text:
Talk:Personal computer hardware

Editing
How can I add a device in the input/output section? I don't see all the parts listed when I click on "edit"
 * If you like to add another hardware equipment device description first find a category for it.

Merging
i don't think that computer hardware should be merged with computer peripheral, however, peripheral device should be merged with computer peripheral, and peripheral should be deleted or rewritten.--FranzSS 03:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No merging. Who put on discussion the mergere ? 188.25.53.194 (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think computer hardware should be merged with computer peripheral as a peripheral is a class of hardware or an accessory to a computer. Nor should anyother article such as CD-ROM, CPU, RAM, or harddrive be merged with a computer hardware article. --70.127.160.246 (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This makes sense. As it stands the articles are fragmented and confusing. --MST64 03:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * if it is confusing for you, be kind and do the following:

put some new links, put paper bibliography, put it on a talking list to proposed deletion or contact the authors for a 2nd revision.

I personally believe that computer hardware should be left alone and computer peripheral and peripheral device should be merged between the input device and output device articles. The peripheral device article deals with the concepts of monitors, mouses, and the such, so therefore it should be combined. Icestorm815 19:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't put the articles under different categories ?

I agree with Icestorm. Computer hardware is a seperate topic from computer peripherals; the articles are entirely different. This article does a great job of listing the components of a computer system, and should be left on its own. --Nemilar 04:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that peripheral and peripheral device should be merged into this article based upon the central theme of this topic and the sparsity of information within those articles. This article needs some organization and redistribution of information and is too PC oriented. Softtest123 13:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Computer Hardware is in general "on-board", and peripherals are "off-board" or outside of the "main frame" of the computer. But, on the other hand, as time has shown, what at one time could only exist as a peripheral has slowly but surely been integrated on-board. I completely agree that the two peripheral articles should be merged, and I think people might reconsider the option to merge them both into this article since peripherals are basically a subset of computer hardware on the whole. Metrax 15:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

hardware: hardware is the physical part of the computer computer parts: 1.input 2.output 3.memory 4.control

March 2013 merge proposal

 * Oppose This makes no more sense now than in the last 6 years. Not all computers are "personal computers". --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a nonstarter in the direction proposed. We have a big gap that needs to be filled. Perhaps the best way to start might be to combine a summary of the contents of History of computing hardware, which seems the only broad article on Wikipedia that is !PC hardware, with a summary of the contents of this article into computer hardware. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Move
Shouldn't this all just be moved back to computer hardware, and remove the word "personal" wherever needed? Frankly, after this move it only makes it more apparent that we're missing a whole article on general computer hardware, and this article is just about close enough to it that it makes sense to just say "computer" instead of "personal computer".  GraYoshi2x► talk 02:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

 * No. An article on computer hardware should tackle the topic from the angle of computer architecture, based on the von Neumann machine, which has three major subsystems: storage, the central processing unit and input/output devices.  Those would be the three main sections of the article, with each discussing the physical devices used to implement the architecture, from the early days of mainframes to modern computers.  Discuss at Talk:Computer hardware. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Class = List
After reviewing what this article is trying to do it seems apparent it is a list of sorts.

 * Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area.

It looks similar to these Featured Lists:

 * ISO 3166-1

 * List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations

 * List of Virtual Boy games

 * List of Shetland islands - We could add images of each piece of hardware in a slideshow for each section.

 * List of cities and towns in Arizona

 * Moons of Jupiter - This article adds some front matter in the sections before the list. We could have some details for each subsection instead.

