text:
Spoofing attack

In the context of information security, and especially network security, a spoofing attack is a situation in which a person or program successfully identifies as another by falsifying data, to gain an illegitimate advantage.

Spoofing and TCP/IP
Many of the protocols in the TCP/IP suite do not provide mechanisms for authenticating the source or destination of a message, leaving them vulnerable to spoofing attacks when extra precautions are not taken by applications to verify the identity of the sending or receiving host. IP spoofing and ARP spoofing in particular may be used to leverage man-in-the-middle attacks against hosts on a computer network. Spoofing attacks which take advantage of TCP/IP suite protocols may be mitigated with the use of firewalls capable of deep packet inspection or by taking measures to verify the identity of the sender or recipient of a message.

Domain name spoofing
The term 'Domain name spoofing' (or simply though less accurately, 'Domain spoofing') is used generically to describe one or more of a class of phishing attacks that depend on falsifying or misrepresenting an internet domain name. These are designed to persuade unsuspecting users into visiting a web site other than that intended, or opening an email that is not in reality from the address shown (or apparently shown). Although website and email spoofing attacks are more widely known, any service that relies on domain name resolution may be compromised.

Referrer spoofing
Some websites, especially pornographic paysites, allow access to their materials only from certain approved (login-) pages. This is enforced by checking the referrer header of the HTTP request. This referrer header, however, can be changed (known as "referrer spoofing" or "Ref-tar spoofing"), allowing users to gain unauthorized access to the materials.

Poisoning of file-sharing networks
"Spoofing" can also refer to copyright holders placing distorted or unlistenable versions of works on file-sharing networks.

E-mail address spoofing
The sender information shown in e-mails (the  field) can be spoofed easily. This technique is commonly used by spammers to hide the origin of their e-mails and leads to problems such as misdirected bounces (i.e. e-mail spam backscatter).

E-mail address spoofing is done in quite the same way as writing a forged return address using snail mail. As long as the letter fits the protocol, (i.e. stamp, postal code) the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) will send the message. It can be done using a mail server with telnet.

Geolocation
Geolocation spoofing occurs when a user applies technologies to make their device appear to be located somewhere other than where it is actually located. The most common geolocation spoofing is through the use of a Virtual Private Network (VPN) or DNS Proxy in order for the user to appear to be located in a different country, state or territory other than where they are actually located. According to a study by GlobalWebIndex, 49% of global VPN users utilize VPNs primarily to access territorially restricted entertainment content. This type of geolocation spoofing is also referred to as geo-piracy, since the user is illicitly accessing copyrighted materials via geolocation spoofing technology. Another example of geolocation spoofing occurred when an online poker player in California used geolocation spoofing techniques to play online poker in New Jersey, in contravention of both California and New Jersey state law. Forensic geolocation evidence proved the geolocation spoofing and the player forfeited more than $90,000 in winnings.

Caller ID spoofing
Public telephone networks often provide caller ID information, which includes the caller's number and sometimes the caller's name, with each call. However, some technologies (especially in Voice over IP (VoIP) networks) allow callers to forge caller ID information and present false names and numbers. Gateways between networks that allow such spoofing and other public networks then forward that false information. Since spoofed calls can originate from other countries, the laws in the receiver's country may not apply to the caller. This limits laws' effectiveness against the use of spoofed caller ID information to further a scam.

Global navigation satellite system spoofing
A global navigation satellite system (GNSS) spoofing attack attempts to deceive a GNSS receiver by broadcasting fake GNSS signals, structured to resemble a set of normal GNSS signals, or by rebroadcasting genuine signals captured elsewhere or at a different time. Spoofing attacks are generally harder to detect as adversaries generate counterfeit signals. These spoofed signals are challenging to recognize from legitimate signals, thus confusing ships' calculation of positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT). This means that spoofed signals may be modified in such a way as to cause the receiver to estimate its position to be somewhere other than where it actually is, or to be located where it is but at a different time, as determined by the attacker. One common form of a GNSS spoofing attack, commonly termed a carry-off attack, begins by broadcasting signals synchronized with the genuine signals observed by the target receiver. The power of the counterfeit signals is then gradually increased and drawn away from the genuine signals.

Even though GNSS is one of the most relied upon navigational systems, it has demonstrated critical vulnerabilities towards spoofing attacks. GNSS satellite signals have been shown to be vulnerable due to the signals’ being relatively weak on Earth’s surface, making GNSS signals ultimate targets for spoofing attacks. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the systems are continuously and recklessly deemed trustworthy even though there, at present, are no means of protecting the systems, signals, or safely guarding vessels against malicious spoofing attacks. Resultingly, the reliance upon systems such as GNSS has opened the door for outside attackers to send malicious commands that could result in the loss of human lives, environmental contamination, navigation accidents, and financial costs. However, seeing as more than 80% of global trade is moved through shipping companies, relying upon GNSS systems for navigation is necessary even though maritime vessels will be vulnerable to spoofing attacks with limited countermeasures.

All GNSS systems, such as the US GPS, Russia's GLONASS, China's BeiDou, and Europe's Galileo constellation, are vulnerable to this technique. It has been suggested that in order to mitigate some of the vulnerabilities the GNSS systems face concerning spoofing attacks, the use of more than one navigational system at once is recommended.

It was suggested that the December 2011 capture of a Lockheed RQ-170 drone aircraft in northeastern Iran was the result of such an attack. GNSS spoofing attacks had been predicted and discussed in the GNSS community as early as 2003. A "proof-of-concept" attack was successfully performed in June 2013, when the luxury yacht White Rose of Drachs was misdirected with spoofed GPS signals by a group of aerospace engineering students from the Cockrell School of Engineering at the University of Texas in Austin. The students were aboard the yacht, allowing their spoofing equipment to gradually overpower the signal strengths of the actual GPS constellation satellites, altering the course of the yacht.

In 2019, a British oil tanker called Stena Impero was the target of a spoofing attack that directed the ship into Iranian waters where it was seized by Iranian forces. Consequently, the vessel including its crew and cargo were used as pawns in a geopolitical conflict. Several shipping companies with vessels navigating around Iranian waters are instructing vessels to transit dangerous areas with high speed and during daylight.

On October 15, 2023, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) announced that GPS had been “restricted in active combat zones in accordance with various operational needs,” but has not publicly commented on more advanced interference. In April 2024, however, researchers at University of Texas at Austin detected false signals and traced their origin to a particular air base in Israel run by the IDF.

Russian GPS spoofing
In June 2017, approximately twenty ships in the Black Sea complained of GPS anomalies, showing vessels to be transpositioned miles from their actual location, in what Professor Todd Humphreys believed was most likely a spoofing attack. GPS anomalies around Putin's Palace and the Moscow Kremlin, demonstrated in 2017 by a Norwegian journalist on air, have led researchers to believe that Russian authorities use GPS spoofing wherever Vladimir Putin is located.

The mobile systems named Borisoglebsk-2, Krasukha and Zhitel are reported to be able to spoof GPS.

Incidents involving Russian GPS spoofing include during a November 2018 NATO exercise in Finland that led to ship collision (unconfirmed by authorities). and a 2019 incident of spoofing from Syria by the Russian military that affected the civil airport in Tel Aviv.

In December of 2022 significant GPS interference in several Russian cities was reported by the GPSJam service; the interference was attributed to defensive measures taken by Russian authorities in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine.

GPS Spoofing with SDR
Since the advent of Software Defined Radio (SDR), GPS simulator applications have been made available to the general public. This has made GPS spoofing much more accessible, meaning it can be performed at limited expense and with a modicum of technical knowledge. Whether this technology applies to other GNSS systems remains to be demonstrated.

Preventing GNSS spoofing
The Department of Homeland Security, in collaboration with the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) and the National Coordinating Center for Communications (NCC), released a paper which lists methods to prevent this type of spoofing. Some of the most important and most recommended to use are: These installation and operation strategies and development opportunities can significantly enhance the ability of GPS receivers and associated equipment to defend against a range of interference, jamming, and spoofing attacks. A system and receiver agnostic detection software offers applicability as cross-industry solution. Software implementation can be performed in different places within the system, depending on where the GNSS data is being used, for example as part of the device's firmware, operating system, or on the application level.
 * 1) Obscure antennas. Install antennas where they are not visible from publicly accessible locations or obscure their exact locations by introducing impediments to hide the antennas.
 * 2) Add a sensor/blocker. Sensors can detect characteristics of interference, jamming, and spoofing signals, provide local indication of an attack or anomalous condition, communicate alerts to a remote monitoring site, and collect and report data to be analyzed for forensic purposes.
 * 3) Extend data spoofing whitelists to sensors. Existing data spoofing whitelists have been and are being implemented in government reference software, and should also be implemented in sensors.
 * 4) Use more GNSS signal types. Modernized civil GPS signals are more robust than the L1 signal and should be leveraged for increased resistance to interference, jamming, and spoofing.
 * 5) Reduce latency in recognition and reporting of interference, jamming, and spoofing. If a receiver is misled by an attack before the attack is recognized and reported, then backup devices may be corrupted by the receiver before hand-over.

