text:
Talk:Overseas territory of the United Kingdom

Does anyone known if crown colonies are different than royal colonies? This is in reference to British holdings in North American in the 17th and 18th centuries. jengod 22:41, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard the expression royal colonies. As I understand it, Crown colonies was the general name given to all colonies administered by the British government, such as the original six divisions of Australia, the various territories in the Caribbean, the original sub-divisions of South Africa, Singapore and elsewhere. Those who had not achieved independence were eventually redesignated 'dependent territories' under the Commonwealth. Agendum 00:26, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * There's some kind of difference between a Crown Colony and a plain old Colony. The distinction comes up in the history of British Columbia.  The Colony of Vancouver's Island was established in 1849, the Crown Colony of British Columbia was established on the mainland in 1858.  The two were amalgamated in 1866 and shared the Crown Colony title until 1871, when the colony joined Canada.  There's a legal difference of some kind; what the Governor's powers are, perhaps (both Colonies had very unorthodox political cultures because of the dual role of Hudson's Bay Company boss held by the Governor, and because of the Governor's peculiar way of getting things done, esp. on the mainland).  Skookum1 21:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

What exactly does list {Crowncolonies} here accomplish? --Jiang 20:40, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * A consistent user interface within the topic, as I said in the summary. I thought that was the whole point behind them; otherwise we might as well replace them with categories. If you are researching British overseas territories, a consistent menu makes navigating easier. Also, I don't think aesthetics is a poor reason for keeping something at all. I'll turn the question around and ask how the template is detrimental to the page? (And, again, please don't flag disputed removals as minor). Rls 20:59, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

The consistent user interface here only applies to the article components within the template. This means the template belongs at the individual crown colony articles. This article is on crown colonies in general and is not on a crown colony so it is in different class than, say, the article on British Indian Ocean Territory.

The template is detrimental to the page because it is out of place and useless. It accomplishes nothing so it is a waste of space. --Jiang 00:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * The consistent user interface here only applies to the article components within the template
 * Er, no. The general page is linked to by the template as well.

 * The general article is clearly part of the topic. I find this structure useful for browsing purposes; clearly others do as well since there are several other pages in Wikipedia with this format: e.g. Communities, regions and provinces of Belgium and States and territories of Australia.

 * I propose replacing the template on the grounds of precedence and that at the very worst it is only a block at the bottom of the page that does not even need to be scrolled past if it is of no use to anyone. Rls 23:18, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

Just because Belgium and Australia has it doesn't mean they're in the right. There is no such precendence. I would guess that most countries do not have such templates at the bottom of their articles. For example, political divisions of China has no template.

Although the general page is linked to by the template, the information contained within the template is already included in the article text. If you want to browse, you look at the list and browse from there. The template is only necessary elsewhere because it makes little sense to add a "list of crown colonies" at the bottom of each crown colony. Again, I don't see how this is in the same class as the individual crown colonies. --Jiang 23:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It is still a precedent, even if there are conflicting examples. It shows that there is some disagreement on this issue, regardless of your assertions.
 * It is rather arrogant telling me how I should browse. I personally find it useful and others apparently do too.
 * The template is not necessary, but I am of the opinion it is helpful.
 * They are in the same topic, which I believe is the collection of what most readers of Wikipedia are interested in viewing in one session, not the same "class".
 * It is clear that we are not going to achieve consensus on this issue since you are simply restating your arguments. Will you concede that having the template on the page is not a problem or shall we seek comments from other users? Rls 01:23, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

 * I am still not of the opinion it is helpful and if it serves no purpose, I believe it does not belong. Proceed to solicit other opinions then. --Jiang 02:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As per my comment in the section above (should I move it down here?) there appears at least in the history of my remote corner of the Empire to have been some kind of legal distinction between the status of a Colony and the status of a Crown Colony. The distinction here is that the Mainland Colony, as it's also known, was constituted as a Crown Colony, while "Vancouver's Island" was a Colony (er, um, maybe it was the other way around). The difference may have to do with the elected Executive Council on the Island and the appointed one that launched the Mainland, where Governor Douglas ruled autocratically. Part of the reason for this was the relative lack of British subjects on the Mainland at the time he declared the Colony - unilaterally, and also taking a step outside protocol by contacting Admiral Baynes at the British base in Callao, Peru, to give him a hand (Baynes declined, but eventually was sent there with orders from England in hand).

So Douglas had to appoint who was at hand, and there was no way to call an election, as he had been forced to do on Vancouver Island. That may have been part of the reason for the status and hence the title of Crown Colony, i.e. that it had been constituted by edict rather than by appointment, and the need to avoid responsible government, as such as it was in colonial councils, from functioning and getting in the way of consolidating the British grip on the until-then unincorporated but British-claimed territory, which until then had no legal land-law status within the Empire (the HBC had only a trading license, not title as they had had in the actual watershed of Hudson Bay). Ath the time of incorporation the Mainland was on the lip of American annexation and "something had to be done"; the constitutional difference between the two colonies might be at least partly a result of that.

So anyway, point is there's some kind of constitutional or legal difference between the two; when I find out more (it's in an old correspondence somewhere, from a friend who's a constitutional law expert/professor from years ago) I'll come back and put it here (discussion page; you tell me if it should go on the main page . . . ). But for now, that's my two bits.Skookum1 09:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Cayman not a stage 2
I am a citizen of Cayman and would just like to make a few comments about the information on this page. Our Executive Council (which was renamed the Cabinet in 2003) is elected from the Legislative Assembly, not appointed by the Governor. Elections are held every 4 years, although they can be postponed by the Governor (as can the prime minister of most parliamentary systems.) Also, I would say the term self-governing colony does apply to Cayman. The Governor hardly ever makes news, except when he is receiving a foreign dignitary, or little notices in the paper saying "H.E. The Hon. Gov. Bruce Dinwiddy, CMG will be away until the 23rd of November at a conference for colonial governors in Trinidad. The Hon. Chief Secretary James Ryan will preside as Acting Governor until His Excellency's return," for example."  Another example is the recent spat over the EU Tax Savings Directive, to which the Government assembled a team that went to argue the Island's case at the EU Court of First Instance, with no direct involvement by the Governor.  Yet another example would be the recent Euro Bank scandal, in which widespread public opinion in Cayman was to throw out our Attorney General, who is an appointee of the Governor.  The Governor stood by him, but the Legislative Assembly unanimously passed a vote of no confidence in him, and he resigned soon after. Just a few examples of how Cayman does not directly fit the Stage 2 category. Also - I should note that there is currently a Constitutional Reform Committee which takes many of these events into account, and that there will be a general election in May in which one of the parties' major platform issues is further self-governance. Travisritch 04:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, good luck to you, Cayman Islanders, but your reference to "a conference for colonial governors in Trinidad" is bizarre and anachronistic. The Governors of Overseas Territories don't attend conferences in London, much less in independent Commonwealth countries, although they are summoned for meetings with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. There is an Overseas Territories Consultative Council, which Chief Ministers, the Premier of Bermuda, and whatever the equivalent is in the Cayman Islands.

Quiensabe 2005-08-24 02:36 UTC.

Renaming the status
This article looks like it'd be a good a place to discuss the steps and when each of the territory was renamed from "colony"/"crown colonies" progressively to "overseas territory". I could only find out that the UK parliament voted in 1997 to rename all "dependent territories/overseas dependencies" as "overseas territories". But when was it enacted in each of the territory? --Kvasir 18:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

removed gender bias
I have editted the article to remove gender bias toward males. There have been many women who have served as Commissioners/Governors/Administrators. Among these is Louise Savill, a former BIOT Administrator and Deborah Barnes Jones, the Governor of Montserrat. I feel this male bias is disrespectful. - Hoshie.Crat 07:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltar

 * "Only in Malta was integration ever seriously considered by the British Government, in 1955, but this was later abandoned, while in Gibraltar it was rejected in 1976."

This seems like odd wording. If it was rejected in Gibraltar in 1976 it must have been seriously considered there also. The article says that in the case of Malta integration was considered by the British government, as if Gibraltar considered it themselves but the British government would not have obliged had they asked for integration. There was (and maybe still is, but I think it's defunct), in Gibraltar, an Integration with Britain Party, which even supplied the Chief Minister briefly in the early 70s. So, was integration ever on the cards for Gib or was it really only Malta? Either way, this ought to be clarified. (It's also interesting to note that while Malta went in a different direction and became independent less than 10 years later, Gibraltar is these days probably the most integrated of all British overseas territories, even participating in elections to the European Parliament as part of the South West England regional constituency. Were it not for Spanish objections, it would be quite conceivable that Gib could be given representation a Westminster constituency (although a relatively small one) and retain its House of Assembly as a kind of devolved Parliament, as in Scotland.) — Trilobite (Talk) 19:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

 * 'Integration for Gibraltar was rejected outright by the UK in 1976' would probably a more accurate description. Roy Hattersley, then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office visited the Rock and made it plain that it was a non-starter (as was independence). That has remained the case to this day. There is an Integration With Britain Movement, but the Integration With Britain Party is well and truly dead.

