text:
User talk:Olive~enwiki

Projects
Presently preparing the history of ICT and ICL International Computers Ltd.

Other projects Rock music Theatre Misc. travel

St James's Theatre gives useful information. It is the basis for establishing information about historical theatre in London and the plays and performers. There are other references to it in wiki-pedia - yet you do not list it or have information.

User:chris 73 & Vandalism
First, I am glad that you got a login. This makes talking much easier. Secondly, I am also glad that you apologized to User:Modemac. Regarding vandalism: Adding links or content is no vandalism. Your actions as User:195.188.152.16 on the page of User:Modemac, however, was. That's why I alerted others of your actions, and you got banned for a short period of time. Back then you were a vandal. However, this does not mean that you will be a vandal in the future. Actually, I think your recent actions look very promising, and I am looking forward for your contributions. I removed the "caught vandal" notice from my User:chris 73 page.

Regarding the links you added: I didn't like an external link to a site with other links, so I removed it. I think that's what got you in trouble with User:Modemac in the first place,　who also did not like your link to a linklist. I just noticed the multiple reverts by User:Modemac, including your profanities, and tried to give him a helping hand, which got you banned and gave you some time to cool off. May I suggest that you pick one or two of the best links related to a topic on the linklist the rocksite, and add those to the article instead of the linklist?

I don't remember exactly. where I though you removed content. Sorry. I also checked some of your other contributions, and saw no problem with them, so I did not touch them (e.g. St James's Theatre and others). A few more notices: Do not edit the page of another user. Add comments only on the talk page. Also, if you would like your past contributions to your new username, you can do so on Changing attribution for an edit, although this may take some time. Finally: Welcome to Wikipedia, User Olive. -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 15:04, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh, forgot to mention: You can acess the talk page of any user by clicking on "Discuss this Page" on the menu on the left. Similar for all other pages (articles, village pump, etc.) -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 15:20, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Regarding your response on my talk page
 * It is difficult to discuss things with an anonymous user. Again thanks for getting a login. I have to admit that I also sometimes get a bit careless when reverting anonymous contributions, and you user:modemac edits propably put me in a negative mood towards your other edits. My apologies. Regarding the links to linklist: I am not aware of any special policy, It was just my feeling (and probably modemac's, too). Just out of curiosity: Are you affiliated with "the rocksite"? Again, I am glad that things are improving now. Best regards -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 15:31, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Olive, regarding linking to TheRocksite, I honestly think this is a bad idea. This is more a personal policy than a Wikipedia one, but allow me to try to justify it. As a result of this personal policy I removed a large number of links on the Wikipedia to a site called GreatSnakes.

Suppose a company producing plungers decided that it could get free advertising by adding a link to itself on the plunger page. If they produced, say, 90% of the plungers in the world, then this may in fact be an interesting and relevent resource for people interested in plungers in general. On the other hand, if they're a startup in the middle of Iowa, it's not really relevent to the article. It is about plungers, but it's not universal; it's no different from creating a "vanity page", an article about oneself, when oneself is not famous or significant in any way. A proliferation of such links, as would arise if they were not removed, would lead to bloat and worse, readers being unsure about which links are really worth following.

Similarly, the links to your site are not really relevent. Your site does discuss the topic - somewhere - and related topics, but the link is not directly to the relevent page, and your page is honestly about as relevent as any other of the thousands of information sites on the topic out there. My general rule is this: links should go either to highly esteemed sources, such as government sources or official band sites, or to highly relevent sources, such as another detailed article on exactly the same topic.

I don't ask you to share my views, although that would be nice, but I hope this gives you some insight into why some would disagree so strongly with your links.

Derrick Coetzee 20:33, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi Olive. I am glad that things cooled down now. Thank you very much for removing your objections to my adminship. Regarding you adding links (as User:195.188.152.16) to your own site "The Rocksite": It's a nice site, but I still disagree with the links for two reasons: In any case, I will no longer remove links to "The Rocksite", so the situation between us does not escalate again. Some wiki users may agree with you, some with me, but I fear that the links will continue to give you some trouble. At least with a login this can be discussed before it comes to blows. Anyway, happy contributing and Best Regards -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:12, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 * a direct link to the most relevant subsites would be better
 * linking your own (non-commercial) site at Wikipedia can be seen as self-promotion

Re: Requests for Adminship
Apologies if I came across as a bit harsh, I know I sometimes do. I wasn't looking for validation of your comments, just reminding you that while not logged in and not signing your comments you can't really take part in discussions at Requests for adminship. -- Graham :) | Talk 21:57, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

WP:ARE notice
There is currently an Arbitration Enforcement Request "Barleybannocks" regarding an issue in which you may have been involved. --Iantresman (talk) 10:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Olive. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Olive~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 01:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Olive~enwiki


text:
Talk:Chinese food therapy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Cmart35.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Name change
The name of this article was changed from food therapy to Chinese food therapy because the phrase food therapy is far too generic to be claimed just by one culture or group. It could just as well be claimed as a modality of natural health, for example. -- John Gohde 15:53, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm surprised this wasn't included
I'm surprised nothing was written about 熱氣. Certain types of food (greasy, fried, chocolate) are supposed to cause it, and and other types are supposed to nullify it (soup, tea), and 熱氣 is the supposed cause of ailments like sore throats, coughs, fevers, acme, and so on. --Yuje 23:49, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's specific to southern China. It's not easy to cover the food therapy of every region of China in one article. :-) — Instantnood 11:11, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 熱氣 means yang which is more generic than 燥火 濕熱 mentioned in the article which are more specific types of yang. Feel free to add that to the list too.  Kowloonese 23:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Daoism and Chinese food therapy
I'd be interested if Chinese food therapy was related to Daoism immortality practices. I'm taking a Chinese history class and in it I learned that one of the Daoist techniques for achieving immortality had to do with dietary practices. It would make sense especially if this is refering to particularly Chinese practices if those Daoist diets are related to the food therapy. Jztinfinity 02:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yi Shi Tong Yuan
The Chinese old proverb "Yi Shi Tong Yuan" (醫食同源) that means "medicine and diet both originated from the practice and experience of daily life", I think, deserves its on article. However since none tried it, I think it should be at least addressed in the article.--Caspian blue 00:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Dubious comparison
"In this way, this health system is in direct opposition to Louis Pasteur's germ theory of disease[dubious – discuss], being more aligned with Claude Bernard, and Antoine Bechamp's biological terrain theory of disease."

This is a truly ridiculous comparison. In developed societies, how many diseases these days are caused by "germs" ? Is heart disease caused by "germs" ? Is diabetes caused by "germs" ? Are strokes caused by "germs" ? Is cancer caused by "germs" ? Its nonsense.Eregli bob (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. While it is true that Traditional Chinese Medicinal Philosophy does not recognize "germs" i.e., pathogenic organisms, this comparison with Pasteur's germ theory in an attempt to set TCM as the opposite twin of Western Medicine is pointless purple prose.  We should neuter the sentence, or take it out entirely.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Recomended References
Here are some books:

"The Chinese Kitchen: Recipes, Techniques, Ingredients, History, and Memories from America's Leading Authority on Chinese Cooking" by Eileen Yin Fei-Lo

"Feng Shui and the 5-Element Kitchen" by Jurgen Heinrich Fahrnow

"The Feng Shui Cookbook: Creating Health and Harmony in Your Kitchen" by Elizabeth Miles

"Chinese Dietary Therapy" by Liu Jilin

"The Tao of Healthy Eating: Dietary Wisdom According to Traditional Chinese Medicine" by Bob Flaws

"Chinese Diet Therapy" by Zhao Muying

"Chinese Nutrition Therapy: Dietetics in Traditional Chinese Medicine" by Joerg Kastner

"Healing with Whole Foods: Asian Traditions and Modern Nutrition" by Paul Pitchford

"Prince Wen Hui's Cook: Chinese Dietary Therapy" by Bob Flaws and Honora Wolf

"A Spoonful of Ginger: Irresistible, Health-Giving Recipes from Asian Kitchens" by Nina Simonds

"Chinese System Of Food Cures: Prevention & Remedies" by Henry C. Lu

"Your Guide to Health with Foods & Herbs: Using the Wisdom of Traditional Chinese Medicine" by Zhang Yifang and Yao Yingzhi

"Heart Smart Chinese Cooking" by Stephen Wong

"The Healing Cuisine of China: 300 Recipes for Vibrant Health and Longevity" by Zhuo Zhao and George Ellis

"Chinese Foods for Longevity: The Art of Long Life" by Henry C. Lu

"Diseases Treated with Melons, Fruits and Vegetables: Traditional Chinese Medical Therapies" by Zongchang Xiu

"Chinese Healing Foods" by Rosa Ross

"Chinese System Of Foods For Health & Healing" by Henry C. Lu

"A Soup for the Qan: Chinese Dietary Medicine of the Mongol Era As Seen in Hu Sihui's Yinshan Zhengyao (Sir Henry Wellcome Asian Series)" by Paul D. Buell and Eugene N. Anderson