If there are no major objections to this direction I will come back to start us moving toward a Featured List. § Music Sorter §  (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Personal computer hardware


text: User talk:195.11.9.60

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

title: User talk:195.11.9.60


text:
Talk:Killing of Nick Berg/Archive 2

The Video
I find that there are more problems with the video than what this article has reached. Nicholas Berg's feet and toes do not move throughout the video yet they are in an awkward human positon for sitting. Also it appears that someone or something is shrugging up his shoulders from behind giving the appearence of movement from Berg. Maryjane3

Allegedly in retaliation
When this is unprotected, shouldn't the "His capture and killing was said to have been carried out to avenge abuses of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison" be changed to read "alleged to have been carried out"? And it would be good to add the incongruity of claiming it was in retaliation when he was killed weeks prior to the scandal coming to light. - Tεx τ urε 18:53, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * He was captured on or shortly after April 9; his body was found c. May 8. The date of his death is somewhere in between there, so there's plenty of room for him to have been killed after the Abu Ghraib story broke... -- Seth Ilys 19:24, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Dare I suggest that they kept their hostage until they could find a showy use for him? So are the abuse charge the "reason" for the barbarity or the "excuse." -- Cecropia | Talk 19:43, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * You're not the only one suggesting such. -- Seth Ilys 19:50, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Suggest: The reason given by his captors for his abduction and killing was to avenge abuses of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison, although his capture occurred prior to wide reporting of those abuses MisfitToys 23:28, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

unprotected
I unprotected this page. A cursory glance of the page history didn't reveal an edit war so I don't know why it was protected in the first place. -- Viajero 18:56, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

"A cursory glance" isnt good enough in this case, Viajero. I appreciate your assistance in mediating, but please dont unprotect a page in contradiction of me. Please involve yourself in the discussion first - community editing style. Thanks -Stevertigo 19:01, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * What exactly do we need to resolve before this page is unprotected? --M4-10 19:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Svertigo, could you please tell us why this page is protected? And what needs to be done before it is unprotected? Quadell 20:17, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * Read this section - it explains that there was a dispute which caused a revert war, and the page has been protected so that the problem can be discussed here and sorted out. fabiform | talk 20:22, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

If you don't know why it was protected, why unprotect it without proper understanding? I would suggest contacting the person who protected it before throwing caution to the wind and opening up a mess you know nothing about. Page history is not the appropriate place to look for discussion. Before unprotecting a page please read the discussion and discover the issues. - Tεx τ urε 19:08, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Monkeywrench in the works
Anyone wanna cope with [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092851/posts FreeRepublic's listing Nick's father as an enemy of the occupation] a few weeks ago, and the possibility Nick was victim of mistaken ID which had to be disposed of? No, I didn't think so. 142.177.24.20 19:06, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Feel free to write an article about FreeRepublic. --M4-10 19:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * That is a bit too much to deal with right now, thanks. Keep taking notes, though. -Stevertigo 19:15, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I should add that FR's listing is an ANSWER list (membership?) retitled, so FR is hardly the only way the Bergs could've gotten on a USUK enemies list. Meanwhile, here's an (unrelated) article from just before the fog got thick. 142.177.21.215 20:56, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * A Salon reporter pointed out that Michael Berg isn't on ANSWER's list, and asked the FRan why ... the latter seems to claim it's ANSWER's deletion, not his addition.[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1134424/posts] Not esp coherent tho. 142.177.17.178 13:56, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Worthy (IMO) fodder in and linked by www.infowars.com/print/iraq/berg.htm infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Infowars] 142.177.15.239 01:07, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

 * CNN senior editor for Arab affairs doubts it's al Zarqawi -- the accent is not Jordanian and the al Qaida reference is a mistranslation 142.177.17.178 15:38, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Some of the reporting is really bizarre. "A body found on Monday by US military patrol along a roadside over the weekend was identified as Berg's...The statement in the video was signed off with Zarqawi's name and dated 11 May" WTF? identified on the 9th, found on the 10th, killed on the 11th - just in time for Inhofe's disgusting rant?142.177.18.133 18:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC) (thanks to whoever) (PS. The body was found on the 8th. Or was it the 11th? (How could the family have been told on the 10th he was dead?) Somewhere else I read the US claimed only one dead civilian had been recently found ... imagine how confused they'd be if there were more than one!)