 * Yes, Gibraltar could be more securely attached to the UK in the way you suggest, like Ceuta and Melilla (claimed by Morocco) are with Spain, but it is unlikely. Although local politicians have expressed support for the idea of integration from time to time, even Peter Caruana, the incumbent Chief Minister, whose party's last election manifesto argued against it, most take the view that it's more trouble than it's worth, and the UK (or the FCO) won't agree to it. Quiensabe 2005-24-08 UTC 02:15

British overseas territories part of EU?
Could it be explicitly said whether British overseas territory are part of the European Union? --Abdull 21:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * See Special member state territories and their relations with the EU for full details. Anyway, here's the short version: Gibraltar is considered a part of the EU as it joined when the rest of UK did. All of other BOTs (including WSBA and ESBA) aren't in the EU. - Hoshie | [[Image:Flag of North Carolina.svg|32px|North Carolina flag]] 07:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltarians - UK nationals for EU purposes
I have removed the comment "Gibraltarians are considered UK nationals for EU purposes".

It's a true statement - British overseas territories citizens (BOTCs) connected with Gibraltar are UK nationals for EU purposes, the only BOTCs to have that status on the basis of being BOTC.

However, since 21 May 2002, people in all other British territories bar the Sovereign Base Areas have full British citizenship which they hold alongside BOTC. So because of their British citizenship (and not because of BOTC), persons from Bermuda, St Helena, Cayman Islands etc are also UK nationals for EU purposes.

However the Overseas Territories other than Gibraltar are not part of the EU and do not vote in 'European elections'. JAJ 05:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sovereign Base Areas
"The term "Overseas territory" has only been used since 2002 ... The term does not apply ... to the Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus which are governed by the British military."

According to Schedule 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981, the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia are a British overseas territory on the same basis as any other.

The fact that British overseas territories citizens solely connected with the SBAs are not entitled to British citizenship is irrelevant.

There's no reason I can see why they should be excluded from the article. JAJ 04:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I've updated the intro to take acocunt of that. The FCO also staes they are an overseas territory, although does not list them in the profile section. The SBA article best deals with their unqiue situation. Astrotrain 19:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Legally and constitutionally they are an Overseas Territory and it's best to mention them in this article.  The two main differences I can see are: a. practical jurisdiction is exercised by the MoD rather than the FCO, and b.  British Overseas Territories citizens from the SBAs are excluded from British citizenship under the British Overseas Territories Act 2002.   JAJ 02:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Citizenship
I removed the following from the end of the citizenship section:
 * Other uninhabited territories such as British Antarctic Territory and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

I removed it because, obviously, it doesn't make any sense. If anyone knows what it's supposed to say, have at 'er. FireWorks 05:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


text:
Baron Glenconner

Baron Glenconner, of The Glen in the County of Peebles, is a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It was created in 1911 for Sir Edward Tennant, 2nd Baronet, who had earlier represented Salisbury in the House of Commons as a Liberal and also served as Lord Lieutenant of Peeblesshire. Lord Glenconner was succeeded by his second son, the second baron. The latter was succeeded in 1983 by his eldest son, the third baron, who bought the island of Mustique. , the titles are held by the third baron's grandson, the fourth baron, who became the next-to-youngest peer in the realm when he succeeded in August 2010.

The Tennant baronetcy, of The Glen and St Rollox, was created in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom in 1885 for Charles Tennant, a businessman and Liberal Member of Parliament. He was the grandson of the chemist and industrialist Charles Tennant. Tennant was succeeded by his fourth son, the aforementioned second baronet, who was elevated to the peerage in 1911.

The seat of the baronetcy is Glen House, near Peebles, under the hill named Minchmuir.

Tennant baronets, of The Glen and St Rollox (1885)

 * Sir Charles Clow Tennant, 1st Baronet (1823–1906)
 * Sir Edward Priaulx Tennant, 2nd Baronet (1859–1920) (created Baron Glenconner in 1911)

Barons Glenconner (1911)

 * Edward Priaulx Tennant, 1st Baron Glenconner (1859–1920)
 * The Hon. Edward Wyndham Tennant (1897–1916), eldest son of the 1st Baron, killed in action in World War I, without issue.
 * Christopher Grey Tennant, 2nd Baron Glenconner (1899–1983), second son of the 1st Baron.
 * Colin Christopher Paget Tennant, 3rd Baron Glenconner (1926–2010), eldest son of the 2nd Baron.
 * The Hon. Charles Edward Pevensey Tennant (1957–1996), eldest son of the 3rd Baron.
 * Cody Charles Edward Tennant, 4th Baron Glenconner (born 1994), grandson of the 3rd Baron through the Hon. Charles Tennant.

The heir presumptive is the present holder's first cousin, Euan Lovell Tennant (born 1983), the son of Hon. Henry Lovell Tennant (1960–1990), second son of the 3rd Baron, and Teresa "Tessa" Tennant (née Cormack; 1959–2018).

Other notable family members
Several other members of the Tennant family have also gained distinction:
 * The Liberal politician Harold Tennant was a younger son of the first Baronet.
 * Margot Asquith (née Tennant), wife of Prime Minister H. H. Asquith, was the daughter of the first Baronet from his first marriage.
 * The civil servant and politician Katharine Elliot, Baroness Elliot of Harwood (née Tennant), was the daughter of the first Baronet from his second marriage.
 * The war poet Edward Tennant was the eldest son of the first Baron.
 * The Hon. Stephen Tennant and the Hon. David Tennant were younger sons of the first Baron.
 * The author Emma Tennant was the daughter of the second Baron.
 * The model Stella Tennant was the daughter of the Hon. Tobias William Tennant, younger son of the second Baron, by Lady Emma Tennant (née Cavendish), daughter of the 11th Duke of Devonshire (not to be confused with the author Emma Tennant mentioned above).

Book sources

 * Kidd, Charles, Williamson, David (editors). Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage (1990 edition). New York: St Martin's Press, 1990,
 * Kidd, Charles, Williamson, David (editors). Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage (1990 edition). New York: St Martin's Press, 1990,

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

title: Baron Glenconner


text:
Talk:Eugenics

Resident evil mentioned in opening paragraph, but not in the popular culture section.
I would like to point out that the opening paragraph for this article mentions the video game series Resident evil, but the "In popular culture" section does not. I wish for this inconsistency to be resolved, but I do not know the depth to go into without getting off topic. I leave this as something for wikipedians to discuss. 98.181.69.7 (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 * There is no "In Popular Culture" section, nor does there need to be. It's not an inconsistency. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Grammar
"... Lee urged highly educated women to have more children, claiming that "social delinquents" would dominate unless their fertility rate increased" Come again?? On what way would the increased fertility rate of these "social delinquents" decrease their dominance? Perhaps: "Lee urged highly educated women to have more children to counteract the domination of "social delinquents"" - or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Disputed edits
I invite to discuss their preferred edits here. In my view, removing "Nazi eugenics", "Bibliography of genocide studies", and "Outline of genocide studies" from the See also and describing Eugenics as a "field of study" represent a substantive POV-shift which would require consensus. Generalrelative (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Thank you, I was just thinking about opening a thread myself. Maybe I am mistaken but please explain which of the following assumptions was in error:
 * (1) A point that already has a whole eponymous section with reference a la "main article: ..." below the heading does not need to be brought up in the "see also" section
 * (2) If two topics are not (non-controversially) the same - considering e.g. positive eugenics most prominently (!) -, one does not reference a separate bibliography from the already expansive one in the main article. Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Aha, I see my error in both cases and retract my comments. I'll self-revert. Thanks for unpacking this for me. Generalrelative (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey, thank you! Sorry for the accusation in that case. Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No stress. In actual fact I was being far too hasty. Generalrelative (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Exempt/Recover certain threads from "Lowercase sigmabot III" Archiving?
Some discussions (e.g. whether eugenics is supposed to be called "pseudoscientific" or not etc. ...) have opened up multiple times and are arguably not fully resolved. Would it be possible to keep a lot of these on the talk page indefinitely, and if so how? Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I would suggest bringing this to WP:FTN to see if there is wider community interest in reevaluating the longstanding language. Not sure it makes sense to selectively keep certain threads from being archived. Generalrelative (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nah. If discussions go idle, they can be archived. If the question isn't fully resolved and it becomes important to resolve it, we can go through WP:DR or create an WP:RFC to deal with it then. Otherwise, there's no reason to have those discussions just permanently pinned here. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Some discussions (e.g. whether eugenics is supposed to be called "pseudoscientific" or not etc. ...) have opened up multiple times and are arguably not fully resolved."