"Food as Medicine: A Traditional Chinese Medical Perspective" by Ted Zombolas and Jing Yuan

"Natural Remedies From The Chinese Cupboard: Healing Foods And Herbs" by Jing Pei Fang

"Five Laws for Healthy Living: Discover the Wisdom of Chinese Medicine to Nourish Your Life" by Angela Hicks and A. Hicks

"Diet Therapy of Diabetes (Chinese Edition)" by lei yong le

"The Book of Jook: Chinese Medicinal Porridges--A Healthy Alternative to the Typical Western Breakfast" by Bob Flaws

"Buddhist Health Preserving and Diet Therapy (Chinese Edition)" by Dong Xiao Kang

"New Knowledge on Family Diet Therapy (Chinese Edition)" by ben she

"Food, Medicine, and the Quest for Good Health" by Nancy N. Chen

"Diet Therapy for Cancers (Chinese Edition)" by zhang bing qi and an yu zhi

"The Care and Feeding of Your Chi: Feng Shui for Your Body" by Skye Alexander

"Chinese Diet Library: Heart Disease Diet Therapy" by Shen Hong

"The Chinese System of Using Foods to Stay Young" by Henry C. Lu

"Nourishing Life: Chinese Hundreds of Herb-medicine Imperial Cuisine (Chinese-English edition)" by Jiao Mingyao

"Healthy Life: Chinese Hundreds of Herb-medicine Imperial Cuisine (Chinese-English edition)" by Jiao Mingyao

"Prolonging Life: Chinese Hundreds of Herb-medicine Imperial Cuisine (Chinese-English edition)" by Jiao Mingyao

"Fruits As Medicine: A Safe and Cheap Form of Traditional Chinese Food Therapy" by Dai Yin-Fang, Liu Cheng-Jun, Ron Edwards and Gong Zhi-Mei

"Ginger, Garlic & Green Onions As Medicine: Curing Diseases the Chinese Way : A Safe and Cheap Form of Traditional Chinese Food Therapy" by Wang Fuchun and Duan Yuhua

"Dr. Chang's secrets of a thin body: Permanent weight loss no more cellulite complete healing diet" by Stephen T Chang

"Chinese diet for your health" by Henry C Lu

"Chinese health foods: Cook it yourself" by Henry C Lu

"A Taoist Cookbook: With Meditations Taken from the Laozi Daode Jing." by Michael Saso

"Tai Chi Diet: Food for Life." by Mike Symonds

"Your Way to Health With Foods and Herbs: Using the Wisdom of Traditional Chinese Medicine" by Zhang Yifang

"Managing Your Emotional Health Using Traditional Chinese Medicine: How Herbs, Natural Foods, and Acupressure Can Regulate and Harmonize Your Mind and Body" by Zhang Yifang

"Cooking With Chinese Herbs" by Terry Tan

"Chinese Medicinal Herbs: A Modern Edition of a Classic Sixteenth- Century Manual" by Li Shih-Chen

Henry123ifa (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It was a good run
From 2002 till April 18, 2014, the old content lasted 12 years before it was blasted away. Twelve years were not too bad at all. :-) Kowloonese (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Some people couldn't tell the difference between a statement of fact, and a statement about others beliefs and what this article is actually about, e.g. the theory might be a load of pseudo-science, but having such an article gives us and understanding of that belief. Food therapy may have zero verifiable scientific basis, and of no health benefits what so ever, it doesn't stop people believing in it and acting as if it worked. Don't be sad, the old article is still there, and will always be there in the history, just so long as this article is not deleted. --KTo288 (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I never understand this policy of blowing away info that don't have scientific proof. If you follow the same policy all articles on religions should be blown away. Chinese food therapy is a system that many Chinese people still practice. Just like Taichi and Yoga, the results and health benefits vary on individual basis and if you throw away info that are unproven yet, the knowledge is just buried unnecessarily. If you think the article is misleading, just clarify it and put in a disclaimer to emphasize there is no scientific proof yet. Chinese herbal medicine has been empirical over thousands of years. Only in recent decades, scholars are trying to find the scientific basis of why herbs have their medicinal results. Many universities in China, including The Chinese University of Hong Kong, are doing research on traditional Chinese herbal formulas. Such research is not easy because Chinese medicine believes in a balance formula, each prescription is a cocktail of multiple ingredients tailored to each person's condition. Such studies get very complex when so many variables are involved. Unlike Western medicine which only target the problem with one single active ingredient without regard of side effects. The basic principle behind Chinese food therapy is to eat healthy and adjust to your body's reaction to each type of food. The Yin Yang thing is not magic, it is just a system of classifying food based on body's reactions helps you choose a combination that reach a good balance. Kowloonese (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Nevertheless, this ought to be in the same "pseudoscience" category that "Traditional Chinese medicine" is in. We do nobody any favours by suggesting that this rubbish works. 109.157.79.50 (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Intro to Asian American Studies review
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I thought that the article did not go in depth about what food therapy really is and how it works. It didnt provide enough details.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I did not think it was biased, I think it was fairly neutral.

cynthia mCmart35 (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Removed comparison to herbal therapy
Removed comparisons to herbal therapy because they had no relevance in this discussion. The contents of imported herbs have nothing to do with which foods one should or should not eat. These statements served as a distraction and were an apples and oranges comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.158.254.69 (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Summarizing the newly quoted review of the literature
Hi Edaham! Responding to your invitation, I reworded the sentence and I'm here with a few comments on my summary of that relevant literature review recently added by Zefr (thanks, Zefr!). If it came alone, the statement that "Chinese diet may reduce hypertension" would definitely not fly. This is why I made sure it was carefully and repeatedly hedged: "very few studies in English", "*preliminary* studies conducted in China", "*may* *help* reduce", "much less evidence" than for DASH diet. Taken together, this doesn't sound like strong support for CFD. To make everything even clearer, though more wordy, I added more hedging and specifications, all based on the content of the article: The article addresses efficacy explicitly: Relative lack of evidence: I hope my summary of these sometimes ambiguous statements will strike you as balanced and will satisfy your request for neutrality! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Very few studies in English: Abstract and p. 1581
 * Comparison with the DASH diet: pp. 1588–91
 * "Current literature suggests that food therapy is effective in blood pressure control" (Abstract)
 * "Food therapy is an essential component of TCM and has been acknowledged as a successful therapy for hypertension (Shen et al. 2010)" (p. 1580)
 * "A randomized controlled trial demonstrated that TCM food therapy was effective in helping individuals with hypertension control blood pressure, reduce antihypertensive medication, and improve health-related quality of life (Shen et al., 2010)." (p. 1588)
 * Effectiveness: "Inadequate scientific measurement of its effectiveness. Preliminary findings suggest that the food therapy may reduce blood pressure, reduce the use of antihypertensive medication, and improve health-related quality of life." (p. 1590)
 * "using scientific methodologies to summarize existing evidence is needed" (p. 1581)
 * "the majority food therapy evidence comes from TCM classics and provides a qualitative theoretical understanding about the relationship between diet and blood pressure from a traditional medicine perspective" (1589–90)
 * Evidence: "Most are TCM classics; modern randomized controlled trials are emerging" (p. 1590)

 * Thanks for your thorough reply. I think the issue with the present version now is not that the lede is not supported by the sources, but that the use of modal verbs such as may, might, could etc are stylistically inappropriate, especially for the lede where it's better to summarize what is actually known about the subject without going into too much detail on the divisions between different schools of thought on - i.e. a comparison with DASH. The version you put there is in my opinion, preferable to your first edit, so thanks for taking the time to reword it. I'd argue that weakening and rendering a statement more vague and hedging as you put it, is not the same as making an article more neutral. Also the precepts section needs to be renamed and the information therein expanded. I'd recommend taking some of the information you want to put into the lede and expanding on it in that section. In particular, one of the cited articles goes into detail about the belief in a relationship between different tastes and their effect on the body. These can be detailed in the article as these beliefs are currently very much a part of Chinese thought on many levels and have been widely documented. Rather than revert I'd ask you to have a look at your wording with the above point in mind and see if you think there's a better approach. Edaham (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

