text:
Talk:Litotes

Language list
"The use of litotes is common in English, Russian, German, Dutch, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and French." This list makes litotes sound exclusive to these languages, or at least marks these languages as somehow more likely to use litotes. It's a very simple construction, most languages in the world probably use it in some form or another. Take a look at the languages this article is translated into, as far as I can tell, most seem to give examples in that language, and even this is far from representative of every language. I know Spanish does just as much as English or French, but it's not on the list. I'm sure a true list would be unworkable/endless, but the phrasing should at least be adjusted to reflect the fact that these are just a few examples, and not the definitive set of litote-using languages. Perhaps something like: Litotes can be found in many languages throughout the world, including English, Russian, German, ... etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.96.207 (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like to second this observation. I was surprised to see a list of languages utilizing such a broad concept with an implication the list was comprehensive and more so to see it was definitely incomplete

In Japanese for instance the use of double negatives for understatement, either to avoid giving offense or to project nonchalance, is not only common but in some situations expected to the degree that a straightforward comment would be striking and carry an implication of significant emphasis in the *other* direction. (One of many references: jpn.com/japanese-grammar/partial-negation-and-double-negative-in-japanese/)

I think that the list should either be expanded and clarified to be incomplete or removed entirely. FusionTorch (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

"You are not wrong"
Am I the only one who understands this as something else then "you're correct"? I always imagined it as a nice way of saying that you are in fact kinda wrong. "You are not wrong, but..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.122.214 (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is partially correct understanding. It's usually used in context that "The fact you cited is true but irrelevant to the point or relevant in a way that doesn't make you right about the point." You're correct about the little thing but you're still wrong about the big image. 37.209.134.10 (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this grammatically correct
"These examples are not terribly difficult to come up with."

I thought you could not use prepositions at the end of the sentence. It would be better to say "...difficult to conjure" or something to that effect, no? 24.49.35.99 (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can. There's a "rule" that you shouldn't or even mustn't, but it's best to just ignore it. --jae (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Votes for Deletion
Except for the last two entires, this vote is over one year old. It just seems like noone ever closed the vote; I don't know how that's done. But the concluision seems clear: Keep!--Niels Ø 18:40, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Litotes and pretty much any term linked from Figures of speech - these are dictionary definitions - DropDeadGorgias 20:43, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've gone through the links from Figures of speech, and these are all of the articles that are purely definitions: Accumulatio, Aposiopesis, Meiosis (figure of speech), Anastrophe, Anthimeria, Catachresis, Chiasmus, Periphrasis, Enallage, Hyperbaton, Metalepsis, Paralipsis, Proslepsis, Syllepsis, Synecdoche, Tmesis, Dystmesis, Zeugma. I don't know what the policy on batch-vfds is, so please let me know.  Should I go put the subst:vfd on every page?- DropDeadGorgias 21:17, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Relocate 'em all, then delete. (Not my job :D) Oberiko 22:50, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep or relocate in Wikitionary It is useful to have handy access to these rather obscure terms (speaking as an English/Rhetoric major who could never keep all these things straight). Bkonrad 23:56, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute the validity of the content, or that the article is educational; I just think it belongs in Wiktionary. Reading most of these articles, I couldn't help thinking that they should all begin with a pronounciation key and (noun).  - DropDeadGorgias 15:26, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. DrZ 02:22, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep all but one-liners . I don't understand why you singled some of these but skipped others. The one-liners should probably be removed, but many of these terms are important enough to deserve an entery and aren't bad stubs now, like Synecdoche. Cool Hand Luke 05:50, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I left off the links that pointed to words with other encyclopedic value (beyond the dictionary definitions) such as Allegory or Paradox. My razor may have been to broad though; as it stands, I think Synecdoche could stay. - DropDeadGorgias 15:26, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * If you acknowledge Synecdoche as an encyclopedic stub, shouldn't you be likewise compelled to keep Aposiopesis, Catachresis, and Chiasmus? Maybe even Metalepsis, Enallage, Paralipsis, Syllepsis, and Tmesis. However, I don't think this is productive. As Nunh-huh says below, these really should be in an encyclopedia, and individual entries are much more sensible. An article on some particualar work or author can link precisely to the literary device they employ. We see just such links to Synecdoche, Tmesis, and Chiasmus. Because these articles are worthy of entry and useful as currently arranged, the only problem is than some of them are just definitions. Put them on cleanup and keep the rest. Nothing about these topics makes them inherently unfit for entry. One could explain about the history of the device or prominent examples of it, just as many of the articles you cite already do. Cool Hand Luke 23:42, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep them all. An encyclopedia must cover language and this is part of encyclopedic language coverage. Jamesday 16:11, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia quite clearly needs a full explanation of the figures of speech in it. So does a dictionary. These shouldn't be removed: if you want to pack them into the Figures of Speech article because it seems "more encyclopedic" that would be fine, but the current organization frankly seems more servicable. -- Nunh-huh 05:55, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've put a stub warning and a little extra material into the Litotes article. It's a specialised field, sure, but this is certainly worthy of an article and I suspect the others are too. Just for interest, do any of those wanting to delete have any expertise in formal linguistics? Andrewa 06:00, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, I find the articles very educational and interesting (i was able to use the word Synecdoche in a conversation the other day), but I just feel that most of these are really wiktionary material, rather than wikipedia). - DropDeadGorgias 16:32, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nunh-huh is right. Having a lot of definitions in Wiktionary is fine; but a list all in one place is of great value. I wouldn't waste your time telling why a person might want to find out that the rhetorical figure he's using is called paralipsis; and just the other day I couldn't think of aposiopesis when CIcero was saying--but that's another story. Dandrake 01:49, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, reason given above in my reply to the larger list. Jamesday 16:11, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Optim 14:07, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm hoping to work on all the pages of rhetorical devices soon (provide examples and whatnot). --Dupes 13:27, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fallacious.  Litotes is a specific literary term that deserves a page.  It needs expansion, not deletion. --Knucmo2 19:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Error 21:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Esperanto Litotes
Any Esperantists around? How does Esperanto mark litotes? Malmal-? --Trebor, 21 March 2004

 * Malmal- seems very contrived. I don't remember such forms but in wordplay. I think that - Kiel vi fartas? -Nemalbone. ("- How are you? - Not bad." is more natural. ne- ("not") and mal- (~= "un-") are often not synonyms. The classical example is neutila or senutila ("useless") and malutila ("perjudicial") from utila ("useful"). Don't know if nemalbone qualifies as litotes.
 * I don't remember examples of nene- or ne ne-, but they may be used. Personally I'd try something like ne sen- ("not *-less") to avoid repetition. Altough, nenecesa (ne-+ necesa, "not necessary") is quite common, so maybe it's not so cacophonic.
 * (Off-topic) A jokester could try to convince you that derlanda is a synonym of nenederlanda ("not Dutch"), because both ne cancel themselves. Same about ''malmalajzia" ("un-Malaysian").

Examples
I have removed the following passage:

 * Also in French, the idiomatic saying "ce n'est pas terrible" in English would literally translate as "it isn't terrible" and would therefore appear to be an understatement actually asserting the contrary. But in fact, "ce n'est pas terrible" means that the thing in question really was awful.