A method proposed by researchers from the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Maryland, College Park and the School of Optical and Electronic Information at Huazhong University of Science and Technology that aims to help mitigate the effects of GNSS spoofing attacks by using data from a vehicles controller area network (CAN) bus. The information would be compared to that of received GNSS data and compared in order to detect the occurrence of a spoofing attack and to reconstruct the driving path of the vehicle using that collected data. Properties such as the vehicles speed and steering angle would be amalgamated and regression modeled in order to achieve a minimum error in position of 6.25 meters. Similarly, a method outlined by researchers in a 2016 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium conference paper discuss the idea of using cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC) and vehicle to vehicle (V2V) communications in order to achieve a similar goal. In this method, the communication abilities of both cars and radar measurements are used to compare against the supplied GNSS position of both cars to determine the distance between the two cars which is then compared to the radar measurements and checked to make sure they match. If the two lengths match within a threshold value, then no spoofing has occurred, but above this threshold, the user is notified so that s/he can take action.

Voice spoofing
Information technology plays an increasingly large role in today's world, and different authentication methods are used for restricting access to informational resources, including voice biometrics. Examples of using speaker recognition systems include internet banking systems, customer identification during a call to a call center, as well as passive identification of a possible criminal using a preset "blacklist".

Technologies related to the synthesis and modeling of speech are developing very quickly, allowing one to create voice recordings almost indistinguishable from real ones. Such services are called Text-to-Speech (TTS) or Style transfer services. The first one aimed at creating a new person. The second one aimed at identifies as another in voice identification systems.

A large number of scientists are busy developing algorithms that would be able to distinguish the synthesized voice of the machine from the real one. On the other hand, these algorithms need to be thoroughly tested to make sure that the system really works. However, an early study has shown that feature design and masking augmentation have a significant impact on the ability to detect spoofed voice.

Facial recognition spoofing
Facial recognition technology is widely employed in various areas, including immigration checks and phone security, as well as on popular platforms like Airbnb and Uber to verify individuals' identities. However, the increased usage has rendered the system more susceptible to attacks, given the widespread integration of facial recognition systems in society. Some online sources and tutorials detail methods for tricking facial recognition systems through practices known as face spoofing or presentation attacks, which can pose risks in terms of unauthorized access. To mitigate these dangers, measures such as liveness checks (verifying blinking), deep learning, and specialized cameras like 3D cameras have been introduced to prevent facial recognition spoofing. It is important to implement comprehensive security procedures like these to protect against face spoofing attempts and uphold the overall security and integrity of systems relying on facial recognition authentication.

Standard facilities that might be subverted

 * (in order to use another, more appropriate one).

title: Spoofing attack


text:
Talk:Ring-tailed lemur

Major Update - 06/20/2008
Using research material I have accumulated while doing a project for the Lemur Conservation Foundation, I have spent the last 18 hours heavily revising the Ring-tailed Lemur article. Debatable information without sources was replaced with verifiable content and references. Several sections were re-organized and/or re-written. A picture of a "lemur eating fruit" was removed and replaced with a picture of a "Ring-tailed Lemur eating tamarind" (a native fruit to Madagascar). An entirely new section with sample audio clips of Ring-tailed Lemur vocalizations was added. (I hope to further update that section in the near future, adding more text and in-line audio clips that weren't appropriate for the table.) Audio clips and journal article details were used with permission (GDFL) from the author. If I can obtain them (and the rights), better Ring-tailed Lemur pictures will be offered soon.

Hopefully the article merits more than "Start-class" quality now. I intend to someday make this a feature article, so feedback is strongly encouraged.

I'm going to bed now. I need sleep.

Visionholder (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 * This is certainly one of the best Wikipedia entries I have ever seen. Thanks and congratulations, Visionholder.  Hajnalka (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Thanks! The article has progressed significantly since I wrote the message above, but still has a long way to go.  I was in the process of revamping it again, but I only got half way through before getting delayed by other projects.  Hopefully I can finish cleaning it up and adding new information by the end of the year. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 01:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sympatric Species
I think there are some issues with the list of sympatric species. For example, I do not believe any ruffed lemur is sympatric with the ring-tailed lemur. Also, I believe that the sympatric brown lemur species is the red-fronted brown lemur, not the common brown lemur. I checked page 248 of the "Lemurs of Madagascar" book as referenced and the listed species were not on that page. Perhaps additional pages need to be added to the reference. I changed the brown lemur reference in the article, but I have not touched the ruffed lemur reference, in case I missed something in the reference.

By the way, I am not sure how best to do this, but the article would probably read better if the list of audio files (or at least most of them) was moved to the end so the list doesn't impede reading the article.Rlendog (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the ruffed lemur species do not occur anywhere near the Ring-tailed Lemur's range. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the bad reference. According to the Primate Info Net fact sheet by Cawthorn Lang, Varecia variegata and Eulemur fulvus are sympatric species.  I forgot I had used multiple sources for this.  In regards to Eulemur fulvus, her reference dates to 1994, before Eulemur rufus was promoted to species status.  As for Varecia variegata, I looked in "Lemurs of Madagascar" and although it does not mention them as being sympatric, there is some potential range overlap of Lemur catta (page 238) and Varecia variegata (page 304 - see "possible original extent of distribution") east of Ihosy.  Whether this one reference and inference from range maps merits reinstatement is up to you.  I was simply reporting what my sources claimed.  Visionholder (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the same maps, and I disagree that the inference can be made. They may have been sympatric historically, but they are certainly not sympatric now. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, your revision will stand. Case closed (unless new research shows otherwise). Visionholder (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Natural history vs. behaviour
I respectfully disagree with the revision of the "Natural History" section to "Behaviour." According to use on page 21 of "Lemurs of Madagascar" (and doubtless many other sources, as well as my personal college-level education in ecology, ethology, & evolution), "Natural History" summarizes the ecology & behaviour of a species. As the page stands now, the new "Behaviour" section includes not just behaviour, but also the basic ecology of the species. Hence my reason for naming the section "Natural History."

Rather than fight back and forth with our revisions, I was wondering how everyone would feel about the following revision:

 * 1) Renaming "Behaviour" back to "Natural History" (as a level 1 heading)
 * 2) Inserting an "Ecology" (level 2) heading directly under "Natural History"
 * 3) Relocating "Sympatric Relations" between "Geographic range and habitat" and "Diet"
 * 4) Demoting "Geographic range and habitat" and "Sympatric Relations" to a level 3 heading.
 * 5) Inserting a "Behaviour" (level 2) heading under "Geographic range and habitat"
 * 6) Demoting "Diet" through "Breeding and reproduction" to level 3 headings.

I feel that this would appropriately categorize all ecology and behaviour facts under a more general "natural history" heading. I also hope this is an acceptible compromise. Comments? Visionholder (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Sounds good. the arearrangement will make the headings fit better. However, the WP:MOS requires that headings not be capitalizaed, except for the first word and any proper nouns. (So, "Natural history", etc.) - UtherSRG (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 * This approach sounds good to me.Rlendog (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I removed the "Natural history" heading today, per the proposed WikiProject Primates Article format. Visionholder (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Toilet-claw vs. grooming claw
Several months back, an unregistered user changed my mention of the toilet-claw to "grooming claw". Until then, I had personally never heard of this anatomical feature being called that. After checking several sources, I reverted it back to "toilet-claw" right before I started work on the major revision of the Lemur catta article. When I noticed that it was changed back in less than 24 hours, I did some research to determine the most common name for this anatomical feature. Sources that use the term "toilet-claw" include:

 * 1) Primate Info Net on factsheets for:
 * 2) Lesser bushbaby (Galago)
 * 3) Aye-aye (Daubentonia madagascariensis)
 * 4) Animal Diversity Web on information pages for:
 * 5) toothcomb and toilet claw
 * 6) Tarsius tarsier
 * 7) Family Lorisidae
 * 8) Family Lemuridae
 * 9) Family Galagidae
 * 10) Euoticus elegantulus
 * 11) Family Cheirogaleidae
 * 12) "Animal", DK Publishing, Smithsonian Institution, ISBN: 978-0756616342
 * 13) "The Encyclopedia of Animals: A Complete Visual Guide" ISBN: 978-0520244061
 * 14) Nails and claws in primate evolution, Christophe Soligob and Alexandra E. Müller, Journal of Human Evolution, Volume 36, Issue 1, January 1999, Pages 97-114