 * You're welcome, and thank you in turn for your thoughtful comment. I will not insist to keep this sentence in the lede. When you intervened, the Zou reference had just been added to the lede by another editor, along with a generic sentence ("There is limited scientific basis for supporting these beliefs") that I did not think summarized its content very well, hence my attempt to reword it. My "hedging" was not designed to make the statement vaguer, but to specify the scope of its applicability, hoping that in doing so it would become clearer rather than vaguer. Until we have several reliable sources discussing the efficacy of food therapy in various contexts, it would probably be wise to move such discussions somewhere else. Unfortunately I know very little much about the secondary literature on CFT...
 * I agree with your other suggestions. Apart from the historical section, which I wrote more during an AfD to show that "Chinese food therapy" was a legitimate encyclopedic topic, the rest of the article is flimsy and should be expanded. As you noticed, the Zou source (which I didn't know about until today) gives plenty of details on the "precepts" of Chinese food therapy. I'll see what I can do with it tomorrow (China time).
 * Speaking of which... May I respectfully ask why you dislike the term "precepts"? "Doctrine" sounded too strong, because Chinese understandings of food vary in time and space. From my scholarly training, I tend to mistrust the word "beliefs", both because it is negatively connoted (it implicitly contrasts with "knowledge") and because it obscures the importance of practices. This is why I had chosen the word "precepts" and why I would still prefer "Chinese *understandings* of [rather than "beliefs concerning"] the effects of food" in the lede. Is there any other word you would find acceptable?
 * Madalibi (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say that precepts is a little narrow as it focuses on the basis for the beliefs, while beliefs is a little bit subjectively loaded. What the article needs is something which allows the reader to simply know what the deal is with dietary effects on health from a Chinese perspective. If we can find the sources, it would be good to include the fact that aside from just being a therapy, there are widely held beliefs on the subject which affect Chinese people at a family level as well as marketing and economic factors on a social level. Without wanting to expand beyond the reach of what one would expect from an encyclopedia, it might be good to have a sentence or two covering these topics. With that in mind, a main section heading of: "Contemporary use", with sub sections on "basis" "usage (by region)" "products (without actually naming brands)" and "other regions". The idea being that such a rich topic deserves some info on what the actual situation is, without (as has been the case with some medical articles) inviting a skeptical criticism of its efficacy before the subject has been properly introduced to the reader. The subject is of huge importance to Chinese culture and deserves this much. Edaham (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Another perspective comes from the field of medicine where the words "food" (i.e., nutrients with anti-disease effects) and "therapy" (established evidence for a treatment preventing or curing disease) require rigor of sources that the practices and literature of CFT cannot provide. I know "beliefs" is a soft, subjective, compromised term, but feel that "understandings" and "precepts" project firmer, perhaps scientifically established, evidence (where none exists) for encyclopedia readers unfamiliar with CFT. The sources for the article are generally weak in numbers and substance, and there is no actual evidence about the nutrients in CFT foods and even less so about the mechanisms or proof of therapy. Medical editors at WP follow the guideline, WP:MEDRS, for which CFT has no good scientific consensus or evidence-based results; compare against WP:MEDASSESS. --Zefr (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * true, it is actually used as a treatment - a poorly evidenced one with benefits (if any) which are far from being due to the superstitions on which they are based. It's also true that a bunch of quackademia has sprung up to support said superstitions and attempt to tie scientific looking bells and ribbons onto the legends. This should come across in the article. What should also come across is that CFT is a part of everyday culture in a way homeopathy is not. Nobody would think to water down their hamburger at a restaurant until only one part in a billion remained, however people in China might well forego a food which arrived in front of them because they believe that fiery things are bad in summer. There are probably even poems and well known sayings about it. "Understandings" would allow both medical precepts and cultural info to appear in the same section and I prefer it to the existing term. Edaham (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Criticism section
Someone's added a criticism section which seems like it may not be entirely relevant. It mentions herbalism which is quite a different subject. I'm not sure how this subject is spun in the west as I live in Shanghai, but here food therapy is quite different from herbalism. There's a big chunk of things wrong with the Chinese traditional understanding of the workings of anatomy, but they are quite specific. The current section looks like it's been copied over from a more generic article on naturopathy. It needs to be worked to be focused on the subject it is dealing with. I do not advocate its removal. Please don't remove it. Edaham (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Hi Edaham, Zefr (who wrote this criticism section on March 8), and Roxy the dog (who reverted my deletion of it). Thanks for starting a discussion, Edaham. I deleted the criticism section because all the references cited are about herbalism and herbal supplements, and none about the actual topic of this article. Of the five sources cited, not one even mentions Chinese food therapy.
 * Note 27 — an article on Quackwatch about herbal supplements
 * Note 28 — a WHO report on alternative medicine that discusses TCM (in a non-critical way that goes against the grain of the criticism section, by the way), but not food therapy
 * Note 29 — "Quality of herbal medicines: Challenges and solutions": behind a paywall, but the title makes it clear what it's about
 * Note 30 — "Deep Sequencing of Plant and Animal DNA Contained within Traditional Chinese Medicines...": the article is about "chemicals derived from plants and animals", and presents an analysis of "15 TCM samples presented in the form of powders, tablets, capsules, bile flakes, and herbal teas": not about food
 * Note 31 — this article's goal is "to assess the information presented and indications claimed on the Internet for the 8 best-selling herbal products", namely "ginkgo biloba, St John's wort, echinacea, ginseng, garlic, saw palmetto, kava kava, and valerian root"
 * As you say, Edaham, "food therapy is quite different from herbalism" and the current section reads like a generic criticism of naturopathy (or herbal supplements). Zefr did not seem to object when I deleted this section a few days ago. And Roxy the dog just reverted me without stating a reason for keeping the section.
 * For the record, I have nothing against criticism sections. This article does lack a solid critical discussion of Chinese food therapy based on relevant reliable sources. I just don't think the current "Criticism" section does this.
 * Note that because of the Chinese government's Internet paranoia, I have recently lost my VPNs, and with that, access to Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar. This means it's really hard for me to find reliable sources. But if someone could find reliable sources that are explicitly critical of "Chinese food therapy", I would gladly volunteer to write a new criticism section based on them.
 * Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm in exactly the same boat as you with the VPN situation. Will try to chip in when I get to the office tomorrow. Edaham (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A (food) therapy article, full of nonsense but no supporting evidence about a chinese medicine therapy needs a criticism section to explain that it is of course nonsense. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The article's Criticism section is mostly off-topic because CFT, although part of TCM and herbalism, is something different by focusing on actual food intake. Only the first sentence is specifically about CFT, and it could be supported by the Zou article which discusses CFT quite extensively, with particular focus on the supposed anti-hypertension effects (despite Zou's conclusion, the supporting evidence is weak, although quite extensive from Chinese sources; see Zou, pages 1585-8). The second and third sentences of the Criticism section and all the sources used do not represent CFT which is overall poorly studied and with no rigorous international review literature I can find. --Zefr (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Perhaps my article edit was hasty, but my opinion remains reasonably clear. So, should I remove that section, to be clear, "Criticism" ? -Roxy the dog. bark 16:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * By linking CFT to folk medicine in the lede and adding criticism in the 'Scientific assessments' section, it seems adequately stated to me, indicating the section on 'Criticism' is redundant and without sufficient sourcing to include it. --Zefr (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You are correct, the right criticism has to be matched with the right nonsense though.Also, as with manual therapies, it's very hard (but not impossible) to conduct blinded studies on this treatment, so genuine and thorough criticism may be tricky to find. Edaham (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for solving this so quickly, everybody. And I like your formulation, Edaham! :) Let me try to add a few more critical views to the history section so that readers will not be tempted to think "these ideas have a long history so they must be right", or something. (Although of course people should feel free to eat more roughage ["cold" food] if they're constipated [a "hot" disease].) One source, for example, speaks of some food associations as "sympathetic magic". These critical views are present in the same reliable sources I used to write the historical account, so the article will remain balanced and won't fall into synthesis. For better contextualization, I will also add comparisons — made explicitly in reliable sources I haven't cited yet — with western medicine: Galen, Renaissance dietetics, humoral medicine, and other such things. All right, keep up the good work! Madalibi (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Chinese food therapy


text:
Talk:Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919)

Untitled
The Peace Treaty with Austria, signed on 10 September 1919. It was signed at St. Germain Palace in Paris. The treaty entered into effect on 16 July 1920.

''The above was the content of the duplicate page.  18:14, 1 May 2004 (UTC)''

disambiguation
The links to this page: ought to be changed to Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (disambiguation), but without an automated process to change the links to those redirects, it is a lot of work. So I have changed them to link to this page and will leave the task to someone who has a bot and can do it easily to change all the links to point at this page before changing the redirects. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Treaty of Saint-Germain (redirect page)
 * Treaty of St. Germain (redirect page)
 * Treaty of Saint Germain (redirect page)

Recent addition, reverted
I removed last addition but not the German-speaking Sudetenland, because this is not an article about what was not done. Sudetenland was not only german-speaking, so the claim itself is invalid.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 15:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rv of your rv. This article is about what was done to Austria by the treaty. The German-speaking Sudetenland was given to CS. -- Matthead DisOuß   22:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It was part of Bohemia for centuries.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 22:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Bohemia is nothing more than the name of a region. The Sudetenland had been part of Austria for Centuries and it was indeed almost entirely German speaking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Germans_in_western_Austro-Hungaria.gif). Please stop your nationalistic motivated omitting of facts.

Deleted Infobox
I deleted the infobox because the maps were irrelevant (showing only German losses). However, it would be a good idea if someone created an infobox for this article. Ryoung 122 12:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The United States - A Signatory?
Did the United States sign it or not? The article can't seem to decide ——67.180.86.254 (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the article is clear that the US signed but did not ratified the treaty. Those are distinct steps. --McSly (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Conditions
I think the condition of this treaty in Line By Line structure will be better.Ovsek (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

irredentists
"In addition the negotiators on the Allied side, particularly Wilson, did not understand when speaking of self-determination that no convenient line could be drawn to separate intermingled nationalities, and that in further cases, irredentists would claim that some German or Hungarian-speaking territories had actually been theirs."