 * The chair is very similar to those in the Abu Ghraib prison...which would explain that orange jumper, too =p 142.177.18.133 20:55, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4FFA61A3-9C33-4597-A8D9-8079E91F2784.htm - Al Jazeera state some flaws with the video - interesting read at least. --OldakQuill 22:09, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

 * FBI and CIA believe the executioner wore a gold ring. Some say a devout Muslim wouldn't wear such a thing. 142.177.18.133 22:18, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * And a good Muslim would never say "The Prophet, the most merciful" -- even I'm sure of that. (Another mistranslation?) 142.177.15.4 16:27, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * There are flashy gold-like rings for Islamic men sold; perhaps less-strict Muslims wear them? Perhaps base metals are acceptable? 142.177.23.79 20:04, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Assuming you believe anything FOX says, Berg had been interviewed by the FBI a few years ago -- Moussaoui had used his "email account". 142.177.15.249 03:36, 14 May 2004 (UTC) (oh, never mind -- CNN says so too)

 * Prometheus Methods Tower Services "Incorporated" isn't... at least, not in PA. 142.177.15.4 15:54, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The body was returned via Dover AFB, unusual for an alleged civilian. It could be dismissed as a nice gesture except that the Bergs were shut out by DoD. 142.177.20.1 16:39, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Late-breaking oddity: Moore had 20 min with Berg in F-911, which got cut. 142.177.22.15 23:58, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Link to picture of head
This is a minor issue, but when this page is unprotected, and if the link solution is adopted, "Warning : this picture may be offending for some people" should be edited. It's not idiomatic English. Lukobe 19:22, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Linking to video
Since the discussion on this topic has been removed I didn't have a chance to voice my opinion. Although I see that it's a common practice to mark potentially offensive links with "Warning : this picture...", I strongly feel that there should be no links at all to a video depicting somebody's death ! This is way beyond stuff that is marked as 'offensive' on the shock site. Basically, it gets down to where the 'wikipedia' community will draw a line. I have been a big fan of this project for a long time, but I'm greatly disappointed that no single member of the community has even raised the question if this is morally OK ? And to all of you who say that having even an indirect link is essential to keeping the project censor-free: Why not also have links to child porn sites. I mean, so that the readers of this encyclopedia can see for themselves instead of just reading about it. If Wikipedia is to be a respected source of information then I believe that having 'snuff' video links is simply not a good way to do it. I don't see a reason for providing a link. If someone is twisted enough (or in many cases - immature) to wanting to watch such videos I'm sure they will find a way to do so. Just as pedophiles do get their kiddie porn one way or another. It just seems that visiting wikipedia.org is beginning to be one of those ways... Once again, I'm deeply disappointed.... If eventually someone does decide to take action (which I sincerely doubt) then there's the same kind of snuff link here.

 * You cannot simply make the premise "death is not nice" and conclude "therefore we should not link to a video displaying such" - television generally has the same policy - however, Kennedy death shots are numerously shown - why not this? This is video is the whole point of the article. Press releases of a decapitated American came out on Saturday - it hit all of the headlines today (Wednesday) due to the video. It is fair enough for you to not want the video in Wikipedia (though I would like this, archival purposes etc.) - but many people will want to choose to watch the video and hence should be assisted. Those who wish to not watch film will not follow links. The difference between simple "shock" and this - is that this is politically relevent and important. It has caused a shift in attitudes throughout the United States - why? Your point about Child pornography is just emotive - child pornography is an entire genre of pornography - no specific video, hence just linking would not suffice. Secondly, child pornography is both illegal and harmful to those featured - your point is unnecessary. If you do not wish to view video, do not - but do not impose this upon others. Because, again, this is not simple shock - it is of great import. --OldakQuill 22:26, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I beleive it is good that the LINK to pictures and videos are on wikipedia. But I am very glad that it is not instead of the picture that everyone sees. Wikipedia users should never put offensive pictures in a way, that everyone sees it, regardless if they want to or not. The way it is now, it's okay, since everyone can choose to watch the video or look at the picture. User:Waltersimons 1:54 PM EST

Resolve disputes to remove page protection
My understanding is that this page is protected due to a dispute over whether to include inline a photo of the decapitation, or whether to inlcude a link to it. Am I correct?