Sources that use the term "grooming claw" (that I found) include:

 * 1) Husbandry manual for Asian Lorisines
 * 2) Unique Characteristics of Primates, Smithsonian National Zoological Park

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that most of the scientific journal articles that I've seen mention this feature have only called it a "toilet-claw." Again, rather than getting into a revision war, can we come to a consensus on this, first? Visionholder (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Do you know if the Mittermeier book ever refers to grooming or toilet claws? I did a quick scan and didn't find any references, but  the index is not exactly condusive to this sort of thing.  If there is a reference to toilet/grooming claws there, I would be inclined to use the consistent term in the Wikipedia article.Rlendog (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't find mention of either term in Mittermeier. I'm at a loss. I would prefer the more accessible term "grooming claw", but since there seem to be more uses of "toilet claw", I suppose that's what it should be. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As both of you pointed out, Mittermeier doesn't appear to mention it. Although "grooming claw" sounds cleaner, I'm strongly inclined to go with "toilet-claw," so I will make the change.  I have personal contacts at both the Lemur Conservation Foundation and the Duke Lemur Center, so I will also contact them to get a more definitive answer.  Ultimately, pages need to be created for both the toilet-claw and the tooth-comb.  I'll try to tackle that soon, as well. Visionholder (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Changes have been made. I was also tinkering with the "tooth comb" reference, but reverted the spelling back after a quick glance over my sources.  "Dental comb" is also common, so we may need to get a definitive answer on that as well.  Visionholder (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternative terms should be included in the article. One function of an encyclopedia is to provide vocabulary. Because the literature sometimes uses the term grooming claw, that term should be included in this article, in parentheses. Instead of "vs", think "also".
 * The term grooming claw has been added as requested. As I slowly work on revising all lemur pages, I will be sure to include the term in a similar fashion. - Visionholder (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Or, simply pick one term and wikify it. Toilet-claw exists and its current redirects include Toilet claw and Grooming claw. --Una Smith (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing the redirects. Sorry I didn't do them earlier.  Are we still good with mentioning both names in the article, or is that redundant?  - Visionholder (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My view is, if all the alternate terms are given together in one page about the thing, it is not very important which term is used in the link to that page. One thin g you maybe should do is search (use the Search button, not the Go button) for all the terms and wikify them.  I did that and saw a bunch of pages that do not link to the article, but I did not bother editing those pages.  --Una Smith (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, this issue is quite separate from the GA review. I reviewed the article and listed the issues needed to bring the article up to GA criteria; those are the only issues you have to fix to achieve GA. A Good Article has to be good, not perfect. Stand by while I deal with the GAN. --Una Smith (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

FA push
(Adding header between transclusion and new text on this page. --Una Smith (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

 * Thank you very much for your time and effort in the GA review. If you ever need a favor, let me know.  As for not needing perfection to be rated GA (as you stated in the section above), that may be true... however, my goal is to get this article to FA status.  If you have a little bit more time in the near future, would you please give me feedback to tell me what you would like to see in order to merit A-class?  As I did today, I will do my best to make the revisions immediately.  After that, I will submit for a FA review, so additional feedback and general FA suggestions would be very valuable.

 * I'm wanting to added a section entitled either "Cognitive abilities" or "Intelligence", and I plan on adding video of spur-marking behavior and hopefully a stink fight (if I can get it). Aside from those additions, and maybe some re-working of the references, I'll need some pointers on where else to take this article to merit FA.

 * Best wishes! - Visionholder (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Visionholder, thanks for your offer. I reviewed this article because reviewing helps to improve content. I think Wikipedia should be about its content, not about trading personal favors, so you might return the favor to Wikipedia (not to me) by reviewing an article nominated for GAN. --Una Smith (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding how to get to FA, read Featured article criteria and also watch some other FACs. I would not bother with class A. The problems I see most often in science FACs involve quality of prose (criterion 1a) and appropriate structure (2b). Problems re those two criteria often go hand in hand. This article's lead, for example, has problems re both 1a and 2b. It has three main themes, commingled: (1) differential diagnosis of this species (what is most unique about it);  (2) this species compared and contrasted with closely related species;  and (3) habitat loss and species conservation. Try this: imagine you are a reader, not an editor; read the entire article, and for each paragraph write a topic sentence. That will help you find places in the article where prose and/or structure need work. --Una Smith (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Query
While doing some clean up, I found this statement: As for the Ring-tailed Lemur, it is currently thought that it may share closer affinities to the bamboo lemurs of the genus Hapalemur. Um... closer to Hapalemur than what? Closer to it than something is is closer to Hapalemu? Or closer to Hapalemur than to Eulemur? This needs to be resolved. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Feel free to clean up the wording, if you'd like.  - Visionholder (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving refs out of templates
I understand and respect the desire to move refs out of the taxobox template, however, the edits by AnomieBOT broke some refs, one of which is only used in the taxobox and no where else in the article (the Lemur catta page link). Consequently, I fixed the refs by essentially undoing the edit. Anyway, I suspect someday we'll need to re-do all the refs anyway, possibly using the style involving both Notes and References sections. Thoughts? - Visionholder (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with taking the refs out of the taxobox, but I understand it when there are one or more instances of the same ref in the article body. However, I combined all the MSW3 refs since they are all for the same page in the book. (Yeah, I know that means the link to the website is not 100% correct, but it just looks wrong to me to look through the references and see three seeming identical references.... And the website is easy to navigate through.) I'm not a fan of splitting the References into Notes and References, but I also understand that at some point that becomes more manageable and readable. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, what do you think about the multiple refs to Cawthorn Lang paper (from Primate Info Net: Primate Factsheets)? There are two issues here.  First, the factsheet is spread across multiple pages, so should each individual page be referenced, depending on which one the information was sourced from?  (FYI: My citation of that source generalized the pages as one source, but Rlendog cited one of the later pages.)  Second, if information is sourced on different dates, either by the same or different editors, then the "access date" or "retreived on" date will be different.  Would that merit separate citations?
 * And one last question on the Groves citations: What pages are the ruffed lemurs on? I don't have the book, and I want to make sure the page numbers are correct (and not just carelessly copied from another page).  - Visionholder (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Notes for FA

 * Make all redlinks blue.

 * All books need page refs - have a look at Lion to see at the bottom in the ref section.

 * On first glance, there are too many subsections. I will look closer later but have little time now.

Back later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the pointers. I will work on all of this.  I'll start with the redlinks, although I would value UtherSRG's or Rlendog's opinion on how to handle the links (or new pages?) for the 3 scent gland mentioned, especially since many lemurs and some other mammals share them.  (Should we just point to the article Scent glands, or more specifically to Sebaceous gland and Anal scent gland while doing some editing on those pages?)  As for the refs, I was kind of expecting your suggestion.  I'll work on it shortly.  The subsections, however, I'm not sure on.  I have been trying to both comply with the WikiProject Primates Article format and categorize distinct types of information as succinctly as possible.  I'm open to new ideas, so whatever you and your team feel is needed, just let me know. - Visionholder (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

 * My inclination would be to link the glands to scent gland since that really covers the topic. I think that sebaceous gland is a bit more esoteric, and I'm not sure I'd consider either of these to be anal scent glands.  One possible alternative would be to direct brachial gland to lymph node, and add some verbiage to the lymph node article to cover brachial glands, but, again, that may be a bit more esoteric than necessary.  Another alternative is to write separate articles for each of the glands, assuming there is enough material specific to these particular glands to warrant an article independent of the scent gland article.  But you probably have more expertise there than me to know if that is the case. Rlendog (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Wow, had not seen the primate article format. That's fine then, never mind. Had sorta developed one for birds and fungi, and similar one for disnosaurs, while Lion was an aberration as I did it to conform with Marskell's FAs which preceded lion, Jaguar and Puma. Have to read and think on the scent gland when I have more time. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Can you be more specific about the comment about page refs? Unless I missed one all the book references seem to have page refs.  The differences I can see between the page refs on the Lion article and this one are that: (1) the pages are referenced with more specificity in the Lion article (i.e., if 3 facts from 3 different pages are referenced, there are 3 distict footnotes), and (2) the page references have a "p." in front of them.  But I want to make sure that these (or one of these) is the issue being referenced since I have been reverted (by multiple people, including during a GA review) several times on different articles for attempting to create a footnotes that conform more to the Lion article in these respects.  The multiple page references have been combined in order to "clean up" the reference list, and the "p's" have been deleted as unnecessary.  So I want to make sure to address the proper issue(s) here.  Thanks. Rlendog (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Red links have been cleaned up, and changes to the referencing have been started. Once Rlendog's question (above) is answered, that part of the clean-up will be completed.  Otherwise, I'm ready for another set of suggestions.  - Visionholder (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Sorry, was in a bit of a hurry with some flyby pointers. I can see better now. I use 'p.' s in book refs but not in journal refs (which is what I can see in the ref section here (?)). I haven't checked the history though.