Is this a personal opinion of someone or is it really known "that the negotiators on the Allied side" and Wilson did not understand?


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GWer

Article GWer listed on WP:VFD May 1 to May 7 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Seems to be an irrelevant partisan invention of a Bush hater. Get-back-world-respect 17:52, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bushism -- Cyrius|&#9998 18:56, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, the info should be moved to Bushism. Kingturtle 04:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete outright. Someone came up with a mildly-cute bit of wordplay and had nowhere better to display it.  If it wasn't the article author, he/she's not far from the original source.  TB 22:45, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Yup. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 23:32, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only relevant Google hit is to the Wikipedia article. I don't even like it much. How is it supposed to be pronounced? Gee-double-you-er? Gee-doubler? Not felicitious, not funny, and (the only important thing) no evidence of significant use. Dpbsmith 01:19, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you come up with a new term and you want it to catch on, you have to try posting it somewhere. It was not meant to be funny.
 * Delete. --Samuel J. Howard 02:47, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lame private joke. Alcarillo 15:25, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Private joke? It was neither private or a joke. : ) Kingturtle 04:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GWer


text:
Fear Factor

Fear Factor is an American stunt/dare game show that first aired on NBC from 2001 to 2006 and was initially hosted by comedian and UFC commentator Joe Rogan. The show was adapted by Endemol USA from the original Dutch series titled Now or Neverland.

For the first five seasons, the contestants consisted regularly of three men and three women pitted against each other in a variety of three stunts for a grand prize, usually $50,000. In the sixth season, the show's format was modified to feature four competing teams of two people who have a pre-existing relationship with one another.

Fear Factor was cancelled by NBC in 2006 after six seasons (142 episodes excluding specials with highlights); NBC would briefly revive the series for a nine-episode run in 2011. In 2017, MTV revived the series with rapper and actor Ludacris assuming the host role; this incarnation ran two seasons (thirty-three episodes) before being cancelled in 2018. The show has since spawned many spin-offs, creating its own media franchise.

Original series (2001–2006)
As NBC's answer to the CBS television series Survivor, the show was initially a hit for the network in the summer of 2001 and built strong ratings and popularity in the following seasons. Joe Rogan, then known for his role on the sitcom NewsRadio (1995–1999) and as a commentator for Ultimate Fighting Championship, was hired as the host. According to a 2015 interview with Art Bell, Rogan expected Fear Factor to be cancelled after a few episodes due to objections to some of the content and further stated that he took the job mainly to obtain observations and anecdotes for his stand-up comedy career. The series had a runaway success during the first few seasons, but after the series' fourth season (2003–2004), the popularity and ratings began to decline. By the time the series was in its sixth season, the ratings were in steep decline as a result of content concerns and a growing loss of viewer interest, coupled with the series facing tough competition with other TV shows in the same time slot. As a result, the series was only averaging a 2.6 in the ratings. Later that year, Fear Factor faced tough competition with the TV ratings champion, Fox's talent series American Idol on Tuesday nights and the ratings declined even further and continued to trend further downward during this period. Despite much publicity concerning an improved format and better stunts for season six, the series' ratings continued to drop and consequently, NBC put the struggling program on hiatus for the remainder of the season to make room for the sitcom Joey, the Friends spin-off that was itself removed from the NBC lineup a few weeks later. After a continuous and steep drop in the series' ratings, it was officially cancelled by NBC in May 2006 after six seasons (Joey was cancelled in April) and the network began airing the remainder of the season on June 13, 2006, with the remaining episodes to be aired throughout the summer, with its last episode airing on September 12, 2006. Over its six seasons, Fear Factor earned NBC a reported $600 million in advertising revenue. Currently only the first season has been released on DVD; in early 2009 a box set release containing the entire series on DVD was planned. The project was put on hold for an unknown reason in March 2010. On June 5, 2010, it was announced that the project was cancelled because of the low sales of the first season DVD.

Syndication
In 2004, Fear Factor became the first network reality show to be syndicated. In the fall of that year, NBCUniversal Television Distribution put it into barter syndication and it aired on Fox, The WB and UPN affiliates and on the cable channel FX. However, as of fall 2006, Fear Factor had left local syndication due to lack of sales of NBCUniversal and was not renewed for another season next fall since NBC canceled Fear Factor after six seasons due to low ratings. In addition to FX, reruns of Fear Factor have aired in syndication on Chiller, MTV2 and TBD, with TBD airing a Fear Factor marathon the weekend of May 15–16, 2021. The series also has a YouTube channel, where previously unaired footage is shown.

Revived series (2011–2012)
With Chiller airing reruns of Fear Factor every Sunday night, the ratings led to Comcast informing Entertainment Weekly in a May 31, 2011 report that Fear Factor would be revived for a seventh season. Eight episodes were ordered, including two two-hour episodes and Rogan returning to hosting duties. The revival was shot in high-definition and owing to concerns over the then-ongoing NFL Lockout and the loss of NBC Sunday Night Football episodes, TV Guide reported in early July the show could be ready as early as September as lockout replacement programming (NBC eventually lost one episode, the season premiere Hall of Fame Game, because of the lockout that ended in late July). The series revival began airing on December 12, 2011; the two premiere episodes were viewed by 8.7 million and 8.5 million viewers, respectively. This makes the premiere the highest rated non-sports programming to air on NBC at 8:00 p.m. since February 2008. Following Rogan's verbal disclaimer, the narrator gives a statement and this is one most commonly used:

It all began 10 years ago at the dawn of reality television. Audiences had never seen anything like it. Now, the legend begins all over again. It's bigger, better and more intense than ever before. Welcome back to Fear Factor.

The revival featured four teams of two people with a preexisting relationship per episode, rather than the original versions' six people (three males and three females). The first five seasons had typically used the three male, three female grouping, but the sixth and final pre-revival season always utilized four teams of two people each. The stunts remained basically the same, with the "gross" one in between the two physical ones. NBC pulled a two-hour, five team, five stunt episode entitled "Leeches & Shaved Heads & Tear Gas, Oh My!" which featured a stunt where teams spun a wheel to determine whether they would have to shave their heads and eyebrows, get tattooed or be tear gassed. This episode was scheduled to air in two parts on January 23 and 30, 2012, but it was postponed after Part 1 was replaced by a GOP debate. Another episode, entitled "Hee Haw! Hee Haw!" and featuring a stunt where contestants drink the urine and semen of a donkey, was then scheduled to air January 30, 2012. Hesitant about airing the stunt, NBC eventually pulled the episode after pictures of the stunt appeared online. Video footage of the stunt appeared online after the episode aired on Danish TV in June 2012 and Fear Factor eventually posted short clips of all three stunts on their YouTube channel in July 2014. The sixth episode, entitled "The Bees Are So Angry", was two hours instead of the usual one and included five teams, five stunts and a $100,000 prize instead of the usual four teams, three stunts and $50,000 prize. Following this episode, The Voice replaced the series' slot on Monday nights. On May 13, 2012, NBC announced that Fear Factor was officially cancelled. NBC rescheduled the two hour "Leeches & Shaved Heads & Tear Gas, Oh My!" episode, which aired in two parts over the nights of July 9 and 16. The first part ended with the "To Be Continued" subtitle followed by a preview for the second part.

MTV reboot (2017–2018)
In April 2017, MTV announced that it would be reviving Fear Factor a second time for a 12-episode season. The first season of MTV's Fear Factor premiered on May 30, 2017, and concluded on August 22, 2017. Just prior to the first-season finale, it was announced that MTV had renewed the series for a second season consisting of 20 episodes. The first half of Season 2, subtitled Season From Hell, began airing on February 25, 2018; the second half, subtitled Celebrity Fear Factor, premiered on July 17, 2018. The MTV revival was hosted by Ludacris and continued to use the format of four teams competing for a $50,000 prize. The stunts drew inspiration from elements of pop culture, such as horror movies, urban legends and viral videos.

Original format (2001–2012)
The show begins with an introduction from the narrator and this is one most commonly used:

Imagine a world where your greatest fears become reality. Welcome to Fear Factor. Each show, six contestants from around the country battle each other in three extreme stunts. These stunts are designed to challenge the contestants both physically and mentally. If the contestant is too afraid to complete a stunt, they're eliminated. If they fail a stunt, they're eliminated. But if they succeed, they will be one step closer to the grand prize, $50,000. Six contestants, three stunts, one winner. Fear Factor.

Before the contestants are introduced (and at the half-way point of a two-hour special), Rogan presents a verbal disclaimer. The wording has changed with certain versions, but this is one most commonly used:

I'm Joe Rogan and this is Fear Factor. The stunts you're about to see were all designed and supervised by trained professionals. They are extremely dangerous and should not be attempted by anyone, anywhere, anytime.