This passage is just confused. "Terrible" is a false-friend in French; it means "wonderful" or something of the sort. So "ce n'est pas terrible" is just a straightforward example of litotes, not the odd French usage the author seemed to think. --Christopher M 22:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Um, no. I don't know enough about the subject to really correct the article, but I can tell you that the French word terrible does indeed mean terrible; see terrible - Dictionnaire Français-Anglais WordReference.com, or any other dictionary. Ruakh 00:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I didn't word my objection very well. "Terrible" in French means (in relevant part) something that inspires strong emotion.  To say something is "pas terrible" means that it doesn't do that, because it's mediocre.  The passage I removed assumed that the "terrible" in "ce n'est pas terrible" means "awful," which it doesn't.  --Christopher M 00:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh, I see. Apparently (according to Le Trésor de la Langue Française informatisé), the phrase pas terrible with the meaning médiocre derives from the no-longer-very-common sense Sensationnel, extraordinaire, propre à susciter l'admiration. (Granted, the origin of a phrase is not necessarily the same as its current use — in this case I think pas terrible is pretty much an idiom, usable even by those who don't know about terrible's old-fashioned sense.) Either way, that example has been gone for a while now, so don't worry about it. :-) Ruakh 02:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I actually wondered about "Ce n'est pas terrible" myself. :) I agree with you, 'tis more of an idiom. The inverse can be heard as well "C'est terrible" which can mean something is actually quite good. -dmoore1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.128.67.22 (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Just restructured the examples into wiki-table format. The multi-column structure had a nasty habit of not lining up corresponding bullets if wrapping caused on or the other to span two or more lines. I know there's some controversy about using tables, but this also has the advantage of keeping each litote and meaning close to each other. (Just being bold ;-) (void*) 00:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Sounds good, thanks. :-) —Ruakh TALK 07:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"That young girl ... is one of the least benightedly unintelligent organic life forms it has been my profound lack of pleasure not to be able to avoid meeting." Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe, and Everything —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.134.161.9 (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I would submit that the comment made by Queen Elizabeth II on her annus horribilis is a particularly marvellous example, viz. ″1992 is not a year on which I shall look back with undiluted pleasure.″ Screwtop (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

That meal wasn't bad
I would dispute that this is an example of Litotes. This is much more a descriptive statement used to describe a meal that, while not unpleasant, certainly was nothing to get excited about, rather than a statement used to emphasize the outstanding quality of the meal. I, however, am a writer that never really studied rhetoric in depth, and would rather defer to someone who knows this better than make the change immediately. Not my leg 21:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I've definitely heard, "That's not bad!" used to mean something like, "That's pretty good (and I didn't expect it to be)!"

 * I've also heard it in a larger sentence, like "That's not bad, but it's not good, either." (The article alludes to this sort of thing, but makes it sound like it's specific to explicit "not not" constructions, which it isn't. That should be fixed.)

 * So, it can definitely constitute litotes, and I think it's a good example in that it demonstrates that the same sentence can be litotes in one instance and not in another, but maybe the article should be edited to be more clear about this? Feel free to take a stab at it! Ruakh 04:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I would agree with that. I don't have the time to do a rewrite now, but it is a good example of a case where context is probably more important than just the words themselves, as this could be used either way. Not my leg 19:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Could there be a cultural difference? In tiny Denmark there is: When people from Jutland say "That meal wasn't bad" or "It could be worse" it means "It was really good". People from Copenhagen don't say so, unless they make fun of the Jutlandish litotes. Apus 13:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Really, saying "a is not b" is not the same thing as saying "a is c", where b and c are opposites. If someone were to say (for example) "Richard Nixon was not the worst American President", it is not the same as saying "Richard Nixon was the best President" or even that he was a "good" President, or a "highly-admired" one. -- 12.116.162.162 (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

 * The subtlety is in the intonation. Your example, spoken by a Nixon-supporter, might mean exactly what you deny.  The subtlety of litotes is difficult to explain if it is not common in your culture.  Evidently Jutland uses the figure of speech, along with most parts of England, but perhaps it is uncommon, and therefore poorly understood, in some areas.  ''  d b f i r s   23:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The queen was not amused.
litotes? What do you think? Does the Queen say something like "I am not amused" herself or is it always the press that writes this sentence in reference to the ideal of understatement? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.56.45.77 (talk • contribs).
 * I think the standard line is actually We are not amused; see Pluralis majestatis (royal we). Ruakh 16:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Attributed to Victoria Regina, and is unclear whether or not the royal "we" was involved: it has been argued she was speaking on behalf of all the women of the court, supported by the accounts' apparent agreement that ribaldry was involved and presumed by its utterer to be humorous. --Jerzy•t 22:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Not at all obviously an instance of litotes. Provide a source that says it is widely so regarded, since it is OR without that. My own OR suggests that leaving some things unstated often occurs without intent that it should provide emphasis, so litotes should not be inferred without clear agreement on what what obvious fuller statement was foregone. --Jerzy•t 22:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

French?
"Il ne faut pas qu'il aille" means "it is necessary that he not go"

Are you sure about that?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by PiCo (talk • contribs).

 * I don't know what you you're addressing, but I'm sure of it. (Though I'd translate it as "He must not go.") Why? Ruakh 02:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I think this is just a trick of translation. If you translate it, "He must leave" versus "He mustn't leave," the mystery all but disappears.Travis 02:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm also unsure about this. My French isn't that great, but I'd be inclined to translate that as "it's not necessary that he go," since, well, that's what it says. Non? The latter would be "Il faut qu'il n'aille pas," would it not? Graft 19:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Non. « Il ne faut pas qu'il aille » means "He must not go." (Don't ask me for an explanation; I don't know of one, except to say that that's simply how it is.) Ruakh 22:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I'd like to point out that "Il ne faut pas qu'il aille" or " Il faut qu'il aille" are incomplete sentences in French so the examples don't make much sense, from my POV. "Il faut qu'il parte" or "Il faut qu'il s'en aille" or, even better, "Il doit partir" would work. And yes, "Il ne faut pas qu'il s'en aille" would be translated as "He mustn't go/leave". The negation is linked to the first verb - "falloir", not the second one. "It is necessary that he not go" would be translated as "Il doit rester", "Il ne faut pas qu'il parte" or "Il ne doit pas partir". "Il doit ne pas partir", which is the closest possible translation, is incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.187.97.70 (talk • contribs).

 * Good point. Objectless "go" in English can mean either "y aller" or "partir"; I don't know which was intended here. Ruakh 15:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, using falloir is just a bad idea here. The negative of falloir is not 'doesn't have to' but 'must not'. This example, ultimately, is meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beastmouth (talk • contribs) 04:06, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a bad example. The natural translations are "he must go" and "he must not go", at which point the example doesn't seem to exemplify anything. I'd argue that, in "he must not go", it's reasonable to parse as "he (must not) go", i.e., the negation is bound to the "must", not the "go" -- after all, "he cannot go" definitely doesn't mean "he has the option of not going". (I am not a linguist.) Dricherby 12:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

 * But "he (must not) go" is a misparse; it produces the wrong meaning. That's why this is so confusing: some auxiliary verbs, like can, parse one way ("he (cannot) go", not "he can(not go)"), others parse the other way ("he must (not go)", not "he (must not) go"), and some can parse either way ("he (may not) go" or "he may (not go)" are both valid — but non-synonymous — parses). —Ruakh TALK 17:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oedipus Quote
My immediate reaction (without any research) is that unhappy had a stronger meaning at the time of that translation (or one closer to unlucky). One often sees it used this way in classical texts where litotes would seem inappropriate. However, citation needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.155.46.183 (talk • contribs).

response to some Litotes does not matter.
It would seem that some Litotes, like "The food was not bad.", will draw a positive response when responded to. for example, your friend says "The food was not bad." you reply, "Yeah", You are agreeing with your friend. if you said "No", you would still be agreeing. The statement "That was no big deal." has the same sort of response forcing effect. Is there another term for this, or is this just a subsection of what a Litote is? Also, reading the article makes me wonder if anyone knows the singular form for Litotes, it seems as if using a singular form of the word was intentionally avoided, to confuse anyone who might decide to refer to a single one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad Gouki (talk • contribs) 15:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Litotes or understatement?
In Frisian we always say "That doesn't itch" when somebody gets a terrible accidents or undergoes very heavy pains. I was wondering, is that litotes or is it an understatement? -SK-luuut 21:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Litotes is kind of understatement; but not all understatement is litotes. However it seems to me that if "That doesn't itch" means "That is very painful" or indeed "That hurst like hell" then it is an example of litotes.Iph (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Major revision
I have taken the liberty of doing a major revision of this article. Referring back to the OED, Enc. Brit. and some other dictionaries including a Larousse in French, the author of much of the preceding v. I found was seriously mistaken about what constitutes litotes. A figure of speech, or a trick of rhetoric, is not something that applies only to one phrase in an utterance; it applies to the whole thing. Therefore the example of a negated phrase that was part of a longer utterance and did not have the effect of subtly achieving emphasis by understatement is not a case of litotes.