For those who favour showing the image inline (which goes further than any newspaper I know of) do you think you could compromise and accept a link to the image rahter than showing the image inline? This way the information is readily available, but shouldn't be stumbled on by people accidently.

I'd like this page to be unprotected as quickly as possible, since it's sad to have the top story from In The News on the main page be a protected one. fabiform | talk 19:23, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Fabi, I did put an online link rather than direct visible picture. I am in favor of removing the picture entirely. But given that a few people supported keeping it, I chose to propose a compromise. This compromise is to put an online link instead of instantly visible picture. SweetLittleFluffyThing

Stevertigo - as you locked the article, can you describe what you propose to do to unlock it (or even what the problem is)? Or can you at least tell us what we're supposed to do? --M4-10 19:31, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * We are supposed to discuss as Fabi has indicated. - Tεx τ urε 19:32, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I support the compromise link to the image. I feel the image is important to the story but should not turn high profile Wikipedia articles into a shock site. - Tεx τ urε 19:32, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I think that the compromise link to the image is an acceptable solution in the short-term. However, for the sake of consistency, there should be a relatively standard way of dealing the with issues of 1) displaying potentially offensive images or 2) linking to potentially offensive external sites. Frankly, I don't see a solution that's anywhere close to fair or workable (short of displaying all the images and including all links as live) that doesn't resort to polling in each individual case. -- Seth Ilys 19:50, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh, dear, it is not offensiveness, it goes against Berg's right to privacy and dignity and he cannot defend himself. Please, do not think on the readers in this subject...

 * In any case, I do not think the WP should keep that photo or show it or (but this may be extreme) link to it: because Berg's dignity is far above the right of anyone to information (if seeing his head is in any way informative) or the right of anyone to inform. Otherwise we are taking human rights here as a mere joke. And this has nothing to do with freedom of speech (you are not free to insult, or if you are then you are liable to a punishment). Pfortuny 19:42, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Personally, I don't recognize a "right" to privacy, or a "right" to dignity. Although I will stand up for others in their desire to preserve their privacy or dignity, I couldn't ask someone to do the same for me. How could you possibly enforce such a &quot;right&quot; under law without resorting to subjective standards and emotions? I don't believe that there are any moral obligations attached to information per se, but that we may distribute or withhold information as we please. What we choose to do with the information we possess is a personal moral choice, wieghed by the invididual based upon their perception and analysis of the good or harm that releasing or withholding that information may do. In this case, my view is that any indignity has already been done, and that Wikipedia does a service by documenting the horrific murder of Nick Berg in a way that promotes the dispersion of truth. -- Seth Ilys 22:49, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * From the above, I gather you really do not understand a word of what a right means, or you wrote the above paragraph without thinking on it. Sorry man, you cannot leave in a modern society with those opinions, I am sorry to say (you are constantly recognizing other people's right and asking for them in your life, like it or not). Cheers. Pfortuny 09:31, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

 * (Since you asked) To me, a "right" is something that you are justified in defending with physical force. I have the "right" to live, and therefore, I'm morally justified in fighting back if someone attacks me physically. I have the "right" to property, and I'd be justified in phsyically defending land or other things I might own. It doesn't mean that I'm justified in doing *anything* if someone were to, say, post naked pictures of me on the internet against my will, or calls me names in public. I'm not justified in initiating physical force against someone if they hurt my feelings or spread lies, no matter how much I might want to hurt them. Neither will I demand that a government or another person to defend me, because they have no obligation to. Certainly, I'll expect my friends to respect my privacy and dignity, and I will respect the privacy and dignity of others. If I want to be a functioning member of society, I will choose to do such things, but I am not compelled to and will actively resist attempts to forcefully compel me to respect "privacy" or "dignity." But that's an entirely voluntary thing on both sides, and isn't a "right" that I observe or demand. It's a courtesy and a respect that I give voluntarily. If it's demanded as a right, respect, privacy, and dignity become worthless. -- Seth Ilys 15:30, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

