nidan and sandan are each numbered as ni is two and san is three, meaning second step, third step, etc.

As a "black belt" is commonly viewed as conferring some status, achieving one has been used as a marketing gimmick. For example, a school might guarantee that one will be awarded within a certain period, or for a certain amount of money. Such schools are sometimes referred to as McDojos or belt factories.

Teaching
In some Japanese schools, after obtaining a black belt the student also begins to instruct, and may be referred to as a senpai (senior student) or sensei (teacher). In others, a black belt student should not be called sensei until they are Sandan (third-degree black belt), or the titles kyosa or sabom in Korean martial arts as a second degree or higher, as this denotes a greater degree of experience and a sensei must have this and grasp of what is involved in teaching a martial art.

Higher grades

In Japanese martial arts the further subdivisions of black belt ranks may be linked to dan grades and indicated by 'stripes' on the belt. Yūdansha (roughly translating from Japanese to "person who holds a dan grade") is often used to describe those who hold a black belt rank. While the belt remains black, stripes or other insignia may be added to denote seniority, in some arts, very senior grades will wear differently colored belts.

In judo and some forms of karate, a sixth dan will wear a red-and-white belt. The red-and-white belt is often reserved only for ceremonial occasions, and a regular black belt is still worn during training. At 9th or 10th dan some schools award red. In some schools of jujutsu, the shihan rank and higher wear purple belts. These other colors are often still referred to collectively as "black belts".

title: Black belt (martial arts)


text:
William Fulco

William James Fulco, S.J., (February 24, 1936 – November 29, 2021) was an American Jesuit priest and National Endowment for the Humanities Professor of Ancient Mediterranean Studies at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, California.

Fulco was born in Los Angeles. He entered the Society of Jesus in August 1954 and was ordained a priest in June 1966. He spent most of his career in education.

Fulco died on November 29, 2021.

Early life and education
Fulco was born to Dr. Herman J. Fulco and Clelia Marie DeFeo Fulco in the Leimert Park area of Los Angeles. He had a brother, Dr. Armand Fulco, and sister, Yvonne Henriks. He graduated from Loyola High School. He later joined the Society of Jesus in 1954 and was ordained in 1966. Fulco earned his B.A. and Licentiate of Sacred Theology from Jesuit School of Theology, Berkeley, California (now Santa Clara University) and his M.A. at Gonzaga University. Fulco finished his Ph.D. in Near Eastern languages and literatures from Yale University.

Father William Fulco was fluent in nine languages including English, Spanish, Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Arabic, Hebrew, German.

Loyola Marymount University
Fuclo began teaching at Loyola Marymount University (LMU) in Los Angeles in August 1998. He founded the school's Classics and Archaeology department within the Bellarmine College of Liberal Arts. He was awarded the National Endowment for the Humanities Chair of Ancient Mediterranean Studies.

During his teaching career, he taught courses on topics including Greek and Latin for medicine, archaeology and the Bible, and Mediterranean studies.

Fuclo was also active in the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity on LMU's campus. He was the faculty advisor from 2002 to 2019, and was awarded by the national organization with the 2011 SigEp Citation, Volunteer of the Year, and Distinguished Alumnus awards.

Father William Fulco retired from teaching in 2019.

Collaboration in the film The Passion of the Christ
He was hired to translate the dialogues for the film The Passion of the Christ (2004), by Mel Gibson,  into a hypothetical reconstructed form of Aramaic, the Aramaic that Jesus spoke, making him one of the few professional historical linguists specializing in the production (or more precisely translation) of texts in unattested or poorly attested languages known to have existed, with a focus on the needs of the movie industry. Fulco does not reconstruct grammars (open generative structures) of poorly attested or unattested language forms known to have existed. Rather, he reconstructs finite texts in these language forms, and the reconstruction is limited to the necessities of the production of such texts. His reconstructed Aramaic used in the film incorporated elements of the Biblical Aramaic of the Book of Daniel, fourth-century Syriac, and Hebrew. Fulco has also worked on such films as The Nativity Story and Constantine.

Personal life
Fulco was public about his alcoholism from 1968 to 1985. He was able to become sober via a Washington, D.C., program. Fulco later helped others via community alcohol addiction groups. During the late 1980s, Fuclo recalled the alcohol groups nearly turned into AIDS support groups as the AIDS epidemic tore through the United States and the groups became a place to mourn loved ones and find community. He recalls it was one of the most profound times in his life and "these people had learned how to live in a way I hadn't. I had to learn from them."