 * Another point - I thought you'd have to mention Fierce Creatures where lemurs seemed to play a central plot element. I can see if I can find a ref when I next visit my mother who has a monumental film library, unless you find something online :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I can add a mention of Fierce Creatures. I own the film on DVD.  I haven't added it because I was trying to keep the "Cultural References" to a minimum.  Technically, we could mention the brief appearance in Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium, but I think such mentions will only bog the page down with trivial details, not enhance its quality.  Brief appearances in a movie or TV shows probably shouldn't merit mentioning.

 * As for the book refs, I only moved the ones that had multiple sections of the book referenced. If references pointed to only one section of a book (a contiguous block of pages on a particular subject), then I left the reference the way it was.  Please let me know if that's acceptible.  If I need to find the exact pages where every single fact comes from and reference them separately, also let me know.  Like I said, if you want more done on the references, please give very detailed instructions.  I looked at the Lion page, and it appeared to have several contradictions, so I used my own judgement for the last set of reference edits.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Visionholder (talk • contribs) 03:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree about not mentioning brief appearances - refs are ok by me. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks! Is there anything else you can recommend?  (Take your time if needed.)  If not, where should I go from here?  I'm still waiting for a 3rd supporter on the FA-Team's Mission Proposals page.  I'm looking forward to working with the FA-Team, so I hope it happens.  If not, should I go ahead and submit for a FA review?  - Visionholder (talk) 05:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"Cognitive abilities and tool use" section added
I have finally written up the one remaining section that I know has been missing from this page -- Cognitive abilities and tool use. If someone has time, please read it over and ensure that it contains a NPOV (neutral point of view). (This topic overlaps with some of my personal research, so I have an axe to grind... but I've tried to keep it out of the article.)

Although far from perfect, I feel this is some of my better writing. I'm hoping it's more up-to-par with the FA status I'm trying to push for. Regardless, copyediting is encouraged.

I'm going to be very busy for the next couple of days. After things clear up, I will work on the red links and references as requested. (Sorry for the delays.) - Visionholder (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Cultural references section
An understandable attempt was made to delete the Cultural references section from the article. However, during the process of promoting it to Feature Article, the consensus was that a Cultural References section was acceptable if kept short and focused on very well-known examples from film. (I'm sorry, but I tried to provide a redirect to an archival copy of that discussion, but was unable to locate it.) For example, the animated film series, Madagascar, would be mentioned since a Ring-tailed Lemur play a key role and helped popularize this well-known film, whereas the brief appearance in Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium would not be mentioned.

In general, there are not many films or documentaries covering the Ring-tailed lemur, so the section should remain short and manageable. I am monitoring the page daily and will not allow the section to get out-of-hand. However, I encourage discussion about what is and is not worth mentioning on this page. Admittedly, some of what is mentioned in that section might be worth deleting. However, I would prefer to discuss this here on the talk page before major deletions are attempted--particularly those that involve the deletion of the entire section. –Visionholder (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming article revamp
I will be the first to admit that the FA standards have greatly improved since this article passed its FAC. For that reason, I am planning a revamp of this article within the coming months. I have obtained many new articles and an entire book on Ring-tailed Lemur biology, which will hopefully provide new details and replace less-than-reliable sources currently used as references. As with all my re-writes, please be patient. It is coming. –  VisionHolder  «  talk  »  22:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: I have now officially begun the note-taking stage that precedes my re-writing process. It may take me several weeks, but once my notes are complete, I will work my way through the article and start making significant changes.  Upon completion, I will submit the article for FAR to make sure the article is up to the current FA standards.  I hope that this will only take a couple of weeks, but given that this is the most heavily studied lemur species, I can't make any promises. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 03:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Another update: Not only is there an insane amount of material on this species to sort though, real life is starting to takes its toll on me, so I will be on a limited Wikibreak while I struggle to make time for myself, some research I'm doing (involving lemurs!), and a job that's not respecting my availability. I will be working casually on this article offline for the rest of the year, and I hope at the beginning of 2011 (or earlier) to fully resume the re-write.  Sorry for the delays. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 22:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Re-vamp in progress
The re-vamp is officially in progress, and the first three sections of the article have been nearly finished. I just need to finish the remaining sections and review a few more sources, and then I will submit it for a Featured Article Review. If you see some broken references for a couple hours at a time, then you know a major edit is in progress. I will post back when the re-vamp is complete. –  VisionHolder « talk » 20:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
There is an odd type of vandalism in the Evolutionary History section. In the second sentence there is a short phrase that appears when viewing the article that doesn't appear while editing it that says "except the fact that this little *$^*&W named Ricecake had his way with a colony of lemurs in his mansion in Shangai, China, Asia" I'm unsure how to delete this entry, and just created this account to point this out. Jvbridge (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Really it is a very, very strange situation, because the vandalism was reverted, but nevertheless the text kept on being seen, slightly really rare. To solve it, I copied the previous version to the vandalism, and I did a small change, and it seems that now it is already solved. Thanks for the notice. --Furado (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Lemur ball

Don't know if this photo of Ring-tailed lemurs in a lemur ball is of any use in the article. Stronach (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing. At the moment, the article is fairly well illustrated, but when I get around to finishing the re-vamp, maybe there will be room.  Even if it's not used here, it may be used on other lemur articles or on other non-English Wikis.  –  VisionHolder  « talk » 14:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Moskito Island
First of all "Moskito" is not a misspelling. Richard Branson has brought 9 Lemurs To the British VI. Moskito island to be exact. You smart asses can jazz it up my input and enter it. http://www.bvibeacon.com/1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=266:branson-lemurs-are-coming —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.51.127.188 (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point (in the grand scheme of things), I think this topic qualifies more as trivia. Depending on how things develop, I was thinking about noting something small about on the Lemur article.  I don't think each species article needs this information unless a major re-introduction project gets underway for individual species. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 14:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on behavior section
The Wikipedia entry on the Ring-tailed lemur is a very well organized article with a variety of information on the species and seems to be complete as it is recognized as a “Featured Article.” This includes geographic information, anatomy, and evolution. There is also some information about the species’ behavior including social systems and communication. While the behavior section includes information about social ranks and fighting, more should be included about kin recognition and altruistic and spiteful behaviors which is the focus of chapter 11. For example, are the “sleeping parties” that stay together organized by kin relationships? My group could contribute to this section. The sections on communication and reproduction appear to be very complete. Looking at the talk sections, it seems as though the last major revisions to the article were done in 2008. Relating to our area of interest, there seems to be some conflict as to whether the “Behavior” section should be instead renamed to “Natural History.” Before the article was moved into the Featured Article category, there were some issues with the pictures that illustrate the article which were revised. Additionally all the links had to be changed to blue and the books that were cited needed page references.E.middlebrook (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. First of all, what is "chapter 11"?  The rest of Wikipedia is not taking your class, nor does it have access to your textbooks.  ;-)  I admit that this article is a work-in-progress.  It was the first article I re-vamped (in 2008) and my first featured article.  Most of the issues you raised are on my list of things to do.  Because this is a featured article and receives relatively high-traffic (for a non-entertainment article), and because you are working through an Ambassador Program project, I would suggest using the talk pages to suggest specific changes so that we can discuss them and polish them up.  (For example, post something like the following on the talk pages: "We suggest that paragraph X in section Z be re-worded to read as follows..." Of course, include your citations.)  When things look good to everyone, then I will encourage you to post the changes to the article.
 * In regards to the formatting of references, I encourage you to use the same format I have recently started using on the other lemuriform articles I've written (for consistency). This involves the use of Sfn—see Archaeoindris or Slow loris for examples.  This will allow you to include specific page numbers in the citation.  If you have questions or need help, just ask.  I had plans to re-vamp the references on this article to use this format, but haven't had time.  Assistance with this would be greatly appreciated.
 * In regards to the section names, "Behavior" follows the guidelines for WikiProject:Primates. See WikiProject Primates/Article format for more details.  I originally tried using the section title "Natural history" several years ago, but the consensus was against it.
 * By the way, I'm a "retired" online ambassador. If you want me to join up with your project, just let me know. –  Maky  « talk » 20:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Commentary on Cooperation
The ring-tailed lemur is highly recognized for its long, pied tail. This article mentions briefly that ring-tailed lemurs are vocal creatures and issue alarm calls to one another. However, the article doesn’t identify these alarm calls as being cooperative, which is something that I would have done. Similarly, the author mentions alloparenting but fails to elaborate on how this advantages the giver and not just the recipient. The cooperative value of alarm calls and alloparenting needs to be further explained. Moreover, ring-tailed lemurs exhibit high cognition and tool usage, which creates more potential areas for identifying cooperation. Perhaps a specialized toolmaker might make tools for other members in his troop? Are the lemurs, because of their high cognition, able to ascertain the relatedness between themselves and another lemur? Marklxb (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Very interesting questions, but do you have sources? If I didn't elaborate in the article, it was probably because I didn't have a source.  (On Wikipedia, you can't offer your own conjecture.  You can only summarize reliable sources.)  I'm not saying that the sources don't exist, but if you can find them, I will gladly work with you to incorporate the material and enhance the article.  Regarding tool use, I am very familiar with that literature, so unless I've missed something, then I'm certain that there is little that can be said for cooperation... aside from maybe one reference I can send to you.  Lemurs are not tool makers, and the "tool use" is poorly understood at best (and has never been observed in the wild).  Some of your questions seem more appropriate for apes.  Good luck finding reliable sources, though!  –  Maky  « talk » 20:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Commentary on Cooperation 2
Female Philopatry