 * They absolutely have been resolved, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT notwithstanding. The scientific consensus is that eugenics is a pseudoscience because it is not founded on the basic principles of scientific inquiry. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no. Considering that this is one of the most controversial wiki articles out there: I don't believe all the discussions have been resolved to the point that there is really no content disputes on this talk page whatsoever. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Then provide the suggestion for improving the article. Otherwise this isn't going to accomplish anything. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 10:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will, in fact, commit myself to improving the article over the next few weeks. For this purpose, I think, just importing archived arguments in relevant discussions as a blockquote should do for now... Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Would probably be more effective if you made your points in your own words, rather than just quoting someone else's. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Apply boldface to "positive" and "negative eugenics"?
Otherwise, we might well have to make it a whole subsection for people to link to (as opposed to an anchor with intuitive relevance per the emboldened terms...) Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I don't know what you're referring to here. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To the common distinction between "pos." and "neg. eugenics" as found in the article; it used to be boldface some time ago. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hm. I don't think it's necessary to boldface those terms. They're italicized in a few spots, but after that it seems fine to just leave them be. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, you're probably right. I'll consider creating a new section with terminology/etymology in the future.Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Disputed edits regarding Huxley
I invite HandThatFeeds to please specify their reasons for not including my clarifications about a well-known book that is otherwise easily misinterpreted. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

 * First off, as I mentioned, the prose you added did not match Wikipedia's WP:MOS and read more like an essay.
 * Second, the citation added was a paper whose author asserted their personal opinion and interpretation of the book as part of the CRISPR debates. There is nothing to demonstrate this is WP:DUE for the Eugenics article itself, nor that the author or the paper are a reliable source for the topic. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assessment of the citation, but anyhow: would it help if I moved parts of the quote to a note and solely relied for my clarification on an in-text quote from BNW itself instead? Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't think the citation is due for inclusion in this article at all. It might be relevant to Brave New World but, as a primary source, that would be iffy. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll try doing without for now. Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thalassemia
You state that this edit was importing from the Thalassemia article, but I'm not seeing what was actually imported. That article makes no mention of eugenics. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I imported a large paragraph into the notes.
 * However, I forgot mentioning that I also imported much content from the Eugenics article of two non-English WP articles. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, in that case, it looks like you've seriously violated WP:REUSE. You must properly source the content you took from within Wikipedia (including non-English WP articles) to comply with the Creative Commons license. We have to be able to show attribution to maintain the licensing of the original Wikipedia authors.
 * "To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.) This applies to text developed by the Wikipedia community."
 * I won't revert your edit, but you'll likely need to self-revert and then add it back in with the proper attributions in place. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I actually never heard of that before. I'll remove the respective note for now (*nothing that my remaining translation from the German and Greek wiki was absolutely not verbatim), and will consider simply transcluding an updated/relevantly shortened version of this article over at the Thalassemia one instead at some future point. Does that solve the problem? Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

the Copy/paste was a mess, and I have removed the section. Editorializing, cherry-picking, and WP:SYNTH are not appropriate. You need to verify every source when copy/pasting content like this, and you obviously did not do that. And yes, this was absolutely synth and also very selective use of sources. Per one of the copy/pasted sources, Ruth Schwartz Cowan's "Moving up the slippery slope: mandated genetic screening on Cyprus": The people who designed the quasi-mandated genetic screening programs in the Republic of Cyprus succeeded in avoiding all that what was evil in earlier eugenic practices; indeed, the Cypriot version of thalassemia screening is so far removed from eugenics that it should not even be called by the same name. That was conveniently emphasized in the original. The cite, however, was attached to a mention of a medical ethicist who is not even mentioned in the source. Additionally, one of the links was dead, meaning you didn't bother to check that one, either. With edits like this WP:CIR becomes an issue. Simplistically reducing this to an example of good eugenics, completely with details from sources which do not even mention eugenics or mention it only in passing, and also ignoring what sources are specifically saying about this as it relates to eugenics, is completely inappropriate.

Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing original research. Wikipedia is not a platform for righting great wrongs. Grayfell (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 * COI, you mean I am somehow involved with the small Island of Cyprus?!
 * "One of the links is dead" - and that somehow means WP:SYNTH? Never heard of that.
 * All of the sources mention eugenics in some form or other, some of them more than 200 times over (!)
 * I provided more accurate page numbers this time, but advise you to be very careful if your editing is not supposed to be understood to be disruptive. Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * About half of your paragraph does not even make sense to me. What did I attach to some "medical ethicist"?
 * It makes me quite angry that in the last few days my attempts at being transparent and pre-emptively seeking consensus (both in edit summaries and on talk pages) were meet by people like you who tried to immediately use these against me somehow...
 * I think independent editors would agree that this is extremely uncivil behavior potentially worthy of some sanctions if it continues. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * COI should've been WP:CIR. You have apparently been copying links which you haven't bothered to check. Further, your sources do not constantly support the attached claims. As I said, the "Cowan 2009" cite doesn't appear to mention "Medical ethicist Robert Ranisch" at all, but that is the source you used for that summary of his opinion. This kind of sloppiness is common with your edits. Your repeated use of heavy-handed WP:EDITORIALIZING language and sloppy use of copy/pasted sources lead to SYNTH. You have already been given significant leeway and have repeatedly damaged articles to promote, either subtly or grossly, a pro-eugenics angle. Grayfell (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is honestly quite funny. So, apparently the only remaining reason you bothered to specify for your second revert is that I mentioned this potentially being a "slippery slope" (*btw. a claim that is expressly not pro-eugenics; and could be supplemented by other citations and a "more generally" for clarification...)
 * I'd like definitive clarification on your part or I will restore most of the original entry. How about you discuss actual instances of "editorializing"? Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your apparent inability to understand the many problems your edits have introduced is not an excuse for edit warring. Grayfell (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Please stop reverting each other for a few minutes. I'm WP:SPLITTING out a new article and giving it the title Prevention of autosomal recessive disorders. It will briefly mention the possible connection to eugenics at the end.

The existence of that article will allow this article's Ethics section to refer to the whole concept, in a way that is both clear and attributable. Some made-up examples just to show you what I mean:
 * Ethical theory X would prohibit nearly all forms of eugenics. Proponents of eugenics dispute this ethical theory, citing the fact that it would prohibit the widely accepted methods for prevention of autosomal recessive disorders as evidence that it is overcautious to the point of absurdity.
 * A successful theory of the ethics of eugenics must account for the fact that prevention of autosomal recessive disorders is widely accepted. It should also take into consideration that disability-selective abortion is widely practiced.
 * Proponent Y argues for an expanded definition of eugenics that includes prevention of autosomal recessive disorders through methods such as carrier testing. They explain this as an attempt to shatter the reification fallacy.

Thank you for your patience while I make this bold change. Let's see if we can make it work. Jruderman (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

 * This is a genuinely appreciated effort, but wholly removing a positive mention of eugenics into an article unlikely to get more than 500 30-day views would also be unbalanced. I can find various other sources for calling their program "eugenic", so it is certainly relevant here. I may also expand the paragraph on nazism. We'd likely have to include an (abbreviated but still comparable!) version of my original section in this article in any case. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But I will first wait a few days and see what Jruderman is going to do. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are many, many problems with Biohistorian15's recent edits. One example, from the paragraphs above the one you recently edited, is the WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL bloat about "the skeptic's chaplain" supported by dubious and primary sources. Be aware that any split will make repairing that damage much harder. There are a lot of examples like this, and I'm not seeing a lot worth preserving. This really looks like it's headed towards a noticeboard. Grayfell (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I happen to like Dawkins. How about you remove these few words instead of employing intimidation tactics?
 * Has anybody recently dared to talk about taking you to a noticeboard? (*for one, you directly insulted me with the WP:CIR above) Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Use of transclusion
While has advantages and disadvantages in general, I think many of the uses on this page aren't great. Below, I'll go into detail about two of the article's eight uses of. Jruderman (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Transclusion of Dysgenics
The combination of section location, section heading, and transcluded text seems to create new claims without stating them outright:
 * ~ "Concern about dysgenics is 'Darwinian'"
 * ~ "Early eugenicists were more motivated by concerns about dysgenics than by opportunities for human enhancement"

Are these statements true? Verifiable? I don't know, but there's nowhere to put a citation or a citation-needed tag when an idea is communicated only through juxtaposition.