Further, the entire section about the meaning of the displaced negation in French has a point, and I actually rewrote it so that it was true (what I found missed the point it was trying to make); but then after reflecting again on all the definitions of this term in the authorities I concluded that that was not about litotes at all, so I deleted it.

It would be nice to know where the correct point belongs and to put it there. It is a sort of figure of speech or a syntactical phenomenon but for the moment its identification escapes me.

For convenience, this is what it said before I arrived:

... in French, the sentence "Il faut qu'il aille" means "It's necessary that he go," while its opposite, "Il ne faut pas qu'il aille," means "it is not necessary that he go," which is much stronger than its English counterpart.

This is what I left until I deleted it altogether (as unrelated to litotes):

in colloquial French, whereas the sentence "Il faut qu'il aille" means "It's necessary that he go", its opposite, "Il ne faut pas qu'il aille" (literally "It is not necessary that he go") is actually said usually with the meaning "He must not go", which is much stronger than its literal English counterpart.

Iph (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Litotes in English vs other languages?
To start in theme, this article is not bad; however, it seems to suggest the misleading idea that litotes is a phenomenon strictly linked to each language, in particular, that is something typical of English, and exported or just occasionally present in other languages. While it is true that polite English uses in a master way this rhetoric figure, often with ironic meaning, the article forgets that litotes is a greek word ( λιτότης), and that in fact the definition and classification of the rhetoric figures is due to the Greek culture. The sentence

In Latin, an example of litotes can be found in Ovid's Metamorphoses: "non semel" ,

as it were a hapax, sounds a bit odd or ridicolous, for there are hundreds and hundreds of examples in every Latin author as well as, of course, in every Greek one (although the article quotes none...). It's like saying:

"In English, an example of personal pronoun can be found in Dickens' David Copperfield" etc. --PMajer (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Orwell and Litotes
It's quite wrong-headed to say that Orwell is against litotes in general. "He was not cruel" is a litote; "He was not unmerciful" is merely a vague and sloppy way of saying "He was merciful". It is the latter, the "not un-" construction, that bothered him. Indeed, the passage from the King James Ecclesiastes that he quotes in "P&EL" as an example of great writing is arguably the world's most famous litote. Quoth Orwell:

 * "One can cure oneself of the not un- formation by memorizing this sentence: A not unblack dog was chasing a not unsmall rabbit across a not ungreen field."

I'm removing that claim, which is at best seriously misleading, and at worst wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.193.48 (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely unlike tea
Does that famous line from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy fit as an example? KingAlanI (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. The line in context describes a substance that is almost, but not quite entirely unlike tea. The statement is comedic, for sure. It sounds like it says something without saying anything at all. The described substance is compared with something with which it doesn't compare. An apple is almost, but not quite entirely unlike an orange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.146.75 (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Taking the sentence apart and removing all negations, you come up with "minimally similar to tea." The comedic effect is in "unlike" used in a phrase where traditionally "like" is used, similarly to "floating in air like bricks don't." Still, whether that's litotes is arguable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.209.140.184 (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

My take on "not _______"
Sometimes the words used by other people are ambiguous. Sometimes discussions/arguments over degrees of meaning can be difficult to understand or to tie to actual events/objects. Word have import. So if someone says something that I agree with but don't know for sure that we are on the same page, I might say "It's certainly not a controversial comment." when someone else says "It's a fact." ... when I'm not sure the context or any special meanings or maybe jargon that others may share. Benvhoff (talk) 04:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is the EMPHASIS?
The article says the a Litotes is an understatement used for emphasis. Most of the examples are just phrases using "not x" In some cases this is used for de-emphasis. That is, they are not understaments, but euphemisms. That is, if you say someone is not skinny, because you want to point out they are fat, it is Litotes, but if you are doing it to avoid saying they are fat, it is euphemism. I am not sure what it is if you call someone not skinny, but think they are neither fat nor skinny, but it is not an understatement. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't agree. Saying a person is plump or hefty or stalky or heavy or even overweight may be euphemisms for fat. But if you say that such a person is "not skinny" you are usually emphasizing their obesity. As in "Strange that my mother in law talks about my paunch when she's not exactly skinny herself." Do you think that's euphemism? S  B Harris 18:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * interesting. it really depends on context and enunciation. i think if i heard you saying that sentence, i would know much more what you meant, than if i just read it. it reminds me of the discussion about the need for a sarcasm font.... Soosim (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Ecclesiastes
I don't know what illiterate cult the author belongs to but their interpretation of Ecclesiastes 7:17 is completely wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.228.74 (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

How do you use "litotes" in a sentence?
Can you say "this is a litotes"? Or do you have to say "this is an example of litotes"?Hypershock (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Litotes


text: Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/June

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

title: Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/June


text:
Template talk:Wikipedia's sister projects

Add Wikifunctions or not?
At the moment I won't use Editprotected as I'm not sure if I'm indeed making an official request or not, but as a new launched WMF project, I wonder why such a "friend link" can't be here. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Izno, Xaosflux and Stephen any inputs? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see an issue. Izno (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's really ready for main page advertisement yet - also style wise we have a 4x3 grid now, putting 13 in there may be, eh... Maybe do some mock ups? — xaosflux  Talk 09:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Recall that the grid resizes for resolution. It is 1 column for the majority of visitors. Izno (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like at narrow it converts to just a list, but with 12 we get 1x12 (maybe on a small phone?); 2x6, 3x4, 4x3 -- 12 is just such a nicely divisible number. 13 might look ok, that's why I asked for a mockup. — xaosflux  Talk 19:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We need to add Abstract Wikipedia before too long, so it's no like we're going to have the luxury of this nice number. Just bite the bullet. Izno (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Another possible way is to not only add Wikifunctions, but also Wikimedia Incubator, Wikimedia Outreach and Wikitech so that would be 4x4. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Edward-Woodrow  •  talk  00:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Add Wikifunctions. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Koavf I'd personally suggest to discuss this issue broaderly via a WP:VP board, probably WP:VPT? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Why? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * +1. Looks like there's enough consensus here already. — Frostly (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There are only 67 people watching this obscure talk page, that's not going to generate an acceptable consensus to change the main page. It needs broader discussion, and to be honest, there's a few projects already on there that are of very limited interest to readers, including this proposed one. Stephen 23:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant how interested encyclopedia editors and readers may be in a travel guide or whatever: they are our sister projects. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Back on the main topic, Wikifunctions is a new project by the Wikimedia Foundation that is currently under development is how they are currently self-labeled on that project - and it isn't a "content" project (targeted to readers). — xaosflux  Talk 23:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, but so are or . The sister projects are not all "content" projects as such and things like Wikidata or Wikifunctions straddle that line. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding Wikifunctions to sister projects' section
Hi all! Is it possible to add Wikifunctions to the list of sister projects? Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

 * @Sannita (WMF) think we've talked about this one a couple of times - one hold up being that funct appears to be in pre-release still? (based on its own sitenotice). How is the roadmap on it going? — xaosflux  Talk 14:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Xaosflux We're out of the pre-release, and almost all of the normal functions for users are up. We're still developing new features of course, and some stuff is still limited to a certain class of users, but we're up. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks for response, I've merged this to the existing discussion and activated an edit request for attention. — xaosflux  Talk 14:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