The normal format involves three men and three women—or four teams of two people with a pre-existing relationship—who have to complete three professional stunts to win US$50,000. Rogan noted that the stunts not only test any contestants/teams physically, but mentally as well. Any contestants or teams who were too scared to attempt a stunt, failed to complete a stunt or underperformed a stunt were eliminated from the competition. If only one contestant or team successfully completed the first or the second stunt, they automatically win $25,000 and the other contestants eliminated in the stunt along with the winner of the stunt return for the next stunt to compete for the remaining $25,000. If no one successfully completed the first or the second stunt, then all of the contestants and teams eliminated in the stunt would return to the next stunt to compete for a reduced $25,000. This rule did not apply for non-elimination stunts; in those cases, the prize would be carried over to the next stunt. The only exception to this was in season one, where if one person completed the stunt, the contestant won $10,000 and the $50,000 grand prize was not reduced. There were no instances during the first season where all contestants failed a stunt, so it was never revealed how this would have been handled (however Rogan did state 'as usual' in an early episode of the second season, when nobody completed the second stunt—even though it was the first time it had happened—that the prize would be reduced by 50%). In the final episode of season one, it was implied by Rogan during the second stunt that involved eating various pig parts that if only one person won the stunt (after only one contestant, Martin Beech, successfully completed the previous stunt), then that person would get the $50,000 prize without the need to complete the final stunt. Only once in the history of Fear Factor did the $50,000 prize go unclaimed in an episode; On September 27, 2004, a "Best Friends" edition, none of the remaining teams were able to complete the final stunt. In the stunt, one member of each team had to drive a ramp car, while the other member had to drive a sports car. The one driving the sports car had to drive it onto the truck bed via the ramp car. If the sports car fell off of the truck bed at any time, the team was automatically eliminated. Had it been successfully completed, the team who did this the fastest would have won. However, the last remaining contestants walked away with two Mazda vehicles for winning a previous stunt (see Second stunt). After the acquisition of Universal Studios of Vivendi by NBC's parent company General Electric in 2004, contestants could win vacations in order to promote the theme park division of NBCUniversal at Universal Orlando or win trips to Universal Studios in Hollywood.

The order of the stunts on a typical episode of Fear Factor is as follows:

First stunt: The first stunt is designed to physically test each of the contestants or teams (for example, jumping from one building to the next or hanging from a helicopter and collecting flags on a ladder). Usually, the two men and the two women or the three teams, that gave the best performance (such as the fastest time, farthest distance or number of flags collected in under a certain time) will move on to the second stunt. The others are eliminated. In the sixth season, a sometimes-used rule was that the best-performing team won the ability to eliminate the team of their choice, meaning that teams who failed to complete the stunt or had the worst performance could still advance to the next round if the winning team did not choose to eliminate them.

Second stunt: The second stunt is meant to mentally challenge the contestants or teams. The three most common types of stunts in the second round are eating stunts, animal stunts and retrieval or transfer stunts. Eating stunts entail ingesting vile animal parts, live bugs or a blended concoction of multiple items; animal stunts entail immersing one's head or entire body in animals considered to be disgusting or intimidating (such as rats, spiders, snakes or worms); retrieval or transfer stunts involve retrieving items or gross objects (often by mouth) hidden in disgusting substances (for example, blood or lard) or live animals. On rare occasions, the 'mental' challenge would be of a completely different nature, and not be an objectively gross stunt (such as eating undesirable animal parts). Rather, it would be a test of pain endurance, for instance walking barefoot on broken glass or ingesting habanero peppers. Even less often still, the second stunt would be a test of the contestants' tolerance of (sometimes long-term) public humiliation, such as parading nude down a catwalk in front of an audience of photographers, getting a tattoo, or, in one episode of season 6, receiving a humiliating hair cut, such as a mohawk or "taco" style. At the time of broadcast, many fans commented that the latter stunt was amongst the most unreasonable stunts in the show's history.

With the exception of retrieval or transfer stunts, contestants are usually not eliminated after this stunt unless they fail to complete it or vomit before finishing. In the case of teams, one team may be eliminated for having the worst performance. In later episodes, a common (but not always used) rule was that no one would be eliminated after the second stunt; instead, the contestant or team that performed the best would receive a prize, such as a vehicle or a prize package similar in value. More often than not, the contestant or team with the best performance had the privilege of choosing the order that the contestants or teams had to go in to perform the next stunt [for the following day]. Extremely rarely during the show's original run, Rogan would participate in the second stunt, most often as a way of encouraging contestants to take part. However, during a stunt involving tear gas in the third season, the wind changed direction and tear gas blew in the direction of Rogan, the camera crew and the other contestants that were not taking part at that particular moment. On another occasion during the first series, though it was not aired, Rogan ate three sheep eyes exactly like the contestants had to, as it was the first 'gross' stunt to be taped in the series' run and he did not feel it fair that the contestants should go at it alone, while he sat cheering them on.

Third stunt: The third and final stunt is usually something from an extreme type of stunt seen in an action film. Like the first stunt, it usually involves heights, water, vehicles, or some combination of the three. In order to avoid ties, this stunt is always competitive. The player or team with the best performance this round wins the grand prize, usually $50,000 and has the privilege of being informed by Rogan that "evidently, fear is not a factor for you." Naturally, on the one occasion that the $50,000 prize went unclaimed (the season 5 Best Friends episode), Rogan instead informed the contestants that "evidently, fear is a factor for you." However, Rogan would also do this when nobody completed one of the earlier stunts, even when the stunt in question was not an elimination round.

Four-Stunt Show
This was typically a 90-minute episode featuring four stunts instead of three. The first such episode aired in season 3 and was notable for a stunt involving body piercing. In seasons 4–6, at least one of the four stunts was a non-elimination stunt in which contestants competed for a prize. The four-stunt format was sometimes used in conjunction with themed episodes, such as Family Fear Factor, Twins Fear Factor and Thanksgiving Fear Factor. In season 5, six contestants from other reality shows competed in a two-hour, four-stunt episode for $50,000.

Extended competitions
Some Fear Factor competitions consisted of five or more stunts and featured an increased grand prize. These competitions were always presented as multi-part episodes or single two-hour episodes. The first such competitions were the Tournaments of Champions in seasons 2 and 3 (see below). Season 4 included a two-hour season premiere in which 12 contestants competed in six stunts for a grand prize of $1,000,000; and a two-part, six-stunt Las Vegas episode where the winner would have a chance to win up to $100,000 based on his or her performance in the final stunt (they would then have to bet half their winnings on a hand of blackjack). Season 6 featured two three-episode, six-stunt competitions ("Psycho Fear Factor" and "Reality Stars Fear Factor"). Season 7 included two five-stunt competitions in which five teams competed for a grand prize of $100,000; the first aired as a single two-hour episode, and the second aired in two parts.

Tournament of Champions: Seasons 2–3 concluded with a Tournament of Champions featuring the winners of each episode of those respective seasons and a $100,000 grand prize. In season two, the 13 non-celebrity winners were divided into groups of eight men and five women. For the first four stunts, men competed amongst men and women competed amongst women in two stunts each. The men had to release a flag from a locked box while hanging suspended in the air and eat three different items from a table. The women had to collect flags while on top of an aircraft and retrieve three poles from a tank with alligators. The stunts narrowed the contestants down from eight men and five women to two men and two women who will, in the end, compete against each other for the grand prize by using a key to activate a horn while riding on a speeding truck. In season three, the 24 winners were divided into two groups of 12, each containing seven men and five women. In the first semifinal episode, the group was cut from 12 to six to three to two finalists. In the second semifinal episode, the group was cut from 12 to six in the first stunt, then the men competed amongst the men and the women competed amongst the women in the second stunt and then the final four contestants, two men and two women, were cut to two finalists. Each finalist won a 2004 Mazda RX-8 and a chance at the $100,000. In the finals, the four finalists competed in three stunts. Each stunt eliminated one contestant and the final stunt determined the winner.

Couples Fear Factor: Seasons 4–5 both included Couples Fear Factor competitions that played out over seven episodes and featured a grand prize of $1,000,000. Nine couples competed in 17 stunts in season 4 and eight couples competed in 14 stunts in season 5. In season 4, each episode contained two or three stunts, with at least one stunt being a non-elimination stunt. In season 5, each episode featured two stunts; the first was always a non-elimination stunt and the second usually eliminated the team with the worst performance. In contrast to the regular format, only one team was eliminated in each elimination stunt; if multiple teams failed the stunt, then the teams that succeeded would vote on which failing team to eliminate. Almost every stunt offered a prize (e.g., cars, vacations, pre-loaded credit cards, a chance to steal a desired prize from another team) or a $10,000 incentive to the team with the best performance. Couples Fear Factor episodes had certain stylistic differences from the regular format, including a different opening sequence and onscreen interviews with the contestants (regular episodes usually presented interviews in voiceover format only).

Psycho Fear Factor: A three-episode series in which six couples competed in six stunts for various cash and prizes, including a grand prize of $250,000. The stunts were centered around the Bates Motel on the set of the original Psycho horror movie from Paramount Pictures. Unlike other Fear Factor episodes, contestants were required to sleep in the filthy Bates Motel between stunts and were subjected to Fear Factor pranks and mini-challenges while in the motel.