Furthermore, very little of the transcluded text (permalink) contributes to understanding the origins of eugenics. It's three sentences introducing a new term, one sentence that's half relevant, and two sentences about more recent perspectives. Those last two sentences are especially harmful to the flow of this article's history section. Jruderman (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Transclusion for "treatment-enhancement distinction"
First, I don't know what the section title is trying to communicate with the word "Problematizing". What is being called a problem, in what way, and by whom? Again, since it's just a section title and transclusion, there's nowhere to put a clarification or source.

Second, six paragraphs laying out the argument in detail may be excessive for the Eugenics article. This could be one or two sentences in a section about the various lines that ethicists have drawn between acceptable and unacceptable uses of eugenics: "Differing feelings on the use of eugenics to reduce the prevalence of genetic disorders on the one hand, and to push the limits of human ability on the other, mirror the long-standing treatment-enhancement distinction in philosophy of medicine." Jruderman (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Procedural notes
I'm frustrated with much how effort it takes to review new transclusions compared to how much effort it takes to make them. I know we don't all agree on which narratives the article should highlight, but I want helping with the article to feel less like an exercise in overwhelming one's opponents and more like an adversarial collaboration.

Maybe we should take some time to come to a consensus about a rough outline for the article, including how much weight we want to dedicate to each major section. By doing this earlier rather than later, we might be able to avoid wasting time writing things that get deleted later. Jruderman (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

 * I see what you mean.
 * I intend to rewrite dysgenics soon to heed these concerns. For now I changed "Darwinian origins" out for "Darwinian backdrop". I'll try finding a source for the established divide ("dysgenics" in the more Darwinian Britain, "degen. theory" everywhere else...)
 * I think "problematizing" is a reasonable word to use, but would "the collapse of the distinction" be better-suited? I'll think about shortening it, but many of the notes e.g. arguably do address common objections to eugenics (regarding disability rights etc.) which might indicate keeping them.
 * "I'm frustrated with much how effort it takes to review new transclusions compared to how much effort it takes to make them." - but it was mostly me though that wrote the original texts too, wasn't it?
 * Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Shortened your second transclusion example a bit.
 * Suggestion to establish my good faith:
 * You might want to try finding a more NPOV title for "the threat of perfection" and the "retroactive compansation" quote box... - I can't think of anything personally.
 * Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "Retroactive compensation" is supposed to mean in this context. Can we just remove the box label? Jruderman (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, sure. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding what it means to "problematize" the treatment-enhancement distinction... maybe it's clearer to "collapse", "dissolve", "erase", or "reject" the distinction? Or to "question its ethical relevance" when it comes to eugenics, just like we do when it comes to medicine. Jruderman (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Collapse" is a philo. well-established usage (cf. e.g. "the collapse of fact-value dist." or "modal collapse"), but maybe that's just WP:OR on my part. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless of terminology, the important thing is to be clear about the distinction between:
 * Pointing out that a dichotomy is more of a continuum
 * Arguing that a dichotomy's axis is irrelevant, in a particular context, even at its two extremes
 * Jruderman (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I understand you entirely here. You could of course try finding a good argument that somehow (re-)establishes the axis, e.g. in a purely methodological way (*I vaguely remember some bioethics papers did that but can't find them RN)... Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Content forks?
These pages all have some overlap. Some merging or distinction may be in order.

 * Eugenics
 * New eugenics
 * Human germline engineering
 * Directed evolution (transhumanism)
 * Designer baby

The guidelines Content forks and Subpages are relevant here. For articles that might be or become "about a term", WP:NOTDICT determines which terms should have articles.

Scattered thoughts: Jruderman (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am concerned about the divergence in attitude. The articles range from largely negative to largely positive to barely considering themselves part of a controversy at all. Broad consensus seems to be lacking.
 * This article has a section on the therapy–enhancement distinction while another article has a section on therapeutic and non-therapeutic use.
 * Maybe this article could be delineated in some way that keeps it from being a magnet for sections on broad economic policies / narrow medical pursuits / what might be ethically permissible to do with PGD / which logical fallacies everyone else is committing. We could scope this article to a date range, or to state mandates, or to "the pseudoscientific parts". Not by taking a definitive stance on what "eugenics" means, just wiki stuff like "This article is about X, for modern medical practices see Human germline engineering". Maybe.

 * We should consider merging first:
 * For one, "designer baby" is a POV term and if it is to remain, the debate there should be mostly about fallacies employed in using it, and not in taking an artificial ethical controversy seriously. (*for such a purpose we should point to a different article).
 * Alternatively, we may make it a new section of "new eugenics".
 * "Human germline engineering" may need to be merged into "new eugenics" entirely.
 * Would leave "directed evolution" alone for now
 * More generally, if you want to scope this article to a date range, hence exclude recent bioethical discussions entirely, this would necessarily make the article 30% more negative. Since this is the main article regarding the concept, that would be a dubious strategy. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's kind of the point. It's okay if one article is negative and another article is positive if they're clearly about different topics.
 * It's always an alternative, of course, to have one article where it's very clear what it's positive and negative about.
 * If we're allowed to POV-push for anything here, it's for readers to come away informed. My capacity to care about which term is used is limited. Jruderman (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Might I add:
 * Human genetic enhancement
 * ... and the former article:
 * Reprogenetics
 * Biohistorian15 (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Is this portrait too charming?
Thought about using it to replace the black-and-white one. Honest question. Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Same question per: Nick_Bostrom,_Stanford_2006_(square_crop).jpg
 * note that it has great resolution.

 * Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Lee Kuan Yew statements
Hi User:Biohistorian15, seems we have a dispute about whether to include this in the Singapore section:

80% is probably an overestimate. The part about Lee's children makes it seem like he might not know how to reason about the multiple ways parents influence their children (genes but also rearing, wealth, connections, and more).

As is, the section misleads some readers by not providing a rebuttal. Changing "stated" to some other verb would help but only slightly. While the second one uses the verb "attributed" for one claim, it leaves a hidden statement of fact (the success of his children) that rubs me the wrong way in the context of this article.

If we add rebuttals, the section turns into "Based on these questionable beliefs, Lee implemented a program...". This would be misleading in another way: these weren't his only motivations for the program.

More generally, let's try not to fill the article with claims-by-insinuation, whether it's about hereditarianism or anything else. This goes for the "Darwin–Wedgwood and Huxley families" stuff too. Clearly stated claims are better for the encyclopedia: they can be cited and attributed; they don't make some readers suspicious; they don't bifurcate WP:BALANCE into balance-of-insinuations and balance-of-statements.

Can we remove the sentence for now and start looking for other information about Lee to replace it? Perhaps some quote that gets at Lee's motivations (rather than his beliefs), or something about how he gathered support for the proposal.

Jruderman (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Ok, makes sense. Please (carefully!) remove it for now. But if I find absolutely nothing else to contextualize his policies, we'll have to talk this through. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The "80%" mess would bother me less if it were stuffed into an on the phrase "hereditarian beliefs". Like "Lee mentioned an estimate of 80%, at the high end of the ______ consensus estimates as of 2024".
 * Finally looking at the source, it's not entirely clear what Lee's beliefs were. The 80% quote is about "performance", but the article interprets this without explanation to be just "intelligence", without commenting as to whether it might also be conscientiousness or whatever. Also, it doesn't call Lee "hereditarian", but rather discusses "The fallacies of this and other hereditarian arguments". This makes me more inclined to leave the whole thing out.
 * The source is a review of Not in Our Genes by Lewontin, Rose, and Kamin. If the statements are drawn from the book, we could get a more precise understanding of what Lee said by looking at that book. If they're Gould's own statements to add context, it's trickier. Has Gould talked about Singapore in other writing where his statements and citations are more precise? In the absence of finding something more definitive than what's in the book review, I'm less inclined to even have it as a footnote.
 * Btw, for the end of the section, were any conclusions drawn from Singapore's experience? Did the economic policies affect differential birth rates as hoped, and did that in turn make the next generation better in some way (if that can even be calculated)? What specific objections to the policy spelled its doom? Does any of the policy continue to this day? And perhaps not for this section, but do other countries do the same thing but just frame it as "smoothing welfare cliffs" and "extending child benefits into the middle class so struggling families aren't forced to limit their size"?
 * I'll remove the sentence about Lee's beliefs for now. Ideally a new quote would answer some of the questions that readers might have, such as: was Lee narrowly focused on intelligence or broadly on multiple contributors to educational attainment; was Lee thinking more along the lines of countering what he believed to be a dysgenic trend, or was he aiming for something more ambitious; was Lee aiming to increase the overall population at the same time?
 * As for my slightly more vague concerns regarding "Darwin–Wedgwood and Huxley families", I'll wait to see if others want to weigh in. Jruderman (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just provided the missing citations for the family tree. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that the article does mention Lee's dysgenics-ish concerns in the following paragraph. That seems more relevant than his specific beliefs about heritability of IQ, regardless of whether his estimate was off.
 * Do you think this should be moved over to Dysgenics? I'm leaning toward keeping it here. It would be weird if "whether something is eugenics" depends on whether it's slightly less or slightly more effective than intended. Jruderman (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I think it isn't notable enough to be moved to dysgenics. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

This section is extremely poorly-sourced, in addition to multiple WP:TONE and WP:EDITORIALIZING problems. It appears that most sources were copied from another article without having been verified. This is not appropriate.