 * There is a mockup in Template:Wikipedia's sister projects/sandbox already - anyone else got feedback? — xaosflux  Talk 14:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Can anyting useful be done with it? Not "I can reverse a string" or "I can add "er" to turn "good" into the English comparative "gooder" (sic, see ) or one that claims that "ja!çaj" is a palindrome but anything with real practical value? At the moment it looks like a playground for some programmers, not as anything we would want to send our readers to as it will have no value for them in the foreseeable future. Fram (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I believe (I stand happy to be corrected) that Wikifunctions currently only works with strings, but there are some strings I would consider useful, if to a somewhat specialized group. For example, when I'm citing a source that annoyingly stylized a long title in all caps (as many journal article do), I copy it into the "To Titlecase" function. Cremastra (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cremastra We currently support booleans, strings, lists, and numbers as types of functions, just FYI. So, to make an example, it's also possible to make basic maths, like adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Again a very simplistic function, changing "I'm in a hurry" to "I'm In A Hurry", which isn't how title case is supposed to work. E.g. this website does it better, and has a "Wikipedia" style option. Wikifunctions so far is reinventing hot water, but only achieves lukewarm. Fram (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You have missed the point of Wikifunctions. The website you linked implements some specific functions that its developers have chosen to provide. Wikifunctions allows anyone to implement their own functions. – SD0001  (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I get the point, I don't see how it is useful to send our readers or editors there when after 3 years or so anything beyond the most basic stuff doesn't work. One would think that by now, some good example of "look at what we can generate" would exist beyond "we can reverse a string" or "we can add "er" to any English word". Why would we send people to a site where they can "implement their own function"? How does that help Wikipedia, how does that contribute to the dissemination of free knowledge? I just looked at the "functions of the week", took one at random,, which does a duplication of a string (wow, useful, I guess, for writing articles...). So, I input "ba", expecting "baba" as the result, but get instead "void" (Details Errors). Why? A time limit, it took more than 9 seconds to change "ba" into "baba". This things is at best in alpha stage and not ready to be featured among the sister projects. Fram (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Fram Thanks for your feedback. I'll report your experience with the team, to see if it's a performance issue, or it was just a case of malfunction that is already solved. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As for "how does that contribute to the dissemination of free knowledge", there's a video by Denny Vrandečić featured on the project's main page that answers the question. – SD0001  (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support It's a live sister project, hence it should be linked to from this template. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We need to decide whether we list all sister projects, in which case Wikifunctions should be added, or whether we filter out some based on some notion of value to readers, in which case one could make just as much of a case for removing Meta-Wiki and possibly Wikinews. No opinion on which. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We should list all reader-oriented projects: that is, wikisource, wiktionary, wikifunctions, and all the rest (and mediawiki too, possibly), but not the community-oriented ones: i.e. meta, foundation wiki, etc. Cremastra (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's one interpretation. Yet Meta-Wiki is already listed. And the audience of wikifunctions is unclear. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Support the inclusion of all reader-facing projects, including Wikifunctions. I'm not sure whether we need to include Meta, though, especially seeing as we already exclude Outreach Wiki. Graham (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is Wikifunctions really a "reader-facing project", though? * Pppery * it has begun... 20:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. The debate currently seems to be whether we should list all sister projects or only reader-facing projects, and where functs fits into that spectrum. There is growing support but also some growing debate about it. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Special period advertising sister projects
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Special period advertising sister projects. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Why do we list "free" seven times?
It'd be more streamlined to write Wikipedia is written by volunteer editors and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other free volunteer projects: and remove subsequent occurrnces of "free". Of the projects that don't have "free" in their descriptions (presumably to save space on mobile), all call themselves free on their English main pages except meta-wiki, which reads The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity on mission. This implies meta-wiki is free, something confirmed by any dictionary. We could make the description for WikiNews "news source" if a one word description feels too short. Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 15:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


text:
Kalki Krishnamurthy

Ramaswamy Krishnamurthy (9 September 1899 – 5 December 1954), better known by his pen name Kalki, was an Indian writer, journalist, poet, critic and Indian independence activist who wrote in Tamil. He chose the pen-name "Kalki", the future incarnation of the Hindu God Vishnu. He founded a magazine, which was also named Kalki, with T Sadasivam being the co-founder, in 1941. Krishnamurthy‘s writings include over 120 short stories, 10 novellas, 5 novels, 3 historical romances, editorial and political writings and hundreds of film and music reviews.

Early life
Ramaswamy Krishnamurthy was born in a Brahmin family on 9 September 1899 in Puthamangalam, near Manalmedu, in Mayiladuthurai district in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Krishnamurthy's father was Ramaswamy Aiyar, an accountant in Puttamangalam village in the old Tanjore district of erstwhile Madras Presidency. He began his primary education in his village school and later attended Municipal High School in Mayavaram but quit in 1921, just short of completion of his Senior School Leaving Certificate, in response to Mahatma Gandhi's 1921 call for non-co-operation joining the Indian National Congress instead.

His son Kalki Rajendran was married to Sadasivam's daughter Vijaya. Krishnamurthy's daughter Anandi was married to Sadasivam's nephew (sister's son) Ramachandran, known as Ambi in music circles. Anandi's daughter Gowri Ramanarayanan was a music critic for The Hindu newspaper, and she also learned music under M S Subbulakshmi.

Literary work
Krishnamurthy started writing fiction stories in Navaskthi in 1923 where he worked as a sub editor. He was working under the tutelage of Thiru Vi Ka when he published his first book in 1927. He started working with C Rajagopalachari in Thiruchengode in Gandhi Ashram. He published Vimochanam along with Rajaji, a journal propagating liquor prohibition. He was working in freedom struggle and during 1931, he was jailed for six months. He joined Ananda Vikatan, a popular Tamil magazine along with editor S S Vasan. He became very popular as a critic, witty author, political commentator and short story writer. He wrote under various pen names like "Kalki", "Ra. Ki", "Tamil Theni" and "Karnatkam". He left Ananda Vikatan and joined freedom struggle in 1941. On his release, he and Sadasivam started a weekly named Kalki. He was the editor in the journal till his death on 5 December 1954.

Social novels (Tamil)

 * Kalvanin Kadhali (1937)
 * Thyaga Bhoomi (1938–1939)
 * Magudapathi (1942)
 * Abalayin kaneer (1947)
 * Alai Osai (1948)
 * Devagiyin Kanavan (1950)
 * Mohini Theevu (1950)
 * Poiman Karadu (1951)
 * Punnaivanathu Puli (1952)
 * Amara Thara (1954)

Critical work
Krishnamurthy was also a film and music critic, writing under the pseudonym "Karnatkam". He also penned lyrics for many songs, most of which were adapted into Carnatic Music.

Honours

 * The release of a postage stamp in honour of Krishnamurthy was among the highlights of the centenary celebrations. Government of Tamil Nadu announced the nationalisation of Krishnamurthy‘s works, this will enable publishers to produce reprints of his works.
 * Krishnamuthy had the Sangeetha Kalasikhamani award conferred on him by The Indian Fine Arts Society in 1953.

Death
Krishnamurthy died in Chennai on 5 December 1954 aged 55 years from tuberculosis. Kalki magazine's special issue for Annai Sarada Devi, dated the day Krishnamurthy died, was his last editorial work. The magazine shared the information that his health was improving prior to his demise.

Legacy
Various individuals including veteran actor, director, philanthropist and former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, M. G. Ramachandran; actor, director and politician, Kamal Haasan; and director Mani Ratnam, have tried to adapt Krishnamurthy's novel Ponniyin Selvan, into a film at various stages, but only Mani Ratnam have succeeded so far. The first part of Mani Ratnam's two-part film was released on 30 September 2022 as Ponniyin Selvan: I, and second part was released on 28 April 2023 as Ponniyin Selvan: II.

Biographies of Kalki

 * Ponniyin Puthalvar by Sunda
 * Amarar Kalki
 * Oray Roja

title: Kalki Krishnamurthy


text: Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/September


text:
Law of agency

The law of agency is an area of commercial law dealing with a set of contractual, quasi-contractual and non-contractual fiduciary relationships that involve a person, called the agent, who is authorized to act on behalf of another (called the principal) to create legal relations with a third party. It may be referred to as the equal relationship between a principal and an agent whereby the principal, expressly or implicitly, authorizes the agent to work under their control and on their behalf. The agent is, thus, required to negotiate on behalf of the principal or bring them and third parties into contractual relationship. This branch of law separates and regulates the relationships between:
 * agents and principals (internal relationship), known as the principal-agent relationship;
 * agents and the third parties with whom they deal on their principals' behalf (external relationship); and
 * principals and the third parties when the agents deal.

Concepts
The reciprocal rights and liabilities between a principal and an agent reflect commercial and legal realities. A business owner often relies on an employee or another person to conduct a business. In the case of a corporation, since a corporation can only act through natural person agents, the principal is bound by the contract entered into by the agent, so long as the agent performs within the scope of the agency.