 * While I don't particularly see a need to put any images on this page except the pre-murder one (and a link to the video, without proper formatting if necessary), I'm not sure if I agree with Pfortuny's logic in particular. Nick Berg is dead, and arguably sanitizing the article would make his death less meaningful.  In the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal article we blurred visible faces of victims, and judged that better than removing them or showing them unblurred.  Consider the dead prisoner "on ice".  Can we be consistent, whatever we do?  --M4-10 20:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

So, Anthere will accept a link to the image (she proposed the solution in fact), Pfortuny doesn't want us even to link to the image, but (correct me if I'm wrong) would accept this if everyone else does. Texture, Seth and I all agree to the idea of linking to the image. I'm not exactly sure where M4-10 stands on the issue. Overall though, this looks like we are approaching a consensus. Are there any more key players in the original discussion who we need to ask before unprotecting the page (rather than unprotect and immediately start up the revert war again)? fabiform | talk 20:15, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

From the above, I gather you really do not understand a word of what a right means, or you wrote the above paragraph without thinking on it. Dead people don't have rights under any system of rights I've ever heard of. anthony 警告 17:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chronology
When this page is unprotected, this info about the chronology of events should be incorporated. Fuzheado 20:01, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Inline image poll
The main purpose of this poll is not to make a decision, but to determine what amount of readers find a certain type of photo so offensive that it should be linked to, rather than shown embedded in the article -- see the thread "troubled" on wikien-l. The image in question is here; it shows a terrorist holding Nick Berg's severed head into the camera.--Eloquence*

 * This is a naive question, but quite an honest one. What does inline mean? I cannot vote if I don't know what it means here. Kingturtle 04:54, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * It means you can see the picture as part of the article without clicking a link. Cecropia | Talk 05:25, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure that the question of offense is a useful one to ask. We appear to be reaching a consensus above without polling (which can be divisive).  fabiform | talk 20:42, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * As I said, the purpose of this poll is not to make a decision. It is to gauge the offensiveness of the image in order to better develop a policy on such matters.--Eloquence*

 * Perhaps there could be a better venue for making a policy decision then? Rather than basing it on this one image you could include the prison brutality ones etc as well.  Someone simply saying they find this offensive doesn't give you much information without an explanation (pictures of dead people are offensive? or pictures of murder victims whose identities are well known, or any graphic violence, or showing the results of terrorist actions is helping them spread their message, or any of a thousand different reasons).  Secondly the wording of the poll doesn't focus people well on the key fact that this is an encyclopedia, couldn't the questions be more like "x is necessary/unnecessary to our encyclopedic coverage of a topic"... etc?  fabiform | talk 20:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * There's a problem with this poll. I haven't clicked on the link because I do not wish to view the picture.  I wouldn't describe my stance as being worried about being offended by it as much as that it would horrify me.  But it presents a problem for your poll.  You should only really get votes from people that have viewed the picture as those who do not view it cannot be offended by it.  However, people like myself ought to have a say in what happens with regard to such pictures.  I favour having a link to pictures that are liable to shock or offend - this places control in the hands of each individual. Just seen my bit of the poll.  --bodnotbod 22:40, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Image is offensive to me, should be shown inline

 * 1) Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:47, 2004 May 12 (UTC), the image itself it not offencive, but it's contents are disturbing, nevertheless i choose not to let my opinions on the matter deprive anyone else of inline viewing of it. Also i would like to bring this page on meta to the attention of people interested in forming a policy on how such things can be filtered on demand in the future.
 * 2) JDR 22:23, 12 May 2004 (UTC) : Image is offensive to me (it does makes me want to turn away) though it should be shown inline (offensiveness does not meet the bar to obscure the image; there's are other "offensive" things in wikipedia that are exposed (and other such images shown inline)). The top of the article should state a disclaimer (such as the equally offensive (to me) and inline Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal image of death). Though, I doubt this is what action will be taken.
 * 3) WhisperToMe 23:45, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Image is not offensive to me, should be shown inline