Reality Stars Fear Factor: A three-episode series in which five teams of Reality TV stars competed in six stunts for various cash and prizes, including a grand prize of $150,000. Featured the teams were Jonny Fairplay and Twila Tanner from Survivor, Jonathan Baker and Victoria Fuller from The Amazing Race, Craig Williams and Tana Goertz from The Apprentice, The Miz and Trishelle Cannatella from The Real World and Anthony Fedorov and Carmen Rasmusen from American Idol. The series was won by The Miz and Cannatella.

Other formats
Celebrity special (seasons two, three and six): In seasons 2–3, episodes with celebrity contestants were played in the normal format, except that contestants were playing for charity. The winning contestant's charity would receive $50,000 and other contestants' charities would receive a lesser amount ($10,000 or $25,000). In season 6, eight celebrity contestants paired up into teams of two for the first two stunts but competed individually in the final stunt. Stephen Baldwin, Kevin Richardson and Alan Thicke are among the celebrities who have competed on Fear Factor. Season 2 included an episode featuring six WWF/E stars; it was won by Matt Hardy.

All-Gross Show (seasons 3–6): All three stunts on this show followed the format of the second (gross) stunt as described above. The first such episode involved bobbing for objects in a vat containing 50 gallons of cow blood. In seasons 4–5, the all-gross format was used for Halloween-themed episodes. In season six, a "Farm Fear Factor" episode featured all gross stunts.

Mixed Team and Individual Stunts (seasons two, five and six): In most episodes, contestants competed individually or in teams of two for the entire competition. However, there were three episodes in which contestants paired up into teams for the first and/or second stunt but competed individually in the final stunt. The first instance of this was a season 2 episode in which three pairs of twins competed as teams in the first stunt and competed individually in the other two stunts. In season 5's "New York vs. L.A." episode, the first stunt narrowed a pool of eight contestants down to four (one man and one woman from each city); contestants from the same city then teamed up in the second stunt and all contestants competed as individuals in the final stunt. A season 6 celebrity episode had contestants competing as teams in the first two stunts and individually in the final stunt. In the latter episode, contestants were allowed to attempt the stunts alone if their partner quit before the stunt started.

Holiday specials (seasons 3–5): Over the course of the series, Fear Factor produced three Christmas episodes, two Halloween episodes and a Thanksgiving episode. The Christmas episodes featured Christmas-themed stunts but were otherwise played in the normal format. The Halloween episodes followed the all-gross format and the Thanksgiving episode followed the four-stunt format.

Las Vegas Show (seasons 3–5): Stunts took place at various hotels and casinos in Las Vegas. The show's winner was required to bet at least half of their winnings on one hand of Blackjack, with the chance to continue gambling if successful.

Special Contestants (seasons 2–7): Some episodes featured a specific type of contestant (notably models, all-female, twins, military members, reality television stars, freaks and geeks, young and old, returning contestants) or teams with a specific type of relationship (e.g., couples, newlyweds, siblings, best friends, parent/child teams, exes). Many of these episodes were played in the regular format, although some used a four-stunt or extended competition format.

Fear Factor Super Bowl Halftime Show (season 2): Played in the normal format with Playboy Playmates. The first stunt aired as counter programming to the Super Bowl halftime show and ended right before the third quarter of the game started. The remaining two stunts were shown immediately after the game as counter programming to the Super Bowl lead-out show.

Miss USA (seasons 3–5): Played in the normal format with Miss USA contestants, with the winning contestant keeping $25,000 and giving $25,000 to a charity of their choice. There was no Miss USA edition in the sixth season of Fear Factor, as NBC produced a Miss USA edition of Deal or No Deal instead; the Miss USA contestants were the briefcase models for the entire episode. The next time that Miss USA delegates would be involved in a game show was in 2010 on Minute to Win It. The Miss USA edition was not present in the show's final two seasons, as the current format had four teams of two people.

Blind Date (season 6): Four single men were introduced to four single women and either the women (in the first episode) or the men (in the second episode) got to choose their partner among the available contestants of the opposite sex. The game was then played in the regular format, with the winning team dividing the prize.

Sleep Deprivation (season 4): Five co-ed pairs of contestants competed as teams in the normal format, with one exception: contestants had to stay awake for the 48-hour duration of the competition. If a contestant fell asleep at any time before the final stunt was completed, his or her team would be eliminated. This was the only episode in the entire series (original or revived) in which contestants could be eliminated in the downtime between stunts.

Million Dollar Heist: (season 6): Played in the regular teams format, but instead of competing for the normal $50,000 prize, teams would race head-to-head to "steal" up to $1,000,000 worth of gold from an armored truck submerged in water for their final stunt. The team that "stole" the most money's worth of gold within the time limit would win the combined amount of money collected by both teams.

Home Invasion: This short segment was included at the end of each episode in season six. It involved Rogan going to different homes across America and challenging a family to compete in a stunt. Each stunt usually involved the contestants under a time limit (usually one minute) ingesting or bobbing in something foul or undesirable. If successful, the family would win up to $5,000 in the form of pre-loaded credit cards from Capital One.

MTV format (2017–2018)
MTV's Fear Factor revival continued to use the format of four teams of two people competing in three challenges for a $50,000 grand prize, as in the last two seasons of the NBC series. As the show started, Ludacris gives a verbal disclaimer. The wording has changed with certain versions, but this is one commonly used:

The challenges you are about to see were designed and tested by trained professionals. They are extremely ludicrous and should never be attempted by anyone, anywhere, or at anytime. This is MTV's Fear Factor.

However, the order of the stunts, as well as some of the rules, differ from the original format. Each episode in first season of the MTV version had three named rounds: Beat the Beast, Face Your Fear and The Final Fear.

Beat the Beast: This stunt challenges the contestants to conquer their fear of something creepy (usually live creatures considered gross or intimidating) and generally follows the same format as animal stunts from the second stunt of the original version. The team with the best performance in this round wins a "FearVantage", which is an advantage in the next round (such as picking the order).

Face Your Fear: This is a challenge tailored to a common fear shared by all of the contestants on a particular episode. The nature of this stunt varies widely depending on the fears of the contestants.

The Final Fear: This is an extreme physical stunt that follows the same format as the first and third stunts from the original version of the show. The team with the best performance wins the $50,000 grand prize.

The second season abandoned categorized rounds and FearVantages but continued to follow the general format of the first two rounds consisting of gross stunts and/or small-scale physical stunts, followed by an extreme physical stunt in the final round.

Controversy
Fear Factor has received criticism from the general public mainly because of the show's second stunt, which intends to disgust its viewers. The American Humane Association expressed concerns for allowing various animals to get injured and even killing insects by eating them alive during the videotaping of the show. The association also revealed that professional animal trainers have refused to work on the show because the producers of Fear Factor have demanded stunts that violate the association's guidelines. In January 2005, an episode featuring a stunt involving blended rats aired in its normal prime time slot. Austin Aitken, a part-time paralegal from Cleveland, sued NBC for US$2.5 million for airing the show, claiming that he felt so disgusted from watching the stunt, his blood pressure rose to the point he felt dizzy and lightheaded and subsequently vomited. His disorientation was so severe that he ran into a doorway and seriously injured himself. Two months later, U.S. District Judge Lesley Wells threw out the lawsuit on the grounds of First Amendment protection. Fear Factor was also criticized by major U.S. electrical utilities for an episode that required contestants to climb through a simulated electrical substation with "electrified wires" complete with simulated sparks and electrical sounds added in post-processing. The Edison Electric Institute issued a warning regarding the episode, fearing that viewers might attempt to climb through a real substation with potentially fatal results. An episode originally scheduled for January 30, 2012, featuring contestants drinking donkey semen and urine was rejected by NBC, which instead aired a rerun. On January 31, 2012, two of the contestants, twin sisters Claire and Brynne Odioso, appeared on The Cowhead Show on Tampa Bay radio station WHPT to talk about their experiences in that episode; however, according to TMZ.com, producers of Fear Factor warned the Odioso sisters not to continue any discussion of the program, as doing so would put them in breach of their confidentiality agreements.

Spin-off products and theme park attraction
Fear Factor has also resulted in various spin-off products:
 * A game called Fear Factor: Unleashed was published by Hip Interactive for the Game Boy Advance.
 * A Fear Factor board game was published by Master Pieces.
 * There were several books based on Fear Factor, such as The Fear Factor Cookbook and Fear Factor Mad Libs.
 * Brand New Candy made several novelty candies based on Fear Factor, including eyeballs.
 * The theme park stunt show attraction Fear Factor Live opened in World Expo at Universal Studios Florida in Orlando, Florida, and in Upper Lot at Universal Studios Hollywood in Hollywood, California, in the Spring of 2005. The Hollywood attraction has since been replaced by Creature from the Black Lagoon: The Musical. The Orlando attraction later closed in March 2020 due to COVID-19 pandemic and did not return to the park following the lifting of Covid-19 restrictions.
 * Eight champions from Fear Factor participated in a special edition of Weakest Link that originally aired August 13, 2001. The episode was noteworthy in that only $22,500 was won; this stood as the lowest score on the NBC version of the show.
 * A free ad-supported streaming television channel on various fast services sharing the same title as the show that only shows reruns of previously aired episodes from the original and revival NBC series.

title: Fear Factor


text: User talk:80.177.16.157

title: User talk:80.177.16.157


text:
Vietnam syndrome

Vietnam syndrome is a term in U.S. politics that refers to public aversion to American overseas military involvements after the domestic controversy over the Vietnam War. In 1973, the U.S. ended combat operations in Vietnam. Since the early 1980s, some possible effects of Vietnam syndrome include public opinion against war, ending the active use of military conscription, a relative reluctance to deploy ground troops, and "Vietnam paralysis".