A third party may rely in good faith on the representation by a person who identifies himself as an agent for another. It is not always cost effective to check whether someone who is represented as having the authority to act for another actually has such authority. If it is subsequently found that the alleged agent was acting without necessary authority, the agent will generally be held liable.

Brief statement of legal principles

 * 1) Universal agents hold broad authority to act on behalf of the principal, e.g. they may hold a power of attorney (also known as a mandate in civil law jurisdictions) or have a professional relationship, say, as lawyer and client.
 * 2) General agents hold a more limited authority to conduct a series of transactions over a continuous period of time; and
 * 3) Special agents are authorized to conduct either only a single transaction or a specified series of transactions over a limited period of time.

Authority
An agent who acts within the scope of authority conferred by their principal binds the principal in the obligations they create against third parties. There are essentially three kinds of authority recognized in the law: actual authority (whether express or implied), apparent authority, and ratified authority (explained here).

Actual authority
Actual authority can be of two kinds. Either the principal may have expressly conferred authority on the agent, or authority may be implied. Authority arises by consensual agreement, and whether it exists is a question of fact. An agent, as a general rule, is only entitled to indemnity from the principal if they have acted within the scope of their actual authority, and if they act outside of that authority they may be in breach of contract, and liable to a third party for breach of the implied warranty of authority.

Express actual authority
Express actual authority means an agent has been expressly told they may act on behalf of a principal.

Implied actual authority
Implied actual authority, also called "usual authority", is authority an agent has by virtue of being reasonably necessary to carry out his express authority. As such, it can be inferred by virtue of a position held by an agent. For example, partners have authority to bind the other partners in the firm, their liability being joint and several, and in a corporation, all executives and senior employees with decision-making authority by virtue of their position have authority to bind the corporation. Other forms of implied actual authority include customary authority. This is where customs of a trade imply the agent to have certain powers. In wool buying industries it is customary for traders to purchase in their own names. Also incidental authority, where an agent is supposed to have any authority to complete other tasks which are necessary and incidental to completing the express actual authority. This must be no more than necessary

Apparent authority
Apparent authority (also called "ostensible authority") exists where the principal's words or conduct would lead a reasonable person in the third party's position to believe that the agent was authorized to act, even if the principal and the purported agent had never discussed such a relationship. For example, where one person appoints a person to a position which carries with it agency-like powers, those who know of the appointment are entitled to assume that there is apparent authority to do the things ordinarily entrusted to one occupying such a position. If a principal creates the impression that an agent is authorized but there is no actual authority, third parties are protected so long as they have acted reasonably. This is sometimes termed "agency by estoppel" or the "doctrine of holding out", where the principal will be estopped from denying the grant of authority if third parties have changed their positions to their detriment in reliance on the representations made.
 * Rama Corporation Ltd v Proved Tin and General Investments Ltd [1952] 2 QB 147, Slade J, "Ostensible or apparent authority... is merely a form of estoppel, indeed, it has been termed agency by estoppel and you cannot call in aid an estoppel unless you have three ingredients: (i) a representation, (ii) reliance on the representation, and (iii) an alteration of your position resulting from such reliance."

Watteau v Fenwick in the UK
In the case of Watteau v Fenwick, Lord Coleridge CJ on the Queen's Bench concurred with an opinion by Wills J that a third party could hold personally liable a principal who he did not know about when he sold cigars to an agent that was acting outside of its authority. Wills J held that "the principal is liable for all the acts of the agent which are within the authority usually confided to an agent of that character, notwithstanding limitations, as between the principal and the agent, put upon that authority." This decision is heavily criticised and doubted, though not entirely overruled in the UK. It is sometimes referred to as "usual authority" (though not in the sense used by Lord Denning MR in Hely-Hutchinson, where it is synonymous with "implied actual authority"). It has been explained as a form of apparent authority, or "inherent agency power".

Authority by virtue of a position held to deter fraud and other harms that may befall individuals dealing with agents, there is a concept of Inherent Agency power, which is power derived solely by virtue of the agency relation. For example, partners have apparent authority to bind the other partners in the firm, their liability being joint and several (see below), and in a corporation, all executives and senior employees with decision-making authority by virtue of their declared position have apparent authority to bind the corporation.

Even if the agent does act without authority, the principal may ratify the transaction and accept liability on the transactions as negotiated. This may be express or implied from the principal's behavior, e.g. if the agent has purported to act in a number of situations and the principal has knowingly acquiesced, the failure to notify all concerned of the agent's lack of authority is an implied ratification to those transactions and an implied grant of authority for future transactions of a similar nature.

Liability of agent to third party
If the agent has actual or apparent authority, the agent will not be liable for acts performed within the scope of such authority, as long as the relationship of the agency and the identity of the principal have been disclosed. When the agency is undisclosed or partially disclosed, however, both the agent and the principal are liable. Where the principal is not bound because the agent has no actual or apparent authority, the purported agent is liable to the third party for breach of the implied warranty of authority.

Liability of agent to principal
If the agent has acted without actual authority, but the principal is nevertheless bound because the agent had apparent authority, the agent is liable to indemnify the principal for any resulting loss or damage.

Liability of principal to agent
If the agent has acted within the scope of the actual authority given, the principal must indemnify the agent for payments made during the course of the relationship whether the expenditure was expressly authorized or merely necessary in promoting the principal's business.

Duties
An agent owes the principal a number of duties. These include:
 * a duty to undertake the task or tasks specified by the terms of the agency;
 * a duty to discharge his duties with care and due diligence;

An agent must not accept any new obligations that are inconsistent with the duties owed to the principal. An agent can represent the interests of more than one principal, conflicting or potentially conflicting, only after full disclosure and consent of the principal. An agent must not usurp an opportunity from the principal by taking it for himself or passing it on to a third party.

In return, the principal must make a full disclosure of all information relevant to the transactions that the agent is authorized to negotiate.

Termination
The internal agency relationship may be dissolved by agreement. Under sections 201 to 210 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, an agency may come to an end in a variety of ways:

 * 1) Withdrawal by the agent – however, the principal cannot revoke an agency coupled with interest to the prejudice of such interest. An agency is coupled with interest when the agent himself has an interest in the subject-matter of the agency, e.g., where the goods are consigned by an upcountry constituent to a commission agent for sale, with poor to recoup himself from the sale proceeds, the advances made by him to the principal against the security of the goods; in such a case, the principal cannot revoke the agent's authority till the goods are actually sold and debts satisfied, nor is the agency terminated by death or insanity (illustrations to s. 201);
 * 2) By the agent renouncing the business of agency;
 * 3) By discharge of the contractual agency obligations.

Alternatively, agency may be terminated by operation of law:
 * 1) By the death of either party;
 * 2) By the insanity of either party;
 * 3) By the bankruptcy (insolvency) of either party;

The principal also cannot revoke the agent's authority after it has been partly exercised, so as to bind the principal (s. 204), though he can always do so, before such authority has been so exercised (s. 203). Further, under s. 205, if the agency is for a fixed period, the principal cannot terminate the agency before the time expired, except for sufficient cause. If he does, he is liable to compensate the agent for the loss caused to him thereby. The same rules apply where the agent, renounces an agency for a fixed period. Notice in this connection that want of skill, continuous disobedience of lawful orders, and rude or insulting behavior has been held to be sufficient cause for dismissal of an agent. Further, reasonable notice has to be given by one party to the other; otherwise, damage resulting from want of such notice, will have to be paid (s. 206). Under s. 207, the revocation or renunciation of an agency may be made expressly or implicitly by conduct. The termination does not take effect as regards the agent, till it becomes known to him and as regards third party, till the termination is known to them (s. 208).

When an agent's authority is terminated, it operates as a termination of subagent also (s. 210).