 * 1) OldakQuill
 * 2) the Epopt
 * 3) Delirium It's offensive only in a conceptual sense; it's not particularly graphic or gruesome, at least no more so than many other images we have inline, such as the ones on Abu Ghraib.
 * 4) Goodralph 03:17, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Eclecticology 07:55, 2004 May 13 (UTC)

Image is offensive to me, should be linked to or removed

 * 1) Eloquence* (link)
 * 2) BCorr | Брайен 20:51, May 12, 2004 (UTC) (link)
 * 3) Tlotoxl I don't think anybody visiting the Nick Berg page would reasonably expect to see his severed head inline, and it is my opinion that many, like me, would feel frustrated at having being 'tricked' into seeing something they would not otherwise have chosen to see.  This is a much greater violation of my rights, imo, then asking interested parties to follow a link to see the snuff film or a capture from it. (preferentially delete the image, but linking is a tolerable compromise)
 * 4) SweetLittleFluffyThing 20:59, 12 May 2004 (UTC)(link, but if proponants insist on inlining it and refuse the compromise, I wish it deleted)
 * 5) *Who is forcing, Helen Lovejoy
 * 6) **Reddi is. If we have the picture by default inline, then, to read the text, you are forced to see the picture
 * 7) *They might be offended at Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, shall we start deleting there as well? And what's with the damned yellow highlighting?  --M4-10 07:22, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) ** I answered below. The fact another article is problematic is not a valid argument to block taking decision on this one. SweetLittleFluffyThing
 * 9) I am not a number 21:02, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Do not forget: children can see these pages. :( (remove)
 * 10) *Wikipedia is full of content more inappropriate than that for children. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) **Almost all of that material is just text. Photos, be they of JFK or My Lai are historical, and journalistic not sensationalistic and sadistic exhibitionism See the difference now? -Stevertigo 22:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) ***No, I don't. I would prefer they not see the fuzzy severed head picture, but it is not as bad as a lot of (simulated) movie fare and it is something real that maybe we need not to turn away from. However we have descriptive articles like rimming and felching. I have suggested that these at least be in a separate section, but the standard response seems to be that Wikipedia is encyclopedia, so cannot be kid-safe. So do you see my point? And how do you stand on the appropriateness of the Abu Ghraib photos for children? Have you said anything about that? Has anyone? -- Cecropia | Talk 00:44, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) ****Rimming and felching are two practices that certain people undertake for sexual pleasure. I don't see how it can be compared to an image of a decapitated head. While sex education is important, especially among the younger generations, I don't see how becoming a repository of horrific images is beneficial. - Mark 01:28, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) *****Ah, you think 10-year-olds need graphic descriptions of these subjects. -- Cecropia | Talk 01:36, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) ******No. But 10 year olds would probably not comprehend half of it anyway. A picture is different. - Mark 01:57, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) ******That is a lame excuse. 10-year-olds (and younger) are aware of impliactions of messing with body functions and very impressionable. If they are old enough to be reading an entry like Nick Berg they are at least as capable of dealing with a fuzzy picture of a severed head as they are with descriptions of licking stuff out of body orifices. Now if we were to show the actual act of decapitation, I would think differently. -- Cecropia | Talk
 * 17) Med 21:03, 12 May 2004 (UTC) (link)
 * 18) Rogue Pat: Apart from if the image is offensive or not, I think it is necessary that there's at least a DECISION MOMENT to consider if one wants to see the offending material (link) and not directly a possibly unexpected picture.
 * 19) Rainier Schmidt 21:25, May 12, 2004 (UTC) (link)
 * 20) FoeNyx 21:22, 12 May 2004 (UTC) (link + alert about offensive content)
 * 21) Stevertigo 22:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Do not forget: children can see these pages. :( (remove)
 * 22) ☞spencer195 22:11, 12 May 2004 (UTC). Link to it with a warning. I saw that picture in one of the revisions and rather I didn't have.
 * 23) Fuzheado 22:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC) - substantially different than the prison photos.  Dismembered head clearly a different class of photo than bodies with genitals and faces hidden. Favor linking to with strong warning.
 * 24) Conti 00:41, 13 May 2004 (UTC) (link with warning)
 * 25) Mark 01:25, 13 May 2004 (UTC) - There is a limit to what is encyclopaedic and what is not. If people want to look at images of dead people, they should go to rotten.com, not wikipedia.org. Horrific images like this are hardly educational. Remove.
 * 26) P æ dia: remove or at best, delete. I totally agree with Mark.