Fulco died November 29, 2021, at Sacred Heart Jesuit Center in Los Gatos from pulmonary fibrosis at the age of 85.

title: William Fulco


text:
Summoner

Summoner may refer to:

Magic and religion

 * Summoner, a person who practices evocation, the act of calling upon or summoning a spirit or deity
 * Necromancer, a magician who supposedly summons the spirits of the deceased
 * Theurgist, a magician who supposedly summons deities
 * Apparitor, or summoner, an ecclesiastical court official
 * Summoner (Wicca), a position in a Wiccan coven

Literature

 * The Summoner, a character in The Summoner's Tale by Geoffrey Chaucer
 * The Summoner, a novel in the Chronicles of the Necromancer series by Gail Z. Martin

Video gaming

 * Summoner (video game), fantasy role-playing game originally launched in 2000 for the PlayStation 2
 * Summoner 2, the 2002 sequel
 * Summoner, a player character who control a "champion" in the video game League of Legends

Other uses

 * Summoner (horse) (foaled 1997), a British-bred Thoroughbred racehorse

title: Summoner


text:
Black Belt

Black Belt may refer to:

Martial arts

 * Black belt (martial arts), an indication of attainment of expertise in martial arts
 * Black Belt (magazine), a magazine covering martial arts news, technique, and notable individuals

Places

 * Black Belt in the American South, A region of highly fertile black soil in the American South that was the center of slavery, and continues to have a large black population into the 21st century
 * Black Belt (geological formation), geological formation of dark fertile soil in the Southern United States
 * Black Belt (region of Alabama), a geographic and socio-political region of Alabama
 * Black Belt (region of Chicago), a historical region in Chicago, Illinois, in the South Side area

Entertainment

 * Black Belt Jones, a 1974 action film
 * Black Belt (1978 film), an Indian Malayalam film
 * Black Belt (2007 film), a Japanese film, also known as Kuro-obi
 * Black Belt (1984 video game), game for Apple II and Commodore 64
 * Black Belt (1986 video game), game for Sega Master System based on the anime Fist of the North Star
 * Black Belt (8-bit Theatre), a character in the webcomic 8-bit Theatre

Military

 * Operation Black Belt, Israeli code name for the November 2019 Gaza clashes

title: Black Belt


text:
White wizard

White wizard or white mage may refer to:

 * White Mage (Final Fantasy), a character class in the series
 * White Wizard, a character in the episode "The Dragon's Secret" of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated
 * White Wizard, a character in Kamen Rider Wizard
 * White Mage, a character in 8-Bit Theater
 * White wizard, a seal in the Dreamspell Mayan calendar interpretation and game
 * White Wizard, a variation of the drinking game Wizard Staff
 * Burling Hull (1889–1982), nicknamed The White Wizard, an American magician
 * White Wizard Games, an American games company

title: White wizard


text:
Shun Fat Supermarket

Shun Fat Supermarket (also known as SF Supermarket) is a Chinese Vietnamese American supermarket chain in the San Gabriel Valley region in California, Sacramento, California, San Pablo, California, Las Vegas, Nevada, Portland, Oregon and Garland, Texas.

Shun Fat Supermarket was started in the mid-1990s by a Chinese Vietnamese entrepreneur named Hieu Tai Tran (陳才孝). Its first store was opened in the Chinese American suburban community of Monterey Park, California. Despite some amusement in the English-speaking press, the name "Shun Fat" actually means "prosperity" in Chinese.

The Asian supermarket chain that sells imported grocery items from Asia - particularly Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Thailand, and Vietnam - and also a few mainstream American brands as well. Its locations tend to be in newer suburban Chinatowns as well as in developing ethnic Vietnamese American commercial districts.

The market chain competes mainly with the 99 Ranch Market and Hong Kong Supermarket. Like these two supermarket chains, Shun Fat Supermarket usually serves as a major anchor store in some Asian shopping centers and strip malls, which in some cases have been renovated extensively by Hieu Tran. The "Superstores" in Dallas, El Monte, Garden Grove, Las Vegas, San Gabriel and Westminster are uniquely Chinese hypermarkets, as they sell clothing, small electronics and other products in addition to groceries, although these stalls are operated by independent vendors with separate payment.

In 2005, Shun Fat Supermarket opened a 105000 sqft megastore in the Little Saigon of Westminster, California, joining the already highly competitive Vietnamese supermarket commerce in the community.

In June 2013, the market opened Dallas Superstore, marking its first expansion in Texas.