Partnerships and companies
This has become a more difficult area as states are not consistent on the nature of a partnership. Some states opt for the partnership as no more than an aggregate of the natural persons who have joined the firm. Others treat the partnership as a business entity and, like a corporation, vest the partnership with a separate legal personality. Hence, for example, in English law a partner is the agent of the other partners, whereas in Scots law "a [partnership] is a legal person distinct from the partners of whom it is composed" and so a partner is the agent of the partnership per se. This form of agency is inherent in the status of a partner and does not arise out of a contract of agency with a principal. The Partnership Act 1890 of the United Kingdom (which includes both England and Scotland) provides that a partner who acts within the scope of his actual authority (express or implied) will bind the partnership when he does anything in the ordinary course of carrying on partnership business. Even if that implied authority has been revoked or limited, the partner will have apparent authority unless the third party knows that the authority has been compromised. Hence, if the partnership wishes to limit any partner's authority, it must give express notice of the limitation to the world. However, there would be little substantive difference if English law was amended: partners will bind the partnership rather than their fellow partners individually. For these purposes, the knowledge of the partner acting will be imputed to the other partners, or to the firm if a separate personality. The other partners or the firm are the principal and third parties are entitled to assume that the principal has been informed of all relevant information. This causes problems when one partner acts fraudulently or negligently and causes loss to clients of the firm. In most states, a distinction is drawn between knowledge of the firm's general business activities and the confidential affairs as they affect one client. Thus, there is no imputation if the partner is acting against the interests of the firm as a fraud. There is more likely to be liability in tort if the partnership benefited by receiving fee income for the work negligently performed, even if only as an aspect of the standard provisions of vicarious liability. Whether the injured party wishes to sue the partnership or the individual partners is usually a matter for the plaintiff since, in most jurisdictions, their liability is joint and several.

Agency relationships
Agency relationships are common in many professional areas.
 * employment.
 * financial advice (insurance agency, stock brokerage, accountancy)
 * contract negotiation and promotion (business management) such as for publishing, fashion model, music, movies, theatre, show business, and sport.

An agent in commercial law (also referred to as a manager) is a person who is authorized to act on behalf of another (called the principal or client) to create a legal relationship with a third party.

A legal entity may also act as an agent: For example, two corporate groups may assign the task of intermediating an M&A transaction to a business agency, that acts as a 3rd party, in order to finalize the deal. This happens for example when you move over an entity to an intermediary holding company, before settling it into its final destination entity.

Agency relationship in a real estate transaction
Real estate transactions refer to real estate brokerage, and mortgage brokerage. In real estate brokerage, the buyers or sellers are the principals themselves and the broker or his salesperson who represents each principal is his agent.

In English law
Agency law in the United Kingdom is a component of UK commercial law, and forms a core set of rules necessary for the smooth functioning of business. Agency law is primarily governed by the Common law and to a lesser extent by statutory instruments.

In 1986, the European Communities enacted Directive 86/653/EEC on self-employed commercial agents. In the UK, this was implemented into national law in the Commercial Agents Regulations 1993. Thus, agent and principals in a commercial agency relationship are subject both to the Common law and the Commercial Agents Regulations.

The Commercial Agents Regulations require agents to act “dutifully and in good faith” in performing their activities (Reg. 3); co-extensively, principals are required principals to act “dutifully and in good faith” in their “relations” with their commercial agents (Reg 4). Though there is no statutory definition of this obligation to act “dutifully and in good faith”, it has been suggested that it requires principals and agents to act "with honesty, openness and regard for the interests of the other party to the transaction". Two "normative precepts" assist in concretising this standard of conduct:

"Firstly, expressing honesty and openness, commercial agents and principals must mutually co-operate in the performance of their agreement. Conduct in good faith requires that each party proactively take action to assist the other in the realisation of their bargain, as opposed to mere abstention from obstructive behaviour. However, whether a party has acted in good faith must not be determined by reference to a moral or metaphysical notion of co-operation; this assessment must be based on an objective appraisal of the actual commercial agency relationship. Accordingly, the intensity of the required co-operation will vary, depending on the terms of the contract and the pertinent commercial practices.

Secondly, commercial agents and principals must not exploit asymmetries in their agency relationship in such a manner that frustrates the legitimate expectations of the other party. In this respect, whether a conduct is in breach of the Obligation must be appraised holistically, considering all aspects of the relationship; material facts will include the contractual and commercial leverage of each party, their objective intentions as enshrined in the contract, and the business practices of the sector in question. Nevertheless, the starting axiom of this investigation must be that these are commercial relationships in which professionals are expected to be self-reliant and must be free to pursue their self-interest. Critically, this will not be an estimation aimed at achieving ontological fairness, a just bargain or equilibrium between the giving and receiving of commercial agents and principals".

In Irish law
In Ireland, Directive 86/653/EEC was implemented in the Commercial Agents Regulations of 1994 and 1997.

India
In India, for the purposes of contractual law, section 182 of the Contract Act 1872 defines agent as “a person employed to do any act for another or to represent another in dealings with third persons”.

According to section 184 as between the principal and third persons, any person (whether he has contractual capacity or not) may become an agent. Thus, a minor or a person of unsound mind can also become an agent.

Allograph
An allograph may be the opposite of an autograph – i.e. a person's words or name (signature) written by someone else. In law, an allograph is a document not written by any of the parties involved. In American law, Cheques (checks) written by an agent of behalf of, and with the authority of, a principal are allographs for that principal.

title: Law of agency


text:
Talk:Panzer IV

Panzer IV Invulernability
Dear all,

Frankly I find this incredulous: "Against earlier-model Panzer IVs it could hold its own, but with its 75 mm M3 gun, was almost helpless in the face of the late-model Panzer IV, as well as the Panther and Tiger tanks, unable to penetrate their frontal armor at virtually any range.[88] The 80-millimetre (3.15 in) frontal armor could easily withstand hits fron the 75-millimetre (2.95 in) weapon on the Sherman at normal combat ranges.[89] "

Harry Yeides in Tank Killers note that US 75mm gun is capable of penetrating 3 in. of face hardened armor at 1,000 yards. Zaloga in his M4 Sherman stated that either the 75 or 76 armed Sherman variant could fire at the Panzer IV's front armor at regular battle ranges with good chance of success. The History of US Army Ordnance in WW2, From Beachhead to Battlefront, contends that the M4 was vastly inferior to the Tiger or Panther tanks, but an equal or superior to Mk. IV.

Similarly in the Army's official history of The Ardennes Battle, "The Battle of the Ardennes", in the Opposing Weapons Chapter, it is stated that the Panzer Mk IV "outgunned the M4" but had slighly thinner armor and less mobile. Overall, it considers the M4 Sherman tank to be "slightly superior" to the Mk IV. General Maurice Rose, in a report he sent to the Pentagon about the performance of M4 tanks against German armor in general--meaning all types of panzers and assault guns--states that except for the gun the American tank was superior in every respect.

US Army Ballistic Research Lab's studies show that, in 98 tank to tank engagements studied, the average German tank was knocked out at a range of almost 900 yards. The US units involved in this study was the 3AD and 4AD. Time frame was mid to late 1944. Neither of those units had an abundant supply of 76mm armed tanks. The 3AD had about 1/3; the 4AD had almost none during August-September in the heaviest tank battles it had fought, and only 1/4 76mm gun armed Shermans. The German tanks represented in the study were predominately Mark IV or equavalents.

Reading of AARs and official histories, from US armored units certainly did not impress the mind with the idea that Mk IV was somehow invulnerable to Sherman fire, as those tanks that were identified as such were knocked out in vast numbers in duels that appear to be fairly equal, with no special effort to bypass the frontal armor. Before the Tiger phobia argument is brought up again--how than are we going to discount the fact that in US official histories kill claims could actually be varified because the Americans usually hold ground at the end of the fight and there for is in a position to inspect knocked out tanks?

Claims of invulnerability are hard to believe because all of those are based on US penetration tables derived from firing at test rolled homogenous armor test plates at 30 degrees incline from the verticle. German Panzer Mk IV armor was faced hardened plate that offered increased resistance towards uncapped Russian armor piercing rounds but was actually more vulnerable than RHA to capped armor piercing rounds.

Guys, I am not trying to be the partisan here. I saw a couple of references to Hastings and Jentz. Hastings is good historian but no expert at weapons or tactics; of Jentz, he is the authority in German tanks and I'd love to see an exact quotation on the alleged invulnerability of Mk IV armor to allied weaponry. If he does say say, it would be an amazing fact as he would be contradicting about every other historian and American tank soldier on this subject.