Starting with the first source, what is Blynkt? This article appears to be the only time this website is cited anywhere on Wikipedia, both here and at History of eugenics. This is a red flag. Rhetorically speaking, is this source reliable, and is it being proportionately summarized, in this article, or was this yet another example of writing WP:BACKWARDS?

The very next source is a book review by Stephen Jay Gould from 1984. This, again, appears to have been added backwards, as it doesn't directly support the attached statement: In his speeches, Lee urged highly educated women to have more children, claiming that unless their fertility rate increased, "social delinquents" would dominate. This appears to instead be from the Blynkt source.

The next source sure looks like it was copied from Population control in Singapore without having been checked. Nobody should be citing sources they have not personally verified. If you do not have at least partial access to that source, do not cite it. Further, do not assume that it says anything at all about eugenics unless you can confirm that in some way.

The Nature opinion is WP:PRIMARY.

The NatGeo source is quite long, lists an access date of 2009 indicating yet again that it was copy-pasted without verification, and it doesn't appear to mention 'eugenics' once, making its use here likely WP:SYNTH. Rhetorically, what is the source actually saying, and how does that relate to the larger topic of eugenics?

The Yet more controversial... paragraph is solely supported by a single primary source.

Etc.. This section should be deleted. It could be rewritten from scratch to match reliable sources which specifically contextualize it as a notable example of eugenics. Grayfell (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Again, this appears to be WP:EDITORIALIZING language, unverified copy/pasted sources, and the WP:SYNTH use of sources which are not even about eugenics.
 * I want to really emphasize that Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing original research. Our goal for this article is to summarize reliable independent sources about eugenics. We are not asking editors to combine sources to imply anything about eugenics. That's WP:SYNTH and WP:EDITORIALIZING. The above discussion leads me to believe there is some serious confusion about this.
 * The book review is from 1984, for the book Not in Our Genes. The review spends a single paragraph discussing Singapore for context of the otherwise unrelated book review. It directly mentions eugenics only once. This source is reliable in some contexts, but for this section of this article, it is extremely flimsy.
 * The part which says In 1985, incentives were significantly reduced after public – first and foremost Western... Is cited to a primary source from 1984 which says nothing about incentives being reduced a year in the future, and it says nothing whatsoever about this being first and foremost Western. This is transparent editorializing and a misrepresentation of the source to imply a political point. This is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article.
 * Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have made an attempt to clean up this mess, but it's still not great. Again, verify sources and make sure citations are attached to the correct statements. Do not add editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hopes for a new "Ethics" section
I would like to organize arguments in an encyclopedic way that helps readers form opinions consistent with their own beliefs and principles. To that end, I'm looking to:

 * Focus a little more on each side's core affirmative arguments and a little less on who can accuse the other side of logical fallacies with the funniest names.
 * Group together arguments that are about the same thing: for example, pros and cons of enforced eugenics, then pros and cons of liberal eugenics.
 * Keep each subsection short and tight, by paraphrasing longer quotes, and by relying on links to other wiki articles to provide background. My hope here is that readers will be able to hold two opposing arguments in their mind at once.

I am optimistic that such an approach can be acceptable to editors in multiple camps: proponents, opponents, and cautious optimists who hope readers will conclude that good things are good and bad things are bad.

If I maintain interest in this subject long enough, and don't get burned out trying to mediate paragraph-by-paragraph disputes, I may try to do this myself. If I do, I will take Grayfell's advice and engage with some overview-type, reliable, secondary-to-tertiary sources before getting too committed to a list of distinctions or even an outline.

Jruderman (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

 * It is a serious mistake to treat these camps (proponents, opponents, and cautious optimists) as being equivalent. Attempting to avoid conflict and find a compromise is false balance, because Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting fringe views. Even if a fringe view seems reasonable to some in good faith, it is still a fringe view. The article has already become bloated with 'background', florid filler language, and fringe sources which falsely imply a level of legitimacy which is directly contradicted by reliable sources. I hope it is obvious why this is a problem. Grayfell (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Grayfell, simply removing, say, dozens of scholarly sources you personally disagree with won't do. If you want to balance it more, how about you extend the "Nazi eugenics" entry that is currently basically a single paragraph and or transclude an improved lede from somewhere like that?
 * Careful and historically accurate perspectives like that would find no backlash by the likes of me at all. But, again, massive removals on flimsy grounds are a very different story.  Biohistorian15 (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your comment misrepresents the many, many problems your edits have caused. Using boldface to call them "flimsy" doesn't make them flimsy. Your edits have introduced far too many WP:EDITORIALIZING terms and WP:SYNTH claims.
 * As one example from my recent attempt to clean up this mess: "It should be noted, however, that not all proponents of human enhancement necessarily find such a net reduction in the diversity of human geno- and or phenotypes desirable at all." uses editorializing language to say nothing of substance. Who are "proponents of human enhancement"? This introduced a vague opinion in euphemistic language, presents it as significant enough that "it should be noted" (which is specifically cited as an example of WP:EDITORIALIZING), but this completely fails to provide any context, much less attribution. This is an extremely poor way of explaining this, and only adds even more bloat to an already bloated article. That is setting aside for the moment the serious issues with the source itself. There are many other examples that could be provided. Grayfell (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Now that you are being concrete I can try to fix that issue. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You have not fixed any of those issues, nor indicated that you even understood them, since you have been repeating the same mistakes in recent edits. I have again attempted to restore more neutral language to the article. Much more work is still needed. Grayfell (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Grayfell is right that avoiding false balance is a major concern. My aim is not to dictate which information is included, but to improve the organization of information that is included based on policy and consensus. I don't expect all editor camps to be equally happy, but I do hope that clear scoping can lower the temperature a bit as a side effect. Jruderman (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * maybe removing "Status quo bias" would be justified
 * Regrouping loose objections like "subjective hence not science" might make sense
 * Biohistorian15 (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Liberal humanism and deontology
Regarding this edit. I tried to save it, but it's not worth it. I started to go over it line-by-line trying to fix problems, but there would be nothing left when I was done, so I skipped to the end and deleted it.

The entire section was written like an argumentative essay, not like an encyclopedia article. Even if I deleted the many, many instances of WP:EDITORIALIZING language, WP:WEASELs, WP:EUPHEMISMs and pointless filler words, the section would still be a cobbled-together mishmash of WP:SYNTH to promote a specific, non-neutral point of view.

As one example the context-free mention of Jürgen Habermas having a cleft palette was copied verbatim from Jürgen Habermas, but nowhere does that article make a connection between this factoid and Habermas' views on eugenics, making this yet again synth. That article doesn't use the word eugenics at all.

That was just one example, but the entire section was nothing but problems like this.

Many of these other sources do not mention eugenics either, and many of the points are disproportionately summarized to promote a very specific view that is contrary to the mainstream.

There is so, so, so much of this junk in the article now, and I expect that more work like this will need to be done to bring the article back to something resembling WP:NPOV and to comply with WP:MOS. The article now cites Richard Lynn for basic facts and recommends his work in the further reading section. I suppose WP:FRINGEN might have some insight, but the pro-fringe issues are just one part of a deeper and more fundamental problem here. Grayfell (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Eugenics


text:
Baron Gainford

Baron Gainford, of Headlam in the County Palatine of Durham, is a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It was created on 3 January 1917 for the Liberal politician Jack Pease, a member of the Darlington Pease family. He notably served as President of the Board of Education from 1911 to 1915. Pease was the second son of Sir Joseph Pease, 1st Baronet, and the grandson of Joseph Pease, while Arthur Pease was his uncle and Sir Arthur Pease, 1st Baronet, Beaumont Pease, 1st Baron Wardington, and Herbert Pease, 1st Baron Daryngton, were his first cousins. The third baron was a former member of the London County Council and of the Greater London Council. the title is held by his younger brother, the fourth baron, an architect and town planner; County Planning Officer for Ross and Cromarty 1967–1975 and Scottish Office Inquiry Reporter 1978–1993.