Male ring-tailed lemurs leave the troop upon sexual maturation in search of a new group. Females, on the other hand, remain in the troop or home range for life and welcome in new, unrelated adult males periodically. Known as female philopatry, this means that in any observed group of ring-tailed lemurs, all the females are kin and all the mature males are outsiders who have been naturalized into the group. This explains the strong alliances that closely-related females share with each other. While male ring-tailed lemurs do enjoy the benefits of occasional partnership, fully fledged alliances are only found in females. In addition to females remaining in their natal group, females are also dominant amongst ring-tailed lemurs. They enjoy feeding priority and do not receive any aggression from males, who in turn maintain a spatial distance from female members.

 * Very good. I've made a few fixes above. –  Maky  « talk » 06:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Alarm Calls

Ring-tailed lemurs are highly prized for their vocal ability and they use it in cooperation. Alarm calls, issued at the sight of predators, can be accompanied by or substituted for silent body signals. The type of predator will determine the kind of alarm call issued. For example, avian predators will warrant a different range of vocalizations than those emitted in response to terrestrial predators. Because ring-tailed lemurs are semi-arboreal and spend an equal amount of time in the trees and on the ground, specialized alarm calls may have evolved to accommodate for environmental variability. Because alarm calls are issued more often when infants are present, they may have evolved as a method to reduce infant mortality.

 * "Highly prized"? This makes it sound like people go out and hunt them or take them as pets because of their calls.  Please reword.  Otherwise, very good.  I'm eager to see the sources. –  Maky  « talk » 06:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Optimal Group Size

A constant cost of group membership across almost all species is competition for food resources. Because ring-tailed lemurs live in troops (except for the occasional roaming adult male) its members must constantly evaluate the net benefits and costs from remaining in that group. In lemurs, when food was scarce, cortisol levels rise in the brain causing group members to be more susceptible to disease through immuno-suppression, poor growth and weight gain, and reduced reproductive success. For ring-tailed lemurs, optimal group size is directly proportional to the stores of food available at the time. The optimal troop size for a group of lemurs will be one that minimizes the cortisol levels that have been observed to increase when food becomes scarce, which is a membership of 9-19 animal (a range centered around the average for ring-tailed lemurs). Groups outside of this range consistently have females with higher cortisol levels, which is indicative of undue stress.

 * I don't think the first sentence is needed. It seems redundant with the second sentence.  "In lemurs, when food was scarce"... is that all lemurs, or just the ring-tailed lemur?  "Undue stress"—how is it "undue"?  Otherwise I tweaked the wording in a few places. –  Maky  « talk » 06:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Alloparental Care

Alloparenting (caring for offspring other than one's own), which is seen in many communal species, is universally exhibited by ring-tailed lemurs, regardless of sex or rank. Whereas most animals become alloparents through manipulation or kin selection, some male ring-tailed lemurs have been found to groom and play with infants with whom they share no blood relation. Yet it has been found that the male alloparent will have had previous copulations with the infant’s mother, and even sired the infant’s half-sibling. Infanticide in ring-tailed lemurs is rare, and a birth in one year does not affect reproductive success in subsequent years. Marklxb (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I made quite a few structural fixes. Also, if the reproductive success discussed at the end referring to males, females, or both? –  Maky  « talk » 06:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

 * The writing is very good. As I said, I made a few fixes.  We will, of course, need to see your references and confirm that it covers what you have written.  Now here's the wonderfully tricky part about editing already developed articles on Wikipedia: incorporating the information into the existing structure of the article!  The article needs to flow, so we can't just plop this stuff in without regard to what's already written.  (This is one of the reasons I prefer to re-write under-developed articles.  I just replace everything.)  I can try to help with this (once we've verified the sources) sometime this week, if time permits.  But again, good job.  –  Maky  « talk » 06:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories
The reason we placed the two genera categories on this article is because this article acts as both the page for the species and genus. (It is monotypic.) This has also been done for the FA False potto and Potto. – Maky  « talk » 18:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I think that practice is wrong. WP:RCAT spells out instructions for "Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category" which support keeping common names out of taxonomic categories, even where that means categorizing redirects rather than articles. There's also discussion on the subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Compare also with List of mammal genera, which consists only of Latin genus names. Surely they shouldn't be replaced with English species names, even in the case of monotypy. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine... as long as the genus gets added to its category in some fashion. However, you only removed it from this article without adding it to the redirect.  Thank you for sharing the discussion you linked above—I had not been aware of it.  But at this point, I don't feel the proper solution is to remove the genus Lemur from the category listings completely.  Since you seem to be the only one pushing for conformity here, I suggest making all the appropriate changes.  In honesty, if you had added the categories to the genus redirect (as well as supplying a edit description), I might not have reverted you.  But thank you for your efforts in resolving this confusing situation. –  Maky  « talk » 20:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding. I do intend to get to similar cases in the future. I'll take care of the potto and false potto cases since you've brought them to my attention. I would've added the categories to the redirect, but they're already expressed at Lemur (genus). That would be the redirect to tag, correct, given that Lemur itself isn't about a genus? --BDD (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not being clear—yes, I wanted it on the genus redirect, not on Lemur. Also, sorry for not noticing that it was already there. –  Maky  « talk » 23:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Queries
Hi, ... just a couple of queries while I'm here ... Not big issues, just sample queries. Bst, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 12:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm unsure if "female dominant" should be hyphenated?  It is also female dominant, a trait common among lemurs.
 * 2) These numbers seem quite precise-- should they be expressed as averages. or are lemurs really that precise?   Established males transfer every 3.5 years,[32] although young males may transfer every 1.4 years.
 * 3) Uncited at "During the mating season, males wave their scented tails ... "
 * 4) cite, synth?  "therefore, interfering with this natural cycle could significantly impact the gene pool."

 * I don't think I've ever seen "female dominant" hyphenated in the literature. Otherwise everything else should be fixed. –  Maky  « talk » 00:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Maky ... all the best to you, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ring-tailed lemur. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/inthewild/cleese.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ovguide.com/tv/lemur_street.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailyllama.com/news/2002/llama143.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/10/981012073550.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/a-lemurs-tale-introduction/2306/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.xavier.edu/occ/documents/Humanitas_32.1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100420175602/http://www.duke.edu/web/mind/level2/faculty/liz/Publications/Merritt%2C%20MacLean%2C%20Jaffe%20and%20Brannon%20%282007%29.pdf to http://www.duke.edu/web/mind/level2/faculty/liz/Publications/Merritt%2C%20MacLean%2C%20Jaffe%20and%20Brannon%20%282007%29.pdf

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) 16:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ring-tailed lemur. 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/20110726221826/http://www.lemurreserve.org/ringtailedlemur.html to http://www.lemurreserve.org/ringtailedlemur.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5vKSlRiBi?url=http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/inthewild/cleese.html to https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/inthewild/cleese.html

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) 11:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ring-tailed lemur. 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://www.webcitation.org/6Vml3xYbr?url=http://www.ovguide.com/tv/lemur_street.htm to http://www.ovguide.com/tv/lemur_street.htm

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) 12:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Adithmetic?
Stop thus article needs some fat sources Lexein (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta).jpg scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta).jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 26, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-06-26. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Ring-tailed lemur


text:
Farm Service Agency

The Farm Service Agency (FSA) is the United States Department of Agriculture agency that was formed by merging the farm loan portfolio and staff of the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) and the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS). The Farm Service Agency implements agricultural policy, administers credit and loan programs, and manages conservation, commodity, disaster, and farm marketing programs through a national network of offices. The Administrator of FSA reports to the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm Production and Conservation. The current administrator is Zach Ducheneaux. The FSA of each state is led by a politically appointed State Executive Director (SED).