Failure in Vietnam
In the domestic debate over the reasons for the US being unable to defeat North Vietnamese forces during the war, conservative thinkers, many of whom were in the US military, argued that the US had sufficient resources but that the war effort had been undermined at home. In an article in Commentary, "Making the World Safe for Communism", the journalist Norman Podhoretz stated:

"Do we lack power?... Certainly not if power is measured in brute terms of economic, technological, and military capacity. By those standards, we are still the most powerful country in the world.... The issue boils down in the end, then, to the question of will."

The term "Vietnam syndrome" thereafter proliferated in the press and policy circles as a way of explaining the United States, one of the world's superpowers, failing to repel North Vietnam's invasion of South Vietnam. Many hawkish conservatives such as Ronald Reagan agreed with Podhoretz. In time, the term "Vietnam syndrome" expanded as a shorthand for the idea that Americans were worried they would never win a war again and that their nation was in utter decline.

In the fall of 1983, President Reagan put his beliefs into action by ordering the invasion of Grenada. A long-simmering internal leadership dispute within the ruling Marxist-Leninist party on the Eastern Caribbean island had suddenly spun out of control, leading to political executions and innocent civilian deaths in the capital city on Oct. 19. Reagan concluded that swift American military action was necessary to protect about 1,000 American residents on the microstate, and also to restore Westminster-style democracy and end growing Soviet Bloc influence over the former British colony. Reagan pushed past the hesitancy of the Pentagon leadership, and the expected domestic and international blowback, to authorize a surprise U.S.-led intervention at dawn on Oct. 25. His presidential directive specifically instructed the Pentagon to take strict secrecy measures to head off any pre-emptive action by the Cubans or the Soviets. "Frankly, there was another reason I wanted secrecy", Reagan later confided in his autobiography. "It was what I call the 'post-Vietnam syndrome,' the resistance of so many in Congress to the use of military force abroad for any reason, because of our nation's experience in Vietnam.... I suspected that if we told the leaders of Congress about the operation, even under terms of the strictest confidentiality, there would be someone who would leak it to the press together with the prediction that Grenada was going to become 'another Vietnam.'.... We didn't ask anybody, we just did it."

Ronald Reagan's speech to Veterans of Foreign Wars
In the later 1970s and the 1980s, Ronald Reagan talked about the aspects of the Vietnam syndrome but argued that it could be overcome if Americans adopted a more confident and optimistic posture in the world, with him as leader. In the speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), which used the term "Vietnam syndrome", Reagan alleged that the time was right for such a change of attitude and action since the Soviet Union was outspending the US in the global arms race such that the latter's global power was decreasing. He accused the Carter administration of being "totally oblivious" to the Soviet threat.

Asserting a need for a more aggressive and activist foreign policy, Reagan also suggested that Americans could have defeated the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army, alleged that the American public had turned against the war from the influence of North Vietnamese propaganda, and implied that officials had let down the soldiers and had been "afraid to let them win" the war.

Reagan equated the "Vietnam syndrome" with a reluctance on the part of the American public to support US military interventions but also with feelings of guilt about the devastation brought about because of the Vietnam War and with feelings of doubt over the morality of America's intentions and actions during the war. Reagan, however, argued that America had fought for "a noble cause" and blamed the war in Vietnam exclusively on North Vietnam's aggression:

"For too long, we have lived with the "Vietnam Syndrome." Much of that syndrome has been created by the North Vietnamese aggressors who now threaten the peaceful people of Thailand. Over and over they told us for nearly 10 years that we were the aggressors bent on imperialistic conquests. They had a plan. It was to win in the field of propaganda here in America what they could not win on the field of battle in Vietnam. As the years dragged on, we were told that peace would come if we would simply stop interfering and go home.

It is time we recognized that ours was, in truth, a noble cause. A small country newly free from colonial rule sought our help in establishing self-rule and the means of self-defense against a totalitarian neighbor bent on conquest. We dishonor the memory of 50,000 young Americans who died in that cause when we give way to feelings of guilt as if we were doing something shameful, and we have been shabby in our treatment of those who returned. They fought as well and as bravely as any Americans have ever fought in any war. They deserve our gratitude, our respect, and our continuing concern.

There is a lesson for all of us in Vietnam. If we are forced to fight, we must have the means and the determination to prevail or we will not have what it takes to secure the peace. And while we are at it, let us tell those who fought in that war that we will never again ask young men to fight and possibly die in a war our government is afraid to let them win."

Burial of syndrome by military actions
The Reagan administration hoped that the success of the invasion of Grenada would help dispel the Vietnam syndrome so that the American public could be successfully galvanized to support new US military actions,  with President Reagan declaring after the invasion, "Our days of weakness are over. Our military forces are back on their feet and standing tall."

The quick victory during the Gulf War was widely believed to be the end of the Vietnam syndrome. US President George H. W. Bush triumphantly declared after the war, "The ghosts of Vietnam have been laid to rest beneath the sands of the Arabian desert."

Bosnian War
"Lift and strike" was a proposed policy by the Clinton administration in 1993, which Bill Clinton had supported during his successful presidential campaign in 1992. The policy sought to improve the chances of a political settlement in the bloody atrocity-filled Bosnian War in the former Yugoslavia by lifting the arms embargo, arming the Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims), and striking at the Bosnian Serbs if they resisted the rearmament project. A combination of the Vietnam syndrome and very strong opposition from American allies in Europe killed the proposal, which was never enacted.

title: Vietnam syndrome


text:
Nick Browne-Wilkinson, Baron Browne-Wilkinson

Nicolas Christopher Henry Browne-Wilkinson, Baron Browne-Wilkinson, PC (30 March 1930 – 25 July 2018) was a British judge who served as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary from 1991 to 2000, and Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary from 1998 to 2000.

Life and career
Browne-Wilkinson was the sixth child and only son of the Rev Canon Arthur Browne-Wilkinson, MC, and of Mary Abraham, daughter of Charles Abraham, Bishop of Derby. He was educated at Lancing and at Magdalen College, Oxford, where he took a First in Jurisprudence in 1952. He was called to the Bar at Lincoln's Inn in 1953 and took silk in 1972. He was a judge of the Court of Appeal of Jersey and of Guernsey from 1976 to 1977.

In 1977, Browne-Wilkinson was appointed a Justice of the High Court of Justice and assigned to the Chancery division, receiving the customary knighthood. He was promoted as a Lord Justice of Appeal in 1983, and was of sworn of the Privy Council. From 1985 to 1991 he was Vice-Chancellor, the de facto head of the Chancery Division.

He was made a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and was created a life peer as Baron Browne-Wilkinson, of Camden in the London Borough of Camden on 1 October 1991, and was Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary from 1998 until his retirement as Law Lord in 2000. His tenure as Senior Law Lord was marred by the controversy surrounding the Pinochet extradition case. He retired from the House of Lords under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 on 1 March 2016.

Family
Browne-Wilkinson married Ursula de Lacy Bacon in 1955; they had three sons and two daughters. After her death in 1987, he married Hilary Warburton in 1990.