Baron Gainford (1917)

 * Joseph Albert "Jack" Pease, 1st Baron Gainford (1860–1943)
 * Joseph Pease, 2nd Baron Gainford (1889–1971)
 * Joseph Edward Pease, 3rd Baron Gainford (1921–2013)
 * George Pease, 4th Baron Gainford (1926–2022)
 * Adrian Christopher Pease, 5th Baron Gainford (b. 1960)

The heir presumptive to the barony is the present holder's brother, Hon. Matthew Edward Pease (b. 1962).

The heir presumptive's heir apparent is his eldest son, Felix George Pease (b. 1992), followed by his brother, Silas John Pease (b. 1999).

Source

 * Kidd, Charles, Williamson, David (editors). Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage (1990 edition). New York: St Martin's Press, 1990.
 * Kidd, Charles, Williamson, David (editors). Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage (1990 edition). New York: St Martin's Press, 1990.

title: Baron Gainford


text:
Hold up (bridge)

In the card game of contract bridge, to hold up means to play low to a trick led by the opponents, losing it intentionally in order to sever their communication. The primary purpose is to give as many tricks to opponents as needed to exhaust all the cards in the suit from one of their hands. If that hand regains the lead, it will not be able to put the partner on lead to cash its tricks. Hold up is one of basic techniques in play.

While mechanically identical, a hold up is in a suit played by the opponents while a duck (or ducking) is a manoeuver in one's own suit. Nevertheless, the terms are used interchangeably with duck or ducking more common.

Denying an entry (declarer play)
West leads the top of a doubleton against a suit contract, and East plays the queen. Suppose South wins the first trick with the ace and West gets in before trumps are drawn (with the ace of trumps, for example). Now West can lead his remaining card in the suit to East's king, and East can return the suit for West to ruff.

Proper procedure is for South to hold up on the first trick, and win the ace on the second round of the suit. Now, when West gets in, he is void in his short suit and cannot lead that suit to get to East's hand.

Denying an entry (defender play)
The declarer (South) plays toward dummy's long suit. Assuming there are no side entries, on the distribution shown East must duck once to prevent declarer from running the suit.

Note that West must give a proper count signal in this situation. In the distribution shown, West signals an even count; East assumes it shows four and ducks once. (If West has only two, then South has four and ducking neither helps nor hurts.) If West signals an odd count, East will have to decide (possibly from the bidding or previous play in other suits) whether it shows three or five, and win the first or third trick accordingly.

Rectifying the count
Often, to set up a squeeze, one or more tricks must be lost in advance. This is known as "rectifying the count", but it is actually just another instance of ducking.

Endplay
Here is a simple endplay situation: At no trump, South is on lead with three cards left to play. South ducks the 2 to West, who must now lead spades into South's ace-queen tenace and South wins two tricks. If South plays spades first, he wins only one of the last three tricks. This play is not really a duck, because it does not surrender a trick that could be won.

South is playing a contract of three notrump, and West leads the king of diamonds. There are nine needed tricks: two spades, two hearts, one diamond and four clubs. However, if the declarer wins the ace of diamonds at trick one and drives out the ace of clubs, the defenders will cash four diamond tricks to set the contract.

South can assure the contract (provided the ace of clubs is with East) by holding up the ace of diamonds: he plays low to the first two diamond tricks (known as ducking) and wins the ace of diamonds on the third trick. Now, when East wins the ace of clubs, he has no diamonds left to play. If West holds the ace of clubs, the contract is impossible to make. If, on the other hand, East had a diamond, that would mean that diamonds were originally split 4-4 and defenders could only cash three tricks in the suit, so the contract was not in danger.

Deception
A defender can deceive the declarer by ducking a trick he could win, inducing him to place the defender's cards wrongly and adopt a losing line of play. In the position shown, declarer leads a small card from dummy to the queen in trump suit. If West takes the ace, the declarer could easily play the king in second round, dropping East's jack. However, if West ducks, the declarer will place the ace with East, and finesse the dummy's ten in second round, losing to East's now singleton jack.

This kind of duck requires perfect reading of cards and nerve, especially if the suit involved is a side suit in a trump contract. West must duck smoothly, without hesitation, otherwise the declarer could infer the actual layout.

Rule of seven
The rule assumes play in a 3NT contract and is as follows:
 * Subtract from seven the total number of cards that declarer and dummy hold in the defenders' suit and duck their lead of the suit that many times.

The rule can be generalized for all notrump contracts as follows:
 * In a notrump contract, subtract from 'n' the total number of cards that declarer and dummy hold in the defenders' suit and duck their lead of the suit that many times; 'n' is equal to four plus the level of the contract.

In the hand above, there are five diamonds in the combined North-South hands, and declarer must duck two tricks (winning the third).

If there were an additional diamond in either the North or South hand, for a total of six, then declarer need only duck one trick (winning the second). This is because if West has five diamonds (and North-South six), then East will have only two and will be out of diamonds after two rounds of the suit. If East does have three diamonds, then West will have only four and the defenders can cash only two additional diamond tricks (for a total of three) upon winning the ace of clubs.

title: Hold up (bridge)


text:
Baron Gisborough

Baron Gisborough, of Cleveland in the County of York, is a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom.

The title was created in 1917 for the Conservative politician Richard Chaloner (1856–1938), who had previously represented Westbury (also known as Wiltshire West) and Abercromby in the House of Commons. Born Richard Long, the son of Richard Penruddocke Long, he had assumed by royal licence the surname of Chaloner in lieu of Long in 1881, as a condition of inheriting the Guisborough estate in North Yorkshire, and Gisborough Hall, from his maternal great-uncle, Admiral Thomas Chaloner. The latter was a descendant through his mother of Robert de Brus, who founded Gisborough Priory in 1119.

Lord Gisborough's eldest son and heir, Richard Godolphin Hume Long Chaloner, was accidentally killed in France in 1917 while guarding German prisoners of war, and is buried at Calais. Lord Gisborough was therefore succeeded by his second son, the second Baron. , the title is held by the latter's son, the third Baron, who succeeded in 1951. He notably served as Lord Lieutenant of Cleveland from 1981 to 1996. The title remains strongly linked with the town of Guisborough.

The prominent Conservative politician Walter Long, 1st Viscount Long (1854–1924) was the elder brother of the first Baron.

Barons Gisborough (1917)

 * Richard Godolphin Walmesley Chaloner, 1st Baron Gisborough (1856–1938)
 * Thomas Weston Peel Long Chaloner, 2nd Baron Gisborough (1889–1951)
 * (Thomas) Richard John Long Chaloner, 3rd Baron Gisborough (b. 1927)

The heir apparent is the present holder's son, the Hon. (Thomas) Peregrine Long Chaloner (b. 1961).

title: Baron Gisborough


text:
Talk:Browser wars

1st broswer war
First browser war is ***wrong***, that's the second browser war. The first one was called the Mosaic Wars, and Netscape won that one (IIRC, this was around NS 2.0 or 1.1N) and some of the competitors were TEXT-based browsers 70.51.8.158 (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Based on zero-based computer counting, the zero-th is Mosaic; what follow is #0001 (which some might choose to call first). Pi314m (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Google Chrome not developed to be the most used browser
"Their goal is to compete with Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox and eventually become the most used web browser." is a wrong statement as Google doesn't mention that anywhere on its site about why it developed Google Chrome.

""We owe a great debt to many open source projects, and we're committed to continuing on their path. We've used components from Apple's WebKit and Mozilla's Firefox, among others - and in that spirit, we are making all of our code open source as well. We hope to collaborate with the entire community to help drive the web forward.

The web gets better with more options and innovation. Google Chrome is another option, and we hope it contributes to making the web even better.""

Hence i am removing the same -  Đõc §aмέέЯ   10:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that of course google is trying to make theirs the most used browser. It may not be their explicit and stated goal, but still, as it said in TechRepublic, they don't want to rely on the continued goodnature of IE and Mozilla. Google would be ecstatic if everyone on earth used their browser, as would every company developing their browser. Ever additional person who uses chrome is an additional person who is using all of google's services. By the way, Firefox ROCKS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunixer (talk • contribs) 00:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

** Don’t you think this doesn’t even count as WP:NOR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldosfan (talk • contribs) 03:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this article CAN be neutral
Hello to all.

My question is, is there ANY way to make this article meet neutrality standards??