History
The origins of the FSA start with several earlier agencies starting in the 1930s, with several programs and agencies developed during the Great Depression. The Resettlement Administration of 1935 was an early attempt to relocate entire farming communities to more profitable locations, but this was ultimately abandoned as it proved too controversial, expensive, and showed no signs of success. In 1937, the Administration was transformed into the Farm Security Administration and switched focus to the Standard Rural Rehabilitation Loan Program, which provided credits, farm management and technical supervision to rural farmers.

Another predecessor of the FSA was the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933, which was intended as a program to help stabilize farm prices via price support loans to create crop reduction. The initial act was ruled unconstitutional in 1936 by United States v. Butler, but these issues were taken care of by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, passed two years later.

Following Pearl Harbor and America's entry into World War II, the War Food Administration was created to assist in the production and transportation of food for both civilian and military use. At the end of the war, the WFA was reformed into the Production and Marketing Administration.

The first attempt to consolidate the various farm agencies occurred in 1946, as the Farmers Home Administration act merged the Farm Security Administration and the Emergency Crop and Feed Loan Division of the Farm Credit Administration to form the Farmer Home Administration. The act also granted the organization the authority to ensure loans to farmers from other lenders, and later legislation established lending for rural housing, rural business enterprises, and rural water and waste disposal agencies.

The USDA reorganization of 1953 also saw changes to the FHA, including renaming it the Commodity Stabilization Service. As part of the changes, the organization began to focus on the preservation of farm income. As part of their new goals, the Commodity Stabilization Service began conservation programs such as the soil bank. The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committees were also formed out of the community, county, and state committees focused on conservation. By 1961, the CCS was renamed the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, as the agency had become more focused on conservation efforts. The ASCS remained active in assisting with their previous programs and the network of field offices.

1994 saw the reorganization of the USDA, which in turn resulted in the Consolidated Farm Service Agency, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, Farmers Home Administration, and Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service being merged into the modern Farm Service Agency.

Today, the committees often oversee activities in multi-county areas, due to USDA reorganization and consolidation of its field office structure into a network of about 2,500 field service centers. The committees are responsible for hiring and supervising the County Executive Director (CED), who manages the day-to-day activities of the field service center and its employees.

Pigford v. Glickman
In the 1930s, Congress set up a unique system under which federal farm programs are administered locally; this was influenced by the powerful Southern bloc in Congress, who represented only white Democrats from their home districts. White control of this program in counties across the South deprived many black farmers of potential benefits, as blacks had been politically disenfranchised at the turn of the century.

Farmers who are eligible to participate in these programs elect a three to five-person county committee, which reviews county office operations and makes decisions on how to apply for the programs. County committees are panels of three to five farmers, elected by other farmers, to oversee the local operation of commodity programs, disaster assistance, and other programs of the Farm Service Agency. County committees, established by the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-46), are so named because they have overseen USDA field offices for farmers that once existed in most rural farm counties throughout the United States.

In the South, black farmers were not commonly elected to county committees and were discriminated against in the administration of farm programs. A class-action lawsuit, Pigford v. Glickman, was settled in 1999 to gain compensation for African-American farmers who had been damaged by such discrimination from 1981 to 1996. USDA's own investigation had shown widespread discrimination in the programs. The USDA paid more than $2 billion to settle thousands of claims of discrimination.

Shared Appreciation Agreement
A Shared Appreciation Agreement (SAA) is an agreement between the USDA and farmer borrowers, instituted when a borrower is severely delinquent on making payments on FSA real estate loans. Such an agreement allows for the forgiveness of a portion or all of the indebtedness, in return for the borrower sharing with USDA at the end of the term a portion of any appreciation in the farmer-owned real estate that served as collateral for the loan. SAAs were instituted as part of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (P. L. 100-233) for the purpose of avoiding foreclosure due to the drop in land prices at that time.

Publications
The majority of the Farm Service Agency’s publications are related to the various programs that are run by them. Most of these publications are brochures or other material that discuss the programs' applications and success.

title: Farm Service Agency


text:
Pseudepigrapha

Pseudepigrapha (also anglicized as "pseudepigraph" or "pseudepigraphs") are falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed author is not the true author, or a work whose real author attributed it to a figure of the past. The name of the author to whom the work is falsely attributed is often prefixed with the particle "pseudo-", such as for example "pseudo-Aristotle" or "pseudo-Dionysius": these terms refer to the anonymous authors of works falsely attributed to Aristotle and Dionysius the Areopagite, respectively.

In biblical studies, the term pseudepigrapha can refer to an assorted collection of Jewish religious works thought to be written c. 300 BCE to 300 CE. They are distinguished by Protestants from the deuterocanonical books (Catholic and Orthodox) or Apocrypha (Protestant), the books that appear in extant copies of the Septuagint in the fourth century or later and the Vulgate, but not in the Hebrew Bible or in Protestant Bibles. The Catholic Church distinguishes only between the deuterocanonical and all other books; the latter are called biblical apocrypha, which in Catholic usage includes the pseudepigrapha. In addition, two books considered canonical in the Orthodox Tewahedo churches, the Book of Enoch and Book of Jubilees, are categorized as pseudepigrapha from the point of view of Chalcedonian Christianity.

In addition to the sets of generally agreed to be non-canonical works, scholars will also apply the term to canonical works who make a direct claim of authorship, yet this authorship is doubted. For example, the Book of Daniel is considered by some to have been written in the 2nd century BCE, 400 years after the prophet Daniel lived, and thus the work is pseudepigraphic. A New Testament example might be the book of 2 Peter, considered by some to be written approximately 80 years after Saint Peter's death. Early Christians, such as Origen, harbored doubts as to the authenticity of the book's authorship.

The term has also been used by some Muslims to describe hadiths; who claim that most hadiths are fabrications created in the 8th and 9th century CE, and falsely attributed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad (see Quranism).

Etymology
The word pseudepigrapha (from the ψευδής, pseudḗs, "false" and ἐπιγραφή, epigraphḗ, "name" or "inscription" or "ascription"; thus when taken together it means "false superscription or title"; see the related epigraphy) is the plural of "pseudepigraphon" (sometimes Latinized as "pseudepigraphum").

Classical and biblical studies
There have probably been pseudepigrapha almost from the invention of full writing. For example, ancient Greek authors often refer to texts which claimed to be by Orpheus or his pupil Musaeus of Athens but which attributions were generally disregarded. Already in Antiquity the collection known as the "Homeric Hymns" was recognized as pseudepigraphical, that is, not actually written by Homer. The only surviving Ancient Roman book on cooking is pseudepigraphically attributed to a famous gourmet, Apicius, even though it is not clear who actually assembled the recipes.

Literary studies
In secular literary studies, when works of antiquity have been demonstrated not to have been written by the authors to whom they have traditionally been ascribed, some writers apply the prefix pseudo- to their names. Thus the encyclopedic compilation of Greek myth called the Bibliotheca is often now attributed, not to Apollodorus of Athens, but to "pseudo-Apollodorus" and the Catasterismi, recounting the translations of mythic figure into asterisms and constellations, not to the serious astronomer Eratosthenes, but to a "pseudo-Eratosthenes". The prefix may be abbreviated, as in "ps-Apollodorus" or "ps-Eratosthenes".

Old Testament and intertestamental studies
In biblical studies, pseudepigrapha refers particularly to works which purport to be written by noted authorities in either the Old and New Testaments or by persons involved in Jewish or Christian religious study or history. These works can also be written about biblical matters, often in such a way that they appear to be as authoritative as works which have been included in the many versions of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. Eusebius indicates this usage dates back at least to Serapion of Antioch, whom Eusebius records as having said: "But those writings which are falsely inscribed with their name (ta pseudepigrapha), we as experienced persons reject...."

Many such works were also referred to as Apocrypha, which originally connoted "secret writings", those that were rejected for liturgical public reading. An example of a text that is both apocryphal and pseudepigraphical is the Odes of Solomon. It is considered pseudepigraphical because it was not actually written by Solomon but instead is a collection of early Christian (first to second century) hymns and poems, originally written not in Hebrew, and apocryphal because they were not accepted in either the Tanakh or the New Testament.