In 2017, Shun Fat sold the Monterey Park and Rowland Heights locations to Great Wall Supermarket.

In June 2019, the popular Asian supermarket opened its first Oregon branch in Southeast Portland’s Jade District on 82nd Avenue and Foster Road, formerly a Fred Meyer store. This marked Shun Fat’s fifteenth location and first in the Northwest.

Locations

 * California
 * South El Monte - 2650 Rosemead Blvd
 * Garden Grove - 13861 Brookhurst St
 * San Gabriel - 1635 S San Gabriel Blvd
 * San Diego - 6935 Linda Vista Rd
 * Westminster - 15440 Beach Blvd #123
 * Fresno - 4970 E Kings Canyon Rd
 * Sacramento - 4562 Mack Rd
 * Sacramento - 6930 65th St #123
 * Sacramento - 5820 South Land Park Dr
 * Stockton - 8004 West Ln
 * San Pablo - 2368 El Portal Dr
 * Nevada
 * Las Vegas - 4801 Spring Mountain Rd
 * Las Vegas - 5115 Spring Mountain Rd
 * Oregon
 * Portland - 5323 SE 82nd Ave
 * Texas
 * Garland - 3212 Jupiter Rd

title: Shun Fat Supermarket


text:
Bangladeshi taka

The Bangladeshi taka (টাকা, sign: ৳, code: BDT, short form: Tk) is the currency of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. In Unicode, it is encoded at.

Issuance of bank notes ৳10 and larger is controlled by Bangladesh Bank, while the ৳2 and ৳5 banknotes are the responsibility of the ministry of finance of the Government of Bangladesh. The banknotes of Tk. 2 and Tk.5 have mostly been replaced by coins while lower denomination coins (including all poysha coins) up to Tk. 1 have almost gone out of circulation due to inflation. The most commonly used symbol for the taka is "৳" and "Tk", used on receipts while purchasing goods and services. It is divided into 100 poysha, but poysha coins are no longer in circulation. The poysha is still used for accounting purposes (e.g., Tk 123,456.78 for 123,456 taka and 78 poysha).

On 8 May 2024, the central bank placed the taka in a crawling peg to the US dollar, with a rate of 117 takas per US dollar.

Etymology
According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and Banglapedia, the word taka came from the Sanskrit word tankah, meaning silver coin. The word taka in Bangla is also commonly used generically to mean any money, currency, or notes. Thus, colloquially, a person speaking in Bangla may use "taka" to refer to money regardless of what currency it is denominated in. This is also common in the Indian states of West Bengal and Tripura, where the official name of the Indian rupee is "taka" as well. In other eastern Indian languages with the influence of Prakrit in Bihar it is "taka" in Maithili and Magadhi languages, in Assam it is টকা tôka and it is ଟଙ୍କା taṅkā in Odisha.

1947–71
After the Partition of Bengal in 1947, East Bengal became the eastern wing of Pakistan and was renamed to East Pakistan in 1956. The Pakistani rupee also bore the word taka on official notes and coins. Bangla was one of the two national languages of the Pakistan union between 1956 and 1971 (the other being Urdu). The Bangladeshi taka came into existence since 1972, a year after the independence of the eastern wing of the union, as the independent nation of Bangladesh.

Prior to the Liberation war in 1971, banknotes of the State Bank of Pakistan circulated throughout Bangladesh, and continued to be used in Bangladesh even after independence for only about three months until the official introduction of the taka on 4 March 1972. During the war, it was an unofficial practice of some Bengali nationalists to protest Pakistani rule by stamping banknotes with "বাংলা দেশ" and "BANGLA DESH" as two words in either Bangla or English. These locally produced stamps are known to exist in several varieties, as are forgeries. On 8 June 1971, the Pakistani government declared that all banknotes bearing such stamps ceased to be legal tender. Furthermore, to prevent looted high-denomination notes from disrupting the Pakistani economy, the government also withdrew the legal tender status of all 100- and 500-rupee notes.

Some foreign publications mention that there were rubber stamp "BANGLA DESH" overprints on different denominations of Pakistani bank notes during the a.m. period. Pakistani postage stamps were rubber-stamped and used all over Bangladesh until 30 March 1973, but Bangladesh Bank or the Ministry of Finance never issued an order to overprint or rubber-stamp Pakistani currency.

Since 1972
The taka was introduced in Bangladesh in 1972, replacing the Pakistani rupee at par.