Honestly, the content of this article is such that it is nearly impossible to talk in neutrality. Everybody has their opinion on this subject, and it is pretty much impossible to set aside your prejudices, no matter how hard you try. It seems that the person that wrote this article is clearly pro-IE. He/she/it spends at least 1/2 the article talking about Internet Explorer's total dominance. Just slightly prejudiced? Nameless9123 (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, if s/he\it spent half the article complaining about IE's dominance, or on the other hand lauding IE for it's dominance, that would not be neutral. Netscape self destructed and a rather singed Mozilla emerged from the flames. That IE became dominant in the meantime is a fact of life. The market share attrition rate of IE is also a fact of life that is even more prominant in the article. This much is neutral. However, the author blames Microsoft for doing things to cause the demise of Netscape. Is that neutral? Netscape failed to adhere to external specifications (such as CSS), and that and not Microsoft is what ultimately sent them packing. Ultimately it is the issue of standards compliance in particular, which is driving the present attrition rate of IE's market share, because developers are realising that their market share depends a great deal on coverage - and coverage is governed by standards. To me, this is neutral. To someone with an axe to grind, it may be positively actionable. This leaves of with the question of factual accuracy. When an article is reduced to the bare facts, with neither omission, repetition, nor spin, it cannot be other than neutral, no matter who or how many claim it isn't.58.111.225.252 (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Agreed. The Browser_wars section is now anti-IE, as it has omits any mentions of Netscape's frequent crashes, buggy features, and inability to adopt new standards like CSS. Instead it blames the problem on Microsoft's dominance in the OS market and resources, and allocates 1/4 of the section to the anti-trust court case. It is true that Microsoft had those advantages, but part of Netscape's demise was self-inflicted. In order for this section to be neutral, it needs to address both perspectives. --  chulk90 / discuss / contributions 01:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Monoculture for worms?
"The near-universal adoption of Internet Explorer has also created a monoculture which has widened the damage done by computer worms, which exploit software vulnerabilities to propagate themselves. The more machines exposing a given vulnerability, the more easily a worm will propagate."

Given the fact that there has yet to be any significant IE "worm", does this really do the article justice? Blaster and Sasser spread without IE. Nearly every definition of the term "worm" indicates compromising a large number of machines without the users having to do anything.

The spread of worms is facilitated most by allowing applications to masquerade as documents. Most exploits are based on the inability of users to quarantine active content prior to scanning for viruses as virus scanners only work if the virus is old enough to be catalogued. Few worms by comparison depend on browser specific bugs. Non-Microsoft browsers that do not check the Windows Internet Security settings in the registry prior to turning on Java and plug-ins also demonstrate serious security flaws that result from a failure to fully comply with external specification. There is plenty of blame for all concerned. Security issues have more to do with the fact that today's developer's are far too arrogant to check to see if what they are doing has been done before and find our what the problems were - before going ahead and repeating the screw-ups of history for the umpteen-millionth time... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.225.252 (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hyperbole
From the Consequences section:

"Moreover, this major security hole constitutes the worst of the browser wars legacy. It is a veritable unexploded shell that remains buried in every browser on the market."

This strikes me as very unencyclopedic language, in fact it's sheer hyperbole. There's more examples through the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.106.146 (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

 * From where I'm sitting, hyperbole is just one of the symptoms of this thing being written as though it were some sort of hagiography that's just poorly constructed all around. From the introduction: "the competition between market-dominating Netscape Navigator and its eventual defeat by Microsoft Internet Explorer" — if you took this article as written then you'd believe that web browsers are sentient. In addition, the whole thing seems to be written by someone with an adolescent obsession with military metaphors and is full of self-repetitious sentences like "In 1993 more browsers were released - Cello, Arena, and Lynx also came out. " — 86.175.27.255 (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed paragraph from Browser Wars 1, 'Consequences'
I have removed this paragraph, having first tried to edit it and then to find some (any) verification for the points raised. Apart from the spelling, it used 'statistics' that don't seem to exist, emotive, unencyclopedic language about 'unexploded shells' and was completely uncited.

--Nigelj (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Some explanation of why this is significant
To people unfamiliar with the topic, it may be beneficial to briefly explain in the first paragraph why this is significant. Something along the lines of "Web browsers are the most widely used category of software." or something along those lines. I'll leave it to someone with better ideas to actually implement. Dpaanlka (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

mosaic wars
I readded the tag for the pre browser wars/mosaic wars. This section tag may be incorrect, but the fact is there: totally the story is missing, there was a mosaic war (and it was so called!), there were ~120 mosaic derivates (and one won: netscape) and so on. I think that I was the previously tagging person: I would and I will fix/expand it, but at the moment I am expanding historic browser articles from the time between 1992-1997 with user smallman12q. mabdul 21:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

'Dethrone'
Deleting and then reverting out referenced stuff you don't like is not the best way to reach a consensus and a balanced article. User:JTSchreiber, I and others need to discuss the best way to include comments made fairly widely, and exemplified by geeksmack.net, regarding the very temporary 'dethroning' of 'Microsoft and IE7' recently. The article makes it clear that this was temporary and was due to easily explicable factors, but I still think it makes a good point about the current 'browser wars' that these points are still being amplified and echoed around the web. If they don't think that the point is made fairly (and I have moved it closer to the exact wording in that source today) then this is the place to discuss what they see as the problem and what to do about it; not by starting a revert war.

I think that rather thank hog-binding the wording in the article to that in that one source, we should give a better impression of how this brief event was reported more widely, maybe by finding other sources and agreeing a more general (though admittedly partisan) wording. The whole point about a 'war' is that there are at least two partisan sides, so when we report on it, we have to give both sides' views - even if one of them seems a bit silly, or was only very short-lived in relevance. Reporting a brief skirmish in the 'browser wars' without really mentioning the non-Microsoft side's position at the time would be a bit strange. --Nigelj (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

 * You wrote, "The whole point about a 'war' is that there are at least two partisan sides, so when we report on it, we have to give both sides' views... Reporting a brief skirmish in the 'browser wars' without really mentioning the non-Microsoft side's position at the time would be a bit strange."

 * That's not what I did. Even in the version which you reverted, the following text explains the pro-Firefox point-of-view:

"During December 2009 and January 2010, StatCounter reported that its statistics indicated that Firefox 3.5 was the most popular browser, when counting individual browser versions, passing Internet Explorer 7 and 8 by a small margin.[19][20][21] This is the first time a global statistic has reported that a non-Internet Explorer browser version has exceeded the top Internet Explorer version in usage share since the fall of Netscape Navigator. This feat"
 * Are you counting this material as pro-IE? If so, please explain why.

 * If and when you try to find other sources to make a more general statement about pro-Firefox opinions, please keep in mind WP:ASSERT and WP:UNDUE. When you move beyond simple analysis of statistics (which browser version is most used according to a particular source) to statements about the meaning and implications of those statistics ("dethrone", etc.), you are talking about opinions that need to be attributed to their source in the text of the article, not in the reference alone, per WP:ASSERT. Unless the wording is general enough to cover each of the sources individually, it cannot be applied to all of the sources.

 * Also, the current material which is considered pro-IE is not very opinionated, that is, it doesn't move particularly far beyond what the statistics say. If you put in more facts about strong pro-Firefox opinions, along with more pro-Firefox references, that would be giving undue weight to Firefox, and more sources and facts about strong pro-IE opinions would need to be added to balance this out. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Internet Explorer 9?
Internet Explorer 9 seems relevant to the Second Browser Wars section. To me, it more or less represents Microsoft's effort to match the technical progress the other browser vendors and WHATWG have made. That might not be the neutral, non-original-research phrasing of it -- I'd have to scour the Web for what widely read sources say about it, I guess -- but clearly IE9 is *something*, certainly as much of a notable event as the IE7 to IE8 upgrade. The prerelease history of other browsers is noted (e.g., "In 2003, Apple had begun work on a new browser...") so the fact that IE9 isn't a final release doesn't mean we can't mention Microsoft's work so far.