Sincerley yours, Chinchenchuan/Jonathan Chin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.112.4.234 (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Post Script: I have deleted the passage which says Pz. Mk. IV is invulernable to the 75mm gun of the M4 Shermans, becaues the citation is incorrect. The citation says this comment is proved by page 176 Jentz and Doyle's book. I do not have it, but the book has only 48 pages according to Google book. I have other standard tank reference books from New Vanguard, and none of them have one page more or less than 48.

I am considering to delete Max Hasting's quotation as well. The only thing that he seems to be saying is that M4 tank's frontal armor was thin and vulnerable to the Pz Mk IV's 75mm L/48 gun. It does not follow that Pz Mk IV would be invulnerable to M4's 75mm L/40. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.42.96.118 (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

 * The unfortunate fact-of-life for the Sherman crew was that the Panzer IV could knock them out as soon as they were seen, whereas the Sherman crew had to get within the effective range of the Sherman's relatively-short 75mm. Which BTW, IIRC, was based on a gun designed in 1897. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.216 (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Panzer IV Invulernability
''From Beachhead to Battlefront, contends that the M4 was vastly inferior to the Tiger or Panther tanks, but an equal or superior to Mk. IV.''

'''Yes but what model of the M4? 75 mm, 76 mm, other?'''

''Similarly in the Army's official history of The Ardennes Battle, "The Battle of the Ardennes", in the Opposing Weapons Chapter, it is stated that the Panzer Mk IV "outgunned the M4" but had slighly thinner armor and less mobile. Overall, it considers the M4 Sherman tank to be "slightly superior" to the Mk IV. General Maurice Rose, in a report he sent to the Pentagon about the performance of M4 tanks against German armor in general--meaning all types of panzers and assault guns--states that except for the gun the American tank was superior in every respect.''

'''Slightly thinner armor? Judging by that comment then they are talking about the 50 mm hull front Panzer IV F2 because the Panzer IV late G/J had 80 mm of hull armor, thicker than that of the most common Shermans at 50.8 mm or 64 mm of hull armor. About the mobility the Panzer IV had lower ground pressure resulting in greater floatation and better performance in bad terrain. For the M4 being "slightly superior" to the Pz IV this is probably for the 76 mm models seeing that the cannon performance is very equal if not marginally better to that of the KwK 40 L/48.'''

''US Army Ballistic Research Lab's studies show that, in 98 tank to tank engagements studied, the average German tank was knocked out at a range of almost 900 yards. The US units involved in this study was the 3AD and 4AD. Time frame was mid to late 1944. Neither of those units had an abundant supply of 76mm armed tanks. The 3AD had about 1/3; the 4AD had almost none during August-September in the heaviest tank battles it had fought, and only 1/4 76mm gun armed Shermans. The German tanks represented in the study were predominately Mark IV or equavalents.''

'''According to the Soviets who conducted a study on tank vulnerability in combat they concluded that hits on the turret front were by far most often the cause of a tank loss. Using the results of this study they designed a radical new form of turret for thier IS 3 tank. For the Panzer IV G-J the weakest frontal area would be the turret front/turret mantlet which was 50 mm instead of 80 mm like the hull. Assuming that the Sherman's 75 mm is accurate enough to hit with consistency the turret then it is more than possible to kill a Pz IV at 900 yds.'''

''Claims of invulnerability are hard to believe because all of those are based on US penetration tables derived from firing at test rolled homogenous armor test plates at 30 degrees incline from the verticle. German Panzer Mk IV armor was faced hardened plate that offered increased resistance towards uncapped Russian armor piercing rounds but was actually more vulnerable than RHA to capped armor piercing rounds.''

'''1.)According to US Army TM9-1907 75 mm M3 gun AP performance:

Round: M61 APCBC

Penetration at 0 degrees slope: 90mm at 0yds; 83mm at 400yds; 76mm at 1000yds

Penetration at 30 degrees slope: 71.1mm at 0yds; 66.5mm at 400yds; 60.2mm at 1000yds

According to this then at about 400 yds and less not 900 yds it would be capable of penetrating the front hull of the Panzer IV G/J which is 80 mm sloped at 9 through 12 deg (~=81.66666...)

2.)According to this:U.S. Army Firing Test No.1 Chart at the bottom (http://wargaming.info/ww2/ustest1.htm)

Against a 70 mm face hardened plate sloped at 30 deg (~= 81 mm) positive penetration occurs at 1,900 feet per second or at about slightly less than 500 yds'''

Against earlier-model Panzer IVs it could hold its own, but with its 75 mm M3 gun, was almost helpless in the face of the late-model Panzer IV, as well as the Panther and Tiger tanks, unable to penetrate their frontal armor at virtually any range.[88] The 80-millimetre (3.15 in) frontal armor could easily withstand hits fron the 75-millimetre (2.95 in) weapon on the Sherman at normal combat ranges.[89]

As for this the second quote should be kept because normal combat ranges in the Western front were around 500 meters to 750 meters ranges at which according to the stuff above the Sherman 75 mm would not be able to penetrate the frontal hull armor of the Panzer IV G/J.

''The citation says this comment is proved by page 176 Jentz and Doyle's book. I do not have it, but the book has only 48 pages according to Google book''

'''Google book is wrong. I have the book and its exactly 216 pages long. Look it up on Amazon.com as well.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.165.159 (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Good Sir,
In good faith, check your reference. It is impossible for Jentz and Doyle's Pzkw IV G, H, J book to have 216 pages, at least not the edition listed on this Wiki Entry. Both Google Book and Amazon shows that the book contains just 48 pages of content. One can see that clearly in the TABLE OF CONTENTS that Amazon allows access to. The GLOSSARY, which is also open to public inspection, lists no entry whatsoever after Page 47; the page number for the GLOSSARY itself is 48. I have no less than a six Osprey Reference books on tanks, all of them are standardized at 48 pages.

Cole's THE BATTLE OF ARDENNES states the following:

''Exact figures on German tank strength are not available, but it would appear that of the estimated 1,800 panzers in the Ardennes battle some 250 were Tigers and the balance was divided equally between the Mark IV and the Panther. Battle experience in France, which was confirmed in the Ardennes, gave the Sherman the edge over the Mark IV in frontal, flank, and rear attack.''

He is clearly speaking of Sherman tanks in general, i.e. both 75 and 76 variants. This is not indicative of a thoroughly inferior or hopelessly outmatched tank. In those battles, 76 armed Sherman tanks accounted for a small minority of tanks in the USA First and Third Armies. The First Army's 2AD and 3AD did not recieve 76mm tank until the Cobra breakout, after which there was almost no fierce tank fighting. The Third Army received almost no 76mm gun armed Shermans at all, though it fought the biggest tank battle in ETO prior to the Bulge. It would be disingenuous for Cole to state the superiority of the Sherman by emphasizing the 76, even though it was barely present in France and appear only in small numbers in the Ardennes.

Mayo's FROM BEACHHEAD TO BATTLE FRONT neglects the issue of Panzer Mark IV all together. It is a frankly scathing critique on the inadequacy of the Sherman tank of both 75 and 76 variants versus Panzer Mark V and VI, recorded in the chapter "Lessons of the Roer". In this battle, the history is concerned with the 2AD's fight against the 9th Pz Div. 1/3 of all Shermans in 2AD had the 76mm gun. The report goes in depth to discuss how 76mm gun could only achieve penetration of Tiger front armor at point-blank, and penetrate Panther gantlet one in six shots. Panzer Mark IV however was not considered a problem at all and left undiscussed.

Harry Yeides' TANK KILLERS that the M3 gun could penetrate three inches of face-hardened armor. The official penetration performance of all US Army's guns are based on RHA penetration, though face-hardened plate were also tested. All tests are made firing at 30 degrees angle of impact at the test plate; For example, 90mm of penetration at 400 yards with standard method of testing would mean 103mm of penetration if the shot was "straight". If a 75mm M3 gun fired at a Panzer IV directly in front of it, the impact angle would be 9 degrees as is the slope of the superstructure armor. Three inches of face-hardened plate at 1,000 yards effectively means 88mm of armor. This meshes with Steven Zaloga's THE SHERMAN TANK (also published by Osprey), which state that at regular battle range the Sherman tank "stands a good chance" to defeat Panzer IV's frontal armor.