Treasury banknotes

 * The first treasury notes in 1972 for ৳1 and notes of the Bangladesh Bank for ৳5, ৳10 and ৳100.
 * In 1977, banknotes for ৳50 were introduced, followed by ৳500 in 1979 and ৳20 in 1982.
 * ৳1 treasury notes were issued until 1992, with ৳2 treasury notes introduced in 1989.
 * ৳1000 banknotes were introduced in 2008.
 * ৳5 banknotes, previously issued by Bangladesh Bank, are now issued by the Government of Bangladesh. These have mostly been replaced by coins since the early 2000s.

Banknotes and issues
In 2000, the government issued polymer ৳10 notes as an experiment (similar to the Australian dollar). They proved unpopular, however, and were withdrawn later. At present, the ৳1 and ৳5 notes have mostly been replaced with coins, and in 2008, the government issued ৳1,000 notes.

In 2011, Bangladesh Bank began issuing a new series of banknotes denominated in ৳2, ৳5, ৳100, ৳500, and ৳1000. All are dated 2011 and feature a portrait and watermark of the Father of the Nation, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, along the National Martyr's Monument in Savar at center front.

From 2011, the Bangladesh Bank introduced new notes denominated in ৳10, ৳20, and ৳50 on 7 March 2012. The notes bear the portrait of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the National Martyr's Monument in Savar on the front. On the back of the notes, the ৳10 will picture the Baitul Mukarram mosque, the ৳20 pictures the Shat Gombuj mosque in Bagherat, and the ৳50 notes feature Shilpacharjo Zainul Abedin's famous painting Ploughing.

On March 7 of 2019, Bangladesh Bank released new ৳100 notes, which had the same design as 2011 Version, but had better security, a stronger Blue and were made of a different material.

On December 15 of 2019, Bangladesh Bank issued new ৳50 banknotes, with the same design as the 2011 version, but had a different colour (orange, brown and fluorescent yellow-green), and a slightly different design in some parts.

On March 17 of 2020, Bangladesh Bank introduced new ৳200 notes. They bear a portrait of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on both sides and a landscape picture of a village, river and boats.

Commemorative banknotes
In 2011, Bangladesh Bank also introduced a ৳40 note to commemorate the "40th Victory Anniversary of Bangladesh". The commemorative note features a portrait of the Father of the Nation, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the National Martyr's Monument in Savar on front, and six armed men on back. Curiously, this note has an electrotype 10 in the watermark, indicating it was likely printed on extra ৳10 banknote paper.

On 15 February 2012, Bangladesh Bank has introduced a ৳60 note to commemorate "60 years of National Movement". The commemorative note measures 130 x and features the Shaeed Minar (Martyrs' monument) in Dhaka and five men on the back. Like the ৳40 commemorative note, this note has an electrotype 50 in the watermark. It was likely printed on extra ৳50 banknote paper.

On 26 January 2013, Bangladesh Bank issued a ৳25 note to commemorate the 25th anniversary (silver jubilee) of the Security Printing Corporation (Bangladesh) Ltd. On the front is the National Martyr's Monument in Savar, the designs of the previous series of the Bangladeshi taka notes and its postage stamps, three spotted deer and the magpie-robin (doyel). On the reverse is the headquarters of the Security Printing Corporation. Curiously, this note has an electrotype 10 in the watermark, indicating it was likely printed on extra ৳10 banknote paper.

On 8 July 2013, Bangladesh Bank issued a ৳100 note to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Bangladesh National Museum. The commemorative note features an 18th-century terracotta plaque of a horseman on the front and the Bangladesh National Museum on the back.

Coins
In 1973, coins were introduced in denominations of 5, 10, 25 and 50 poysha. 1 poysha coins followed in 1974, with ৳1 coins introduced in 1975. The 1, 5 and 10 poysha were struck in aluminium, with the 25 and 50 poysha struck in steel and the ৳1 in copper-nickel. The 5 poysha were square with rounded corners, and the 10 poysha were scalloped. Steel ৳5 were introduced in 1994, and a steel ৳2 coin followed in 2004.

1 and 5 poysha coins are rarely found in circulation. The same is the case with the 10, 25, and 50 poysha coins, as they have lost value due to inflation over the years. Only the ৳1, ৳2 and ৳5 are occasionally found in circulation. Unlike most other countries, coins are not issued every year. The most recent coins, ৳1, ৳2 and ৳5, were issued in 2013.