IE9 also points to future directions for the "wars" like hardware acceleration -- acceleration is one of the top things the IE Team has discussed on their blog, and Apple and Google both talk about current and future GPU work on their browsers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.114.161 (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Addendum: I think we're spending too few words on mobile browsers relative to their current importance and projected growth. I also wonder if info on browser history/competitive browser history is scattered among too many articles (this article, Web browser, and the various stories on particular browsers, companies, and standards like HTML5). 67.121.114.161 (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Be bold! and expand the article - on the other side: IE9 has 0% market share because it isn't released! mabdul 09:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox military conflict
I see that the {infobox military conflict} was removed in edit. While this clearly isn't a military conflict, I think that the infobox worked very well here as a metaphor. Do we need to be so numbingly literal, just here, just this time? --Nigelj (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I would also readd the infobox. It is only the naming of the box that do a confusion. mabdul 21:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I like metaphors, but I'm not so sure that this metaphor is appropriate. It suggests that Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera are allied against IE, which I doubt is true! Do the sources paint the same picture? Melchoir (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Melchoir. It's not IE vs. all other browsers. Google Chrome is encroaching on Firefox's market share, and Apple is very belligerent towards all browsers, and even threatened to privatize WebKit, on which Chrome is based. --   chulk90 / discuss / contributions  06:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Third war
With the current running of ads by Google on major programs in America such as American Idol and 60 Minutes it seems to me like Google has become more aggressive in their goal of having people using Chrome. Although I know I might sound very POV, isn't it possible that we are seeing the beginning of a third browser war between the major players Firefox, Explorer and Chrome? Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Belligerents
Its not all other browsers vs IE, they are fighting each other too, Chrome vs Mozilla for example — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.106.255 (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but it's also not Firefox and Opera versus Chrome and Safari versus IE is it? Template:Infobox military conflict seems inappropriate here. 2011 Wisconsin protests had the same problem, but somebody made a new template called Template:Infobox civil conflict. However, that doesn't work too well here either. If nobody objects I will delete it, as it doesn't really add much except the image, which we can keep. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 00:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

browser wars
Why are the browser wars misnumbered? The "first" is the second, etc. The one before the first doesn't have a number. Shouldn't the numbers be reformated to match the first, second, third wars, instead of Mosaic, First, Second? Browsers existed before Microsoft started in MSIE. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they aren't misnumbered, the truth is that there were no Mosaic wars but only incruent confrontations among first browsers who struggled a bit to demonstrate their best; the fact that, till 1995, behind these products there was no big private Company but only research organizations, universities or small companies and the fact that at the beginning the share market was increasing at a very fast pace (so that there was space for every kind of product in its initial development stage) classifies these struggles as small or micro battles, not wars. ade56facc (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Konqueror
I love how Konqueror gets a passing reference at the start, and from there on depraved mac fanbois shoot sticky wads of iGoo all over themselves talking about Safari and webkit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.34.40 (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

'Race to HTML5' - what's the point?
I don't see the purpose of the section Browser wars in its present form. It appears simply to be a list of version numbers and release dates for various browsers. Without some well-sourced prose about the subject of the title, and some narrative for the reader to follow, there is no purpose to this in this article. I think the same goes for the following section, 'In development'. This article is not a place for browsers to advertise and provide links to their latest releases. Unless someone can improve the sections, and convince me otherwise, I intend to remove these sections soon. I may try to find something about a purported browser war for HTML5 going on now, to replace the lists, but I'd appreciate some help finding such a source. --Nigelj (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Small edit
I made a small change to one of the sections in the article. The rest of the section is a chronological list of events, starting with the date they happened. The apple part started with a date in non-chronological order, so i moved the relevant,chronologically correct, date to the beginning of that part.

just wanted to explain my change in case someone was wondering why. 50.73.95.156 (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone reverted my edit, and i do understand and agree with their rationale. Instead of my edit, would someone who has a bit more time on their hands mind changing the phrasing of that apple related part? I get that it flows better the other way, and I still think it feels weird jumping to a 2002 date out of the blue and then immediately jumping back to the continued chronological structure; so i think it would be better if that part were re-written to flow well AND start with the chronologically relevant date. 50.73.95.156 (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, 50.73.95.156. It was me who reverted you. I also just moved your new comments to the bottom of the Talk page (where we normally put them. I'll have a good look at the point you raise. --Nigelj (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had a go in this edit. The whole paragraph was fairly hard to parse, so I've tried to shorten the sentences and make the steps clearer. What do you think? --Nigelj (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That looks really nice. Thanks for doing that. --The Great and Powerful Qbr12 (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(50.73.95.156 is The Great and Powerful Qbr12 by the way.)

Penguins use Firefox, seriously
I noticed that on the Marketing via Continent map, it shows Antartica using mainly Firefox. Is this a fact, or was it just overseen rdococ... (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a few people in Antarctica too, on the research stations. I guess they've got Internet, too. It's not as primitive there as it used to be during the times of Amundsen and Scott. --Maxl (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Question about statistics used
Just out of curiosity, why is the page using a source that admits that it goes by page views (statcounter, according to their FAQ: "We base our stats on page views (and not unique visitors)- we feel that this gives the fairest approximation of internet usage."), instead of one that goes by number of individual users (Net Market Share, say)? Wouldn't it be more encyclopedic to show how many people use each bowser instead of relying on how much each bowser is used?108.85.149.233 (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 * IMO, it reflects what browsers people use. Someone may use Internet Explorer at home for 90% of their browsing, but Firefox at work. If you try to measure users, you presumably give them both 1 "user" point, which doesn't seem like a good idea (although conversely, you could argue them to be separate users). As per StatCounter in your quote: "we feel that this gives the fairest approximation of internet usage". Note that the article does refer to Net Applications a few times, and I don't think there's too large a bias on StatCounter. —WOFall (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Opera Mini on Nintendo DS?
I was reading this article, and it says Opera Mini was on the Nintendo Wii and DS. Doesn't it mean 3DS instead of DS?--184.17.173.136 (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Nope, in fact the Internet Browser (Nintendo 3DS) is NetFront based. However it's incorrect to use the name "Opera Mini" for the Opera-based Nintendo browsers, so I changed that. —WOFall (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Confused about the map
Is it just me or there is a very large difference between 2 world maps in this article? The top one shows Firefox as a dominant browser in Africa, while the second map it is Opera. And why does it have 2 maps anyway?red_romanov (talk) 07:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears that a discussion about this went on here: Template talk:Countries by most used web browser. I haven't checked anyone's figures, but I found this interesting: "I think the problem is you are selecting "Browser Desktop & Mobile" in the source (Statcounter). If you select Desktop only, then you get a result like the Commons version (Africa dominated by orange Firefox). But if you include mobile browsers you get a sea of red in Africa as many are browsing on cheap feature phones which use Opera Mini to compress data usage. Really the caption of the Commons image should specify whether it is referring to desktop browser usage or all browser usage (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)" --Nigelj (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Browser wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090930144928/http://www.mozilla-europe.org/en/press/2009/06/30/1293-mozilla-advances-the-web-with-firefox-35 to http://www.mozilla-europe.org/en/press/2009/06/30/1293-mozilla-advances-the-web-with-firefox-35

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Browser wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19970629174318/http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/january/new0122d.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/january/new0122d.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Arrival of Edge and death of Presto marks a Third War
The second browser war is about the slow decline and death of IE at the hands of a group of smaller W3C standards-compliant browsers. The current period is distinctly different: no small browser engines like Presto remain, IE is nowhere to be seen and instead there is fierce competition between the giants in Microsoft, Google and Mozilla as they race to implement new standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyneverlies2 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Motives
I think it would be good to add a 'Motives' section to this article to explain why all these organisations compete to create the most popular web browser. Ultimately, what do they get out of it? All major browsers are free so how to they make money (which I assume is the ultimate motivating factor) for their owners? Chimpanzee Talk 11:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Browser wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014005303/http://www.zdnet.com/zdi/vrml/content/960125/pesce1.html to http://www.zdnet.com/zdi/vrml/content/960125/pesce1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100526190848/http://geeksmack.net/internet/910-firefox-35-surpasses-ie7-market-share to http://geeksmack.net/internet/910-firefox-35-surpasses-ie7-market-share

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Browser wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718025042/http://www.well.com/user/oink/oinkxweb/snippets/g7-bxls/webwar3.htm to http://www.well.com/user/oink/oinkxweb/snippets/g7-bxls/webwar3.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090601034720/http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/1998/1764.htm to http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/1998/1764.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160204010920/http://www.w3avenue.com/2009/03/24/browser-war-ria-future-of-web-development/ to http://www.w3avenue.com/2009/03/24/browser-war-ria-future-of-web-development/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100501065145/http://www.evolt.org/article/Browser_Wars_II_The_Saga_Continues/25/60181 to http://www.evolt.org/article/Browser_Wars_II_The_Saga_Continues/25/60181/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Wipe out mention of brave
Althought it is mentioned negatively, its mention at the end of the article seems like promotion. --Jakeukalane (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Biased towards Firefox
The article seems sort of biased favoring Firefox and over emphasizing its achievements in the second browser wars, even adding picture of Firefox's search engine. Chrome entered later in 2008 but by 2012 overtook Firefox as the dominant browser yet little emphasis have been given on its success and features. Also 60 % in 2017 is a bigger achievement than IE's 90 % in 2001, in 2017 a lot more countries and a larger population over the world had access to the internet compared to 2001. Despite Chrome being the clear winner it lacks sufficient focus unlike with IE the winner of the first war. More information on Chrome's success should have been included on the second war section. The least I could do was to add a picture of Chrome. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Browser wars