Protestants have also applied the word Apocrypha to texts found in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scriptures which were not found in Hebrew manuscripts. Catholics call those "deuterocanonical books". Accordingly, there arose in some Protestant biblical scholarship an extended use of the term pseudepigrapha for works that appeared as though they ought to be part of the biblical canon, because of the authorship ascribed to them, but which stood outside both the biblical canons recognized by Protestants and Catholics. These works were also outside the particular set of books that Roman Catholics called deuterocanonical and to which Protestants had generally applied the term Apocryphal. Accordingly, the term pseudepigraphical, as now used often among both Protestants and Roman Catholics (allegedly for the clarity it brings to the discussion), may make it difficult to discuss questions of pseudepigraphical authorship of canonical books dispassionately with a lay audience. To confuse the matter even more, Eastern Orthodox Christians accept books as canonical that Roman Catholics and most Protestant denominations consider pseudepigraphical or at best of much less authority. There exist also churches that reject some of the books that Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants accept. The same is true of some Jewish religious movements. Many works that are "apocryphal" are otherwise considered genuine.

There is a tendency not to use the word pseudepigrapha when describing works later than about 300 CE when referring to biblical matters. But the late-appearing Gospel of Barnabas, Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, the Pseudo-Apuleius (author of a fifth-century herbal ascribed to Apuleius), and the author traditionally referred to as the "Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite", are classic examples of pseudepigraphy. In the fifth century the moralist Salvian published Contra avaritiam ("Against avarice") under the name of Timothy; the letter in which he explained to his former pupil, Bishop Salonius, his motives for so doing survives. There is also a category of modern pseudepigrapha.

Examples of books labeled Old Testament pseudepigrapha from the Protestant point of view are the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees (both of which are canonical in Orthodox Tewahedo Christianity and the Beta Israel branch of Judaism); the Life of Adam and Eve and "Pseudo-Philo".

The term pseudepigrapha is also commonly used to describe numerous works of Jewish religious literature written from about 300 BCE to 300 CE. Not all of these works are actually pseudepigraphical. It also refers to books of the New Testament canon whose authorship is misrepresented. Such works include the following:
 * 3 Maccabees
 * 4 Maccabees
 * Assumption of Moses
 * Ethiopic Book of Enoch (1 Enoch)
 * Slavonic Second Book of Enoch
 * Book of Jubilees
 * 3 Baruch
 * Letter of Aristeas
 * Life of Adam and Eve
 * Ascension of Isaiah
 * Psalms of Solomon
 * Sibylline Oracles
 * 2 Baruch
 * Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
 * 4 Ezra

Various canonical works accepted as scripture have since been reexamined and considered by modern scholars in the 19th century onward as likely cases of pseudepigraphica. The Book of Daniel directly claims to be written by the prophet Daniel, yet there are strong reasons to believe it was not written until centuries after Daniel's death, such as references to the book only appearing in the 2nd century BCE and onward. The book is an apocalypse wherein Daniel offers a series of predictions of the future, and is meant to reassure the Jews of the period that the tyrant Antiochus IV Epiphanes would soon be overthrown. By backdating the book to the 6th century BCE and providing a series of correct prophecies as to the history of the past 400 years, the authorship claim of Daniel would have strengthened a later author's predictions of the coming fall of the Seleucid Empire.

New Testament studies
Some Christian scholars maintain that nothing known to be pseudepigraphical was admitted to the New Testament canon. However, many biblical scholars, such as Bart D. Ehrman, hold that only seven of Paul's epistles are convincingly genuine. All of the other 20 books in the New Testament appear to many scholars to be written by unknown people who were not the well-known biblical figures to whom the early Christian leaders originally attributed authorship. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes, "The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles, which however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred texts. The Canon of Muratori, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Irenaeus bear distinct witness to the existence of those headings in the latter part of the second century of our era. Indeed, the manner in which Clement (Strom. I, xxi), and St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. III, xi, 7) employ them implies that, at that early date, our present titles to the gospels had been in current use for some considerable time. Hence, it may be inferred that they were prefixed to the evangelical narratives as early as the first part of that same century. That however, they do not go back to the first century of the Christian era, or at least that they are not original, is a position generally held at the present day. It is felt that since they are similar for the four Gospels, although the same Gospels were composed at some interval from each other, those titles were not framed and consequently not prefixed to each individual narrative, before the collection of the four Gospels was actually made. Besides as well pointed out by Prof. Bacon, 'the historical books of the New Testament differ from its apocalyptic and epistolary literature, as those of the Old Testament differ from its prophecy, in being invariably anonymous, and for the same reason. Prophecies, whether in the earlier or in the later sense, and letters, to have authority, must be referable to some individual; the greater his name, the better. But history was regarded as common possession. Its facts spoke for themselves. Only as the springs of common recollection began to dwindle, and marked differences to appear between the well-informed and accurate Gospels and the untrustworthy ... become worth while for the Christian teacher or apologist to specify whether the given representation of the current tradition was 'according to' this or that special compiler, and to state his qualifications'. It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves."The earliest and best manuscripts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all written anonymously. Furthermore, the books of Acts, Hebrews, 1 John, 2 John and 3 John were also written anonymously.

Pauline epistles
There are thirteen letters in the New Testament which are attributed to Paul and are still considered by Christians to carry Paul's authority. These letters are part of the Christian Bible and are foundational for the Christian Church. Therefore, those letters which some think to be pseudepigraphic are not considered any less valuable to Christians. Some of these epistles are termed as "disputed" or "pseudepigraphical" letters because they do not appear to have been written by Paul. They instead appear to have come from followers writing in Paul's name, often using material from his surviving letters. Some choose to believe that these followers may have had access to letters written by Paul that no longer survive, although this theory still depends on someone other than Paul writing these books. Some theologians prefer to simply distinguish between "undisputed" and "disputed" letters, thus avoiding the term "pseudepigraphical".

Authorship of 6 out of the 13 canonical epistles of Paul has been questioned by both Christian and non-Christian biblical scholars. These include the Epistle to the Ephesians, Epistle to the Colossians, Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, First Epistle to Timothy, Second Epistle to Timothy, and Epistle to Titus. These six books are referred to as "deutero-Pauline letters", meaning "secondary" standing in the corpus of Paul's writings. They internally claim to have been written by Paul, but some biblical scholars present strong evidence that they could not have been written by Paul. Those known as the "Pastoral Epistles" (Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus) are all so similar that they are thought to be written by the same unknown author in Paul's name.

Catholic epistles
There are seven letters in the New Testament which are attributed to several apostles, such as Saint Peter, John the Apostle, and Jesus's brothers James and Jude.

Three of the seven letters are anonymous. These three have traditionally been attributed to John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee and one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. Consequently, these letters have been labelled the Johannine epistles, despite the fact that none of the epistles mentions any author. Most modern scholars believe the author is not John the Apostle, but there is no scholarly consensus for any particular historical figure. (see: Authorship of the Johannine works).

Two of the letters claim to have been written by Simon Peter, one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. Therefore, they have traditionally been called the Petrine epistles. However, most modern scholars agree the second epistle was probably not written by Peter, because it appears to have been written in the early 2nd century, long after Peter had died. Yet, opinions on the first epistle are more divided; many scholars do think this letter is authentic. (see: Authorship of the Petrine epistles)

In one epistle, the author only calls himself James (Ἰάκωβος Iákobos). It is not known which James this is supposed to be. There are several different traditional Christian interpretations of other New Testament texts which mention a James, brother of Jesus. However, most modern scholars tend to reject this line of reasoning, since the author himself does not indicate any familial relationship with Jesus. A similar problem presents itself with the Epistle of Jude (Ἰούδας Ioudas): the writer names himself a brother of James (ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ἰακώβου adelphos de Iakóbou), but it is not clear which James is meant. According to some Christian traditions, this is the same James as the author of the Epistle of James, who was allegedly a brother of Jesus; and so, this Jude should also be a brother of Jesus, despite the fact he does not indicate any such thing in his text.

Other pseudepigrapha
The Gospel of Peter and the attribution to Paul of the Epistle to the Laodiceans are both examples of pseudepigrapha that were not included in the New Testament canon. They are often referred to as New Testament apocrypha. Further examples of New Testament pseudepigrapha include the Gospel of Barnabas and the Gospel of Judas, which begins by presenting itself as "the secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot".

The Vision of Ezra is an ancient apocryphal text purportedly written by the biblical scribe Ezra. The earliest surviving manuscripts, composed in Latin, date to the 11th century CE, although textual peculiarities strongly suggest that the text was originally written in Greek. Like the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, the work is clearly Christian, and features several apostles being seen in heaven. However, the text is significantly shorter than the Apocalypse.

The Donation of Constantine is a forged Roman imperial decree by which the 4th-century emperor Constantine the Great supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope. Composed probably in the 8th century, it was used, especially in the 13th century, in support of claims of political authority by the papacy. Lorenzo Valla, an Italian Catholic priest and Renaissance humanist, is credited with first exposing the forgery with solid philological arguments in 1439–1440, although the document's authenticity had been repeatedly contested since 1001.