Previous issues

 * First Series:Bangladesh introduced its first banknotes on 4 March 1972. At first 1 taka and 100 taka banknotes were introduced. Later 10 and 5 taka notes were added. This first issued series is commonly known as "Map Series". These banknotes are considered as emergency issue banknotes to replace the Pakistan rupee banknotes both with and without rubber stamp overprints.

 * Second Series: After issuing the first banknotes, there were many conspiracy theories, counterfeiting problems and rumours, so the government issued the second series. These second series banknotes were printed by Thomas De La Rue of England. First-issued banknotes were subsequently withdrawn from circulation by 30 April 1974 after having ceased to hold legal tender status from 30 March 1974.

 * Third Series: Bangladesh Government signed agreements with Thomas De La Rue and Bradbury Wilkinson at the same time. Both of them printed same denominations with different design almost at the same time. As a result, two different series were circulating at the same time.

 * Fourth Series: During 1976 a completely new series of notes was introduced, with the exception of the 1-taka note, which was released as the second variety of the third issue during 1976. The notes of this issue are notable for the absence of the portrait of Sheikh Mujib, whose portrait had dominated all issues of the Bangladesh Bank until this issue. Instead of the familiar portrait, each note has an illustration of the Star Mosque on its front. 50 and 500 taka denomination was added in this series. 5,10,50 and 100 taka denominations were printed by Thomas De La Rue. 500 taka notes were printed by Giesecke and Devrient of Germany.

 * Fifth Series: The fifth issue of banknotes was introduced over a two-year period from December 1977 to September 1979. The notes of this issue are very similar to those of the fourth issue; except the ‘Star Mosque’ was replaced on most notes by a new vignette and the colours of the notes are a little darker. There was no 500-taka note released in this issue, but a new denomination note of 20 taka was introduced on 20 August 1979, being the last note of this issue prepared by the Bangladesh Bank.

 * Sixth Series: During the 1980s, some designs of taka notes were introduced, but most of the designs were the same. A new denomination of taka 2 note was also introduced. 10 and 50 takas were redesigned. Other denominations were the same as the previous series.

 * Seventh Series: During the 90s newly designed banknotes of 10,50 and 500 taka were printed. 10 taka note had a portrait of Bangabandhu.

 * Eighth Series: This series was printed between 2000 and 2001. A polymer banknote of denomination 10 was added, but later withdrawn due to lack of popularity. Paper notes of denomination 100 and 500 were printed with new designs. A portrait of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was added on each new note replacing the National Martyrs’ Memorial Monument.

 * Ninth Series: After a change in government new series of banknotes were introduced in 2002–2003. The portrait of Bangabandhu was absent in this series. In 2008, 1000 taka note was introduced for the first time.

Current circulating banknotes
The Bangladesh Bank has issued a new series of banknotes, phasing out the older designs for new, more secure ones. All banknotes other than the 1 taka feature a portrait of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on the obverse along with the watermark of the National Martyrs’ Memorial.

Commemorative banknotes
The folder of the banknote for the 40th anniversary of the independence of Bangladesh had a spelling error of the name of the country. It was inserted as Bangldesh instead of Bangladesh.

Historic exchange rates
Upon Bangladesh's independence, the value of the Bangladeshi taka was set between ৳7.5 and ৳8.0 to US$1. Except for fiscal year 1978, the taka's value relative to the US dollar declined every year from 1971 through the end of 1987. To help offset this phenomenon, Bangladesh first used the compensatory financing facility of the International Monetary Fund in fiscal year 1974. Despite the increasing need for assistance, the Mujib government was initially unwilling to meet the IMF's conditions on monetary and fiscal policy. By fiscal year 1975, however, the government revised its stance, declaring a devaluation of the taka by 56 percent and agreeing to establishing the Bangladesh Aid Group by the World Bank.

Between 1980 and 1983, the taka sustained a decline of some 50 percent because of a deterioration in Bangladesh's balance of payments. Between 1985 and 1987, the taka was adjusted in frequent incremental steps, stabilising again around 12 percent lower in real terms against the US dollar, but at the same time narrowing the difference between the official rate and the preferential secondary rate from 15 percent to 7.5 percent. Accompanying this structural adjustment was an expansion in trade conducted at the secondary rate, to 53 percent of total exports and 28 percent of total imports. In mid-1987, the official rate was relatively stable, approaching less than ৳31 to US$1. In January 2011, US$1 was equivalent to approximately ৳72, as of 21 April 2012, US$1 was worth close to ৳82, and as of 9 September 2015 US$1 valued ৳77.

title: Bangladeshi taka