Selected judgments

 * Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority [1992] QB 333
 * Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789
 * Tan Te Lam v Superintendent of Tai A Chau Detention Centre [1997] AC 97
 * Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] AC 669
 * R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) [2000] 1 AC 119
 * R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No 3) [2000] 1 AC 147
 * Multiservice Bookbinding Ltd v Marden [1979] Ch 84
 * Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns [1996] AC 421


text:
Talk:United States one-hundred-dollar bill

Untitled
True or false: there are still a large number of $100 bills of a series prior to 1996 in circulation. (Generalize this to $50's, $20's, $10's, and $5's as well, and if true, make your estimate on when it will be false.) 66.32.143.38 18:32, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Well there certaintly seems to be a lot less of them than the newer design, but yes, there are quite a few of the older ones still in existance, and many of them still see circulation. If anything, old 100's, because they aren't used as often as lower denomination bills, are probably more common than old 5, 10, 20, and 50 dollar bills in circulation.  Most 100 dollar bills will only circulate about 5 years... but some circulate longer, and if someone holds onto a 100 dollar bill for a long time before spending it, that probably accounts for how an older bill may end up in circulation a long time after it was printed.  24.8.252.164 (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

- The role of US $100 bills in international markets, especially during financial instability after the collapse of the USSR, is the major interest at this entry. It's also the reason for the flood of counterfeits that hasn't been mentioned. Wetman 18:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is the "new" 100 USD note going to help secure our currency outside the borders? Does the current design ever re-enter or re-circulate inside the US? Or does it stay outside the country as a stable replacement to weaker local currencies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.64.79 (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Date of new $100 bill
In 2003, the Internet sites announcing the new $100 bill said it will be released in 2005. By late 2005, however, this was known that it won't be until at least 2007. Now, the article says that it will come after 2008's $5 bill, which means that the most reasonable year is 2009. Anyone who disagrees?? Georgia guy 18:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, either late 2008 or early 2009, based on release schedules of current issues. Bjd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjd (talk • contribs) 21:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Next $100 bill
It's going to be paper but with a plastic rainbow see-through area. I could say more but then I'd have to kill all of you. Smootsmoot 09:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction
This is about the physical size of the notes. Please discuss at Talk:Large-sized note. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Pre-1996 note design
Can anyone get a scan of the old (pre-1996) $100 bill? —Scott5114↗ 05:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I found one, albeit the USN (not the FRNs that were commonly used by the public), and added it to the article.—Scott5114↗ 06:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

--

One-hundred dollar bills are delivered by Federal Reserve Banks in mustard-colored straps binding 100 notes or $10,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.80.112.221 (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Nicknames Section
A user 65.222.185.2 has proposed that this section be summarily removed. I do not see the logic in just removing the section. Comments?-MBK004 17:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I concur. There needs to be more justification than "this is cruft." Everything is "cruft" by that sort of loose definition. Bold edits like that require consensus, per WP:CONS/WP:BRD. The continued removal, without discussion towards consensus, constitutes edit warring and may violate the three revert rule. I see no reason to remove it - it's not trivia or cruft, it's perfectly good content - nicknames of people, groups, objects, etc generally merit inclusion. --Cheeser1 20:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

 * My reasons for suggested removal are as follow: It is loosely based items, like I previosly stated anyone may claim that the nickname "horseshit" is reasonable.... Now we all know that that's notthe case, but it may happen. Perhaps if you listed the nickname, along with reasons as to why it is called so, then it should stay. For example, if you explain that it is called a "Franklin" because of Benjamin Franklin, then that is plausible, but if the list only contains, slang words, and no background information, then I see no purpose for the section to exist at all. I hope this can follow suit on the other US bill articles as well.
 * I also suggest that you only add the ones with logical info.
 * If you have no info, it is not encyclopedic. 65.222.185.2 15:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Please be civil. Your language is inappropriate, and your reasoning appears to be inconsistent. All of those terms, except one, already have "reasons as to why it is called so." And yet you removed the section. Furthermore, the term that has no explanation is obvious: "100 Bones" because "bones" is slang for "dollar." --Cheeser1 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

 * "OOOO he cursed".....Just because I said a swear word does not mean that I'm not civil. Fuck it, keep the section, you got me. By the way, why is bones slang for dollar. I'm curious and I've never heard of it before. Please disregard my changed IP. I'm not a sock, I'm on a wireless router connection. 68.44.175.59 23:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

 * When someone asks you to be civil, it is not customary to mock them. Wikipedia is not censored does not mean you have free license to swear at other users. Bones is slang for a unit of currency in North America, and stems I believe from the use of bones as currency by some Native Americans. I can't source that right now though - I could be wrong. --Cheeser1 01:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, I was wrong. Please forgive me, I went to far. Anyways, thanks for your wisdom. I did not know that! 65.222.185.2 12:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have red stamped 100 dollor bil and want to know how much it is worth today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.235.130 (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll give you $50 for it. 153.42.170.64 (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What's correct?
I notice that this article uses a couple of different flavours of hyphenation for "one hundred dollar bill". The title has it "one hundred-dollar bill", but at the end of the lead it's given as "one-hundred dollar bill".

I've changed the sentence in the lead to match the hyphenation in the title, on the assumption that's the more common convention, and for the sake of consistency in this article. --Malleus Fatuarum 12:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

 * You know, I was wondering about that. As far as I know, there is no hyphenation. Googling the phrase gives (as far as I can tell) mostly unhyphenated versions, and some with hyphenation between the one and hundred instead. --Cheeser1 02:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I believe this would fall under the "compound modifiers" section of Wikipedia's own article on hyphen, which suggests that the hyphen is either not necessary, or that the article should be called "United States one-hundred-dollar bill". "Jayne Mansfield was covered in one hundred dollar bills" is ambiguous, because she could be covered in several hundred-dollar bills, or one hundred individual dollar bills, but "United States one hundred dollar bill" is unambiguous. Judging by the entries at Hundred dollar bill the imposition of standard hyphenation for currency is something for future generations to debate. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Time on the clock
It is stated that the time on the clock on the back of the bill is 4:10. The high resolution image itself appears to read 2:20. The movie "National Treasure" also refers to the time as 2:20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.228.212 (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

While the movie "National Treasure" may be a valid source for movie trivia and superstition, it's probably better to defer to an official government website for more factual data.

From the US Bureau of Engraving and Printing "Money Facts" website:

"There is no record that the man and woman standing in front of the hall close to the building are embracing. The hands of the clock on the hall are set at approximately 4:10. There are no records explaining why that particular time was chosen." http://www.moneyfactory.gov/document.cfm/18/2232130.76.32.19 (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The bit about the clock face, in the first paragraph of the article, really is minutiae that belongs farther down in the article if anywhere at all. I don't have a hundred dollar bill on me to check, but I read on another site that the clock face isn't even visible without the aid of a magnifying glass. Also, I tagged the sentence about the "100th date" as original research because it contradicts the official statement posted above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.189.179 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If you look closer at the time and at the painting that they used you will see the correct time is 2:22 this needs to be corrected  Dustinycross (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Naming
While the colloquial name is the $100 bill, the true name is the $100 Federal Reserve note. I would like to include this name in the article, is that acceptable? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

no changes to assist the visually impaired in distinguishing bill denominations? on new bills
this statement is factually inaccurate. do you miss the GIANT 100 on the back. maybe we should not try to be PC and say BLIND people.. because you must be totally BLIND to miss the GIANT 100. -Tracer9999 (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox is unreleased series 2009?
It seems weird to me that the imagery in the infobox is of an unreleased bill (series 2009). Since series 2003 bills are the ones in circulation and the ones you are most likely to see, shouldn't their imagery but front-and-center? I do think the page should feature the bell-in-the-inkwell (2009) design, maybe even as the first section discussing the controversy/problems/delays/whatever, but not as the first image. jhawkinson (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Series 2006A is replacing the Series 2009 UNTIL the creasing problem is solved. By the informations that I have, there is now a Series 2009A, that is considered a new production cycle of colorized notes. The creasing problem is, at least mitigated. O530Fn942012A (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Three bills with non-presidents
There have been three bills with non-presidents ( $10k bill was Salmon Chase ). So, should this be updated to reflect that, or should we leave it alone, as there are very few $10k bills remaining? Rsaxvc (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I altered it slightly so that it's consistent with the statement that it's about bills printed today. Georgia guy (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Security strip
Under the 1991 design description it states "a metallic security strip on the left side of the bill", while the 1996 design paragraph says "...a plastic security thread [was] kept." I'm fairly certain that it was always a plastic strip, as the second statement seems to imply. I recall removing one (from a lesser bill of course) in my youth out of curiosity and it was like a mylar type film. Since there's no reference given for either statement, I wouldn't know where to look to verify it, so here's a request to nail it down. "Metallic strip" would seem to cater to the foil hat-wearers who think it's magnetic and that the government is tracking every piece of paper currency, and we wouldn't want to do that, would we? 184.167.224.119 (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

$2 notes also feature reverse not in Washington D.C.
I noticed that in the article it claims the $100 dollar note is the only federal reserve note to have a reverse of a building not in Washington D.C. This is false. The $2 dollar note features the Johnathan Trumbull painting of the signing of the Declaration of Independence in Liberty Hall. So the $2 and $100 notes have reverses not in Washington D.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.187.72 (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The actual time
The time on the clock is not 4:10 and is not 2:20 the correct time on the old 100$ bill is 2:22 this needs to be corrected because the original painting they use of independence hall is set at 2:22 for a  reason I Dustinycross (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 * According to this news report the current $100 shows a time of 10:30 whereas the former bill showed 16:10. The article says that 14:22 is a plot point from National Treasure, which is a work of fiction. The two images of the building are tracings of very old photographs which just happened to be taken at 14:20 and 16:10. Presumably the photographer took two hours to set up the camera in between the two shots. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense sentences
There's this sentence in the article:
 * All the Federal Reserve Notes produced from Series 1928 up to before Series 1969 ... of the $100 denomination added up to $23.1708.

What does that mean? The cited source seems to be completely unrelated to this claim. How can a big pile of $100 bills add up to a mere $23? Sentences further on give the impression of similar nonsense.

If this is in-universe jargon, it needs to be reworded for lay readers. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The "$23.1708" part was due to a user trying to use a non-existent template parameter. It's been fixed. -  ZLEA  T \ C 15:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)