The Privilegium maius ('greater privilege') was a document composed in 1358 or 1359 – but purporting to be much older. Its text elevated the Duchy of Austria into an Archduchy of Austria, thus greatly increasing the prestige of Rudolf IV of Austria (1358–65) of the House of Habsburg.

In Russian history, in 1561 Muscovites supposedly received a letter from the Patriarch of Constantinople which asserted the right of Ivan the Terrible to claim the title of Tsar. This, too, turned out to be false. While earlier Russian Monarchs had on some occasions used the title "Tsar", Ivan the Terrible previously known as "Grand Prince of all the Russias" was the first to be formally crowned as Tsar of All Rus (Царь Всея Руси). This was related to Russia's growing ambitions to become an Orthodox "Third Rome", after the Fall of Constantinople – for which the supposed approval by the Patriarch added weight.

The Anaphorae of Mar Nestorius, employed in the Eastern Churches, is attributed to Nestorius but its earliest manuscripts are in Syriac which question its Greek-authorship.

Authorship and pseudepigraphy: levels of authenticity
Scholars have identified seven levels of authenticity which they have organized in a hierarchy ranging from literal authorship, meaning written in the author's own hand, to outright forgery:
 * 1) Literal authorship. A church leader writes a letter in his own hand.
 * 2) Dictation. A church leader dictates a letter almost word for word to an amanuensis.
 * 3)  Delegated authorship. A church leader describes the basic content of an intended letter to a disciple or to an amanuensis.
 * 4) Posthumous authorship. A church leader dies, and his disciples finish a letter that he had intended to write, sending it posthumously in his name.
 * 5) Apprentice authorship. A church leader dies, and disciples who had been authorized to speak for him while he was alive continue to do so by writing letters in his name years or decades after his death.
 * 6) Honorable pseudepigraphy. A church leader dies, and admirers seek to honor him by writing letters in his name as a tribute to his influence and in a sincere belief that they are responsible bearers of his tradition.
 * 7) Forgery. A church leader obtains sufficient prominence that, either before or after his death, people seek to exploit his legacy by forging letters in his name, presenting him as a supporter of their own ideas.

The Zohar
The Zohar (זֹהַר, lit. Splendor or Radiance), foundational work in the literature of Jewish mystical thought known as Kabbalah, first appeared in Spain in the 13th century, and was published by a Jewish writer named Moses de León. De León ascribed the work to Shimon bar Yochai ("Rashbi"), a rabbi of the 2nd century during the Roman persecution who, according to Jewish legend, hid in a cave for thirteen years studying the Torah and was inspired by the Prophet Elijah to write the Zohar. This accords with the traditional claim by adherents that Kabbalah is the concealed part of the Oral Torah. Modern academic analysis of the Zohar, such as that by the 20th century religious historian Gershom Scholem, has theorized that de León was the actual author, as textual analysis points to a Medieval Spanish Jewish writer rather than one living in Roman-ruled Palestine.

Ovid
Conrad Celtes, a noted German humanist scholar and poet of the German Renaissance, collected numerous Greek and Latin manuscripts in his function as librarian of the Imperial Library in Vienna. In a 1504 letter to the Venetian publisher Aldus Manutius Celtes claimed to have discovered the missing books of Ovid's Fasti. However, it turned out that the purported Ovid verses had actually been composed by an 11th-century monk and were known to the Empire of Nicaea according to William of Rubruck. Even so, many contemporary scholars believed Celtes and continued to write about the existence of the missing books until well into the 17th century.

As literary device
Pseudepigraphy has been employed as a metafictional technique. Authors who have made notable use of this device include James Hogg (The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner), Thomas Carlyle (Sartor Resartus), Jorge Luis Borges ("An Examination of the Works of Herbert Quain"; "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote"), Vladimir Nabokov (Pale Fire), Stanislaw Lem (A Perfect Vacuum; Imaginary Magnitude) Roberto Bolaño (Nazi Literature in the Americas) and Stefan Heym (The Lenz Papers).

Edgar Rice Burroughs also presented many of his works – including the most well-known, the Tarzan books – as pseudepigrapha, prefacing each book with a detailed introduction presenting the supposed actual author, with Burroughs himself pretending to be no more than the literary editor. J.R.R. Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings presents that story and The Hobbit as translated from the fictional Red Book of Westmarch written by characters within the novels. The twelve books of The Flashman Papers series by George MacDonald Fraser similarly pretend to be transcriptions of the papers left by an "illustrious Victorian soldier", each volume prefaced by a long semi-scholarly Explanatory Note stating that "additional packets of Flashman's papers have been found and are here presented to the public". A similar device was used by Ian Fleming in The Spy Who Loved Me and by various other writers of popular fiction.

title: Pseudepigrapha


text:
King Harold

King Harold may refer to:

Kings of England

 * Harold Harefoot (c. 1015–1040)
 * Harold Godwinson (c. 1022–1066)

Kings of Denmark

 * Harald Bluetooth (935–985/986)
 * Harald II of Denmark (c. 996–1018)
 * Harald III of Denmark (1040–1080)

Kings of Norway

 * Harald Fairhair (850–933)
 * Harald Greycloak (c. 935–970)
 * Harald Hardrada (1015–1066)
 * Harald Gille (c. 1102–1136)
 * Harald V of Norway (born 1937)

Others

 * Harald I Olafsson (died 1248), King of Mann & the Hebrides
 * King Harold (Shrek), fictional character in films

title: King Harold


text:
East Barnet

East Barnet is an area of north London within the London Borough of Barnet bordered by New Barnet, Cockfosters and Southgate. It is a largely residential suburb whose central area contains shops, public houses, restaurants and services, and the parish church of St Mary the Virgin. East Barnet is close to the M25 and the A1 and M1.

History
From 1894 until 1965 East Barnet formed part of the East Barnet Urban District of Hertfordshire. In 1965, it was transferred from Hertfordshire to Greater London; the area was amalgamated with Barnet and Friern Barnet Urban Districts, Finchley and Hendon Municipal Boroughs to form the London Borough of Barnet.

Governance
Barnet local elections are held every four years to elect councillors. East Barnet is covered by two wards:
 * East Barnet Ward – East of the railway line and north of Parkside Gardens / Stuart Road.
 * Brunswick Park Ward – East of the railway line and south of Parkside Gardens / Stuart Road.

Note: St Mary the Virgin – the Parish Church of East Barnet – is actually in Brunswick Park Ward. Brunswick Park Ward contains the districts of Brunswick Park and Osidge.

Demographics
East Barnet has its own electoral ward. The 2011 census of East Barnet ward counted a population of 16,137. The ethnic makeup was 76.6% White (61.3% British, 12.8% Other, 2.6% Irish), 10.6% Asian (largest being Indian, 4.4%), and 5.1% Black (largest being African, 3.2%). 54% of the population were Christian, with the combined share of Hindus, Jews and Muslims being 15%. Of the 6,531 households, most (4,266) were a whole house or bungalow, and the majority of those were semi-detached properties. Almost 68% of home tenures were owned, with a minority privately rented and a smaller minority that are socially rented. 4.6% of economically active people were unemployed. The median age was 38.

Transport

 * Buses
 * 125 – Winchmore Hill (Station Road) to Finchley Central
 * 184 – Barnet (Chesterfield Road) to Turnpike Lane bus/tube station
 * 307 – Barnet (Barnet General Hospital) to Brimsdown railway station
 * 326 – Barnet (the Spires) to Brent Cross Shopping Centre
 * 382 – Southgate tube station to Mill Hill East tube station
 * 383 – Barnet (the Spires) to Woodside Park tube station – Monday to Saturday except late evenings
 * 384 – Edgware Station to Cockfosters tube station

 * Railway stations nearby

 * Oakleigh Park
 * New Barnet

 * Tube stations nearby:
 * Arnos Grove – Piccadilly line
 * Cockfosters – Piccadilly line
 * Oakwood – Piccadilly line
 * High Barnet – Northern line
 * Totteridge & Whetstone – Northern line

Education

 * Primary schools
 * Danegrove Primary School (formerly Littlegrove Junior School and Oaklands Infant School)
 * St Mary's School
 * Church Hill School
 * Monkfrith School

 * Secondary schools
 * East Barnet School

Theatre and the Arts
Bodens Performing Arts School, aka Bodens, is located in East Barnet. It was founded in 1973 in Enfield, and has since moved to its current site. It is a performing arts school offering Arts education to children and teenagers from the ages of 3 to 18. The Studios are located on East Barnet Road, along with the 'Tony Boden Theatre' which is on premises.

Notable people

 * Alan Coren (born 1938) grew up in East Barnet, and attended Osidge Primary and East Barnet School.

title: East Barnet