''According to the Soviets who conducted a study on tank vulnerability in combat they concluded that hits on the turret front were by far most often the cause of a tank loss. Using the results of this study they designed a radical new form of turret for thier IS 3 tank. For the Panzer IV G-J the weakest frontal area would be the turret front/turret mantlet which was 50 mm instead of 80 mm like the hull. Assuming that the Sherman's 75 mm is accurate enough to hit with consistency the turret then it is more than possible to kill a Pz IV at 900 yds.''

First of all, if the part of a tank's frontal armor most likely to be hit by enemy projectiles is fact vulnerable, then the tank could not be said to be invulnerable on the frontal arc. Secondly, according to Perret's Panzer IV book (also published by Osprey) the turret mantlet of Mark IV H & J should be 80mm, not 50mm. This would imply that the 80mm armor was vulnerable to regular US ammunition.

 * " ... it fought the biggest tank battle in ETO prior to the Bulge" - that's curious because the British and Canadians were facing most of the German armour - 7-and-a-half panzer divisions - which had been converging on the area around Caen. The Germans initially had a total of 9 panzer divisions in the West.

 * The standard 75mm Sherman may not have been at too much of a disadvantage against the Panzer IV but against the Panther, Tiger I, and Tiger II, which the British and Canadians were facing, it was outclassed, and it wasn't the American Army that was facing these vehicles, but actually the British and Canadians, whose views were therefore likely to be more relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.138 (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Remaining Panzer IV's
See this here: http://the.shadock.free.fr/Surviving_Panzer_IV.pdf Xerton (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

- -

Torsion bar
"The chassis had originally been designed with a six-wheeled Schachtellaufwerk interleaved-roadwheel suspension (as already adopted for German half-tracks), but the German Army amended this to a torsion bar system." Isn't the Schachtellaufwerk suspension already a typically a torsion bar design? Isn't this kind of redundant? Doesn't this mean that they ditched the interleaved torsion bar suspension for a plain torsion bar suspension, and then ditched torsion bars entirely and went with leave sprung bogies? Also it seems like the infobox should be clarified. It says "length" and "length with gun forward". I assume this means hull length and total length including the barrel, but it's not clear. It could be length with gun to the rear, length with gun forward. The only reason it's obvious that that is not the case is that the gun barrel actually protrudes further from the rear when it's reversed, and so the total length would be longer. So what is the first dimension? With gun to the side? Wouldn't "hull length" be clearer?

Idumea47b (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Mixed reports on the Panzer 4 in Saumur
I can find mixed reports on the Panzer 4 in Saumur, some stating it's an Ausf. H, others that it's an Ausf. J. Can anybody provide a good identification of the vehicle on question and arguments as to why it is that variant. I just now reverted an edit from H to J, so now ot says H again, on the ground that the vehicle has zimmerit and the table in the article says the H has zimmerit and the J doesn't. DynCoder (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

 * Side note: we need references because WP:NOR of course. DynCoder (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

 * the depicted tank is said to be chassis number 89660 which is an early production Ausf. J --Denniss (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Numbers of running panzer lV's left
what are the numbers of running panzer lV's are left 173.206.144.246 (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Panzer IV


text:
Government agency

A government agency or 1 Branches, state agency, sometimes an appointed commission, is a permanent or semi-permanent organization in the machinery of government (bureaucracy) that is responsible for the oversight and administration of specific functions, such as an administration. There is a notable variety of agency types. Although usage differs, a government agency is normally distinct both from a department or ministry, and other types of public body established by government. The functions of an agency are normally executive in character since different types of organizations (such as commissions) are most often constituted in an advisory role — this distinction is often blurred in practice however, it is not allowed.

A government agency may be established by either a national government or a state government within a federal system. Agencies can be established by legislation or by executive powers. The autonomy, independence, and accountability of government agencies also vary widely.

History
Early examples of organizations that would now be termed a government agency include the British Navy Board, responsible for ships and supplies, which was established in 1546 by King Henry VIII and the British Commissioners of Bankruptcy established in 1570.

From 1933, the New Deal saw growth in U.S. federal agencies, the "alphabet agencies" as they were used to deliver new programs created by legislation, such as the Federal Emergency Relief Administration.

From the 1980s, as part of New Public Management, several countries including Australia and the United Kingdom developed the use of agencies to improve efficiency in public services.

France
Administrative law in France refers to autorité administrative indépendante (AAI) or Independent Administrative Authorities. They tend to be prominent in the following areas of public policy;

 * Economic and financial regulation
 * Information and communication
 * Defence of citizens' rights

Independent Administrative Authorities in France may not be instructed or ordered to take specific actions by the government.

Greece
The General Secretariat for Macedonia and Thrace (Greek: Γενική Γραμματεία Μακεδονίας-Θράκης), previously Ministry for Macedonia and Thrace (Greek: Υπουργείο Μακεδονίας-Θράκης) is a government agency of the Hellenic Republic that is responsible for the Greek regions of Macedonia and Thrace.

India
The term agency in India has several meanings; for example, the Cabinet and the parliament Secretariat describes itself as a "nodal agency for coordination amongst the ministries of the Govt. of India". Most notably as an international feature, what appear to be independent agencies (or apex agencies) include some that have active roles for Ministers: such as, the National Security Council, the Medical Council of India, the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI), the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, and the NITI Aayog, which is chaired ex officio by the Prime Minister.

Russia
Russia has had many government agencies throughout its history. The USSR had the secretive KGB. Today, Russian government agencies such as the FSB, FSO, and the GRU use Spetsnaz or other masked operators for any missions. Other organizations include Kremlin and presidential security.

Sweden
The Government agencies in Sweden are State controlled organizations who act independently to carry out the policies of the Government of Sweden. The Ministries are relatively small and merely policy-making organizations, allowed to control agencies by policy decisions but not by direct orders. This means that while the agencies are subject to decisions made by the Government, Ministers are explicitly prohibited (so-called ban on ministerstyre) from interfering with the day-to-day operation in an agency or the outcome in individual cases as well.

In addition to the State and its agencies, there are also local government agencies, which are extensions of municipalities and county councils.

United Kingdom
Agencies in the United Kingdom are either executive agencies answerable to government ministers or non-departmental public bodies answerable directly to parliament or the devolved assemblies of the United Kingdom. They are also commonly known as Quangos.

Agencies can be created by enabling legislation by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Parliament.

United States
The Congress and President of the United States delegate specific authority to government agencies to regulate the complex facets of the modern American federal state. Also, most of the 50 U.S. states have created similar government agencies. Each state government is similar to the national government, with all but one having a bicameral legislature. The term "government agency" or "administrative agency" usually applies to one of the independent agencies of the United States government, which exercise some degree of independence from the President's control. Although the heads of independent agencies are often appointed by the government, they can usually be removed only for cause. The heads of independent agencies work together in groups, such as a commission, board or council. Independent agencies often function as miniature versions of the tripartite federal government with the authority to legislate (through the issuing or promulgation of regulations), to adjudicate disputes, and to enforce agency regulations. Examples of independent agencies include the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Federal Reserve Board, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

A broader definition of the term "government agency" also means the United States federal executive departments that include the President's cabinet-level departments and their sub-units. Examples of these include the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury.

Most federal agencies are created by Congress through statutes called "enabling acts", which define the scope of an agency's authority. Because the Constitution does not expressly mention federal agencies (as it does the three branches), some commentators have called agencies the "headless fourth branch" of the federal government. However, most independent agencies are technically part of the executive branch, with a few located in the legislative branch of government. By enacting the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in 1946, Congress established some means to oversee government agency action. The APA established uniform administrative law procedures for a federal agency's promulgation of rules and adjudication of claims. The APA also sets forth the process for judicial review of agency action.

title: Government agency


text: Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May

title: Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May


text: Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April

title: Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April