Image is not offensive to me, should be linked to or removed

 * 1) Seth Ilys 20:24, 12 May 2004 (UTC). Information is not inherently offensive. Human actions are. Personally, I could stand seeing that image in the article. Nevertheless, the image should be linked to and not shown, in consideration for other people's sentiments.
 * 2) Elf-friend 20:53, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Linked to with warning on article page.
 * 3) Erik Carson 20:56, 2004 May 12 (UTC), in agreement with Seth Ilys and Elf-friend.  Still considering the ramifications (indeed, the very point) of blurring Berg's face in the image.
 * 4) Tεx τ urε 20:57, 12 May 2004 (UTC) (link within Wikipedia) - I think the image should remain in Wikipedia rather than a link to a site that may remove it. I just don't think it should shock the reader without warning.
 * 5) --M4-10 21:06, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Like Seth Ilys, I'm offended by the action, not the information.  I don't think the photo adds to the article (as long as the video link remains), and support its removal.  I would settle on a linked image.
 * 6) Delirium 21:19, May 12, 2004 (UTC) Is information that may be shocking, and so should not be inline.  However, it is of extreme historical importance, so should be available.
 * 7) Cyan 21:26, 12 May 2004 (UTC). Agree with Delirium.
 * 8) Fredrik 22:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC). Link to it, for reasons already provided.
 * 9) Arwel 22:02, 12 May 2004 (UTC). Agree with Delirium's views.
 * 10) Ruhrjung 22:07, 12 May 2004 (UTC) I don't think the informational value of this kind of picture warants their inclusion in the article, but a link (internal to wikipedia is OK), that's another matter.
 * 11) Abigail 23:31, May 12, 2004 (UTC) I don't find the image offensive, although I do find it shocking. I agree with Texture that the image should be stored on Wikipedia - not so much because of what's on the image, but because of the world-wide reaction on it. That's what makes the image important. I think, due to its graphical content, it's better to not inline it on a page about Nick Berg, although if there were a page about the decapitation of Nick Berg, I'd favour inlining it.
 * 12) older ≠ wiser 23:50, 12 May 2004 (UTC) I find the image disturbing, not necessarily offensive, though I can easily understand why others might. Readers should have the choice whether to view or not view.
 * 13) Mpiff 23:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Just link to the image with a very visible warning. I agree with Delirium.
 * 14) silsor 00:03, May 13, 2004 (UTC) Link it.
 * 15) I am not offended, but the family and friends of Berg would be.  There is nothing inherently offensive about putting it in a link-to page.  I disagree with "remove" RickK 02:04, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) The precedent has been set in the Goatse.cx article to not have inline for such matters. See Talk:Shock site/Archive for the discussion about it. Kingturtle 05:35, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) I cannot be offended by an image. It is offensive to the photographed person and we ought to defend his honour. This is human rights, man, you know? Pfortuny 09:25, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) While I am not offended by it, most of the people I know would be (given their reaction to watching TV news). I would vote to link to it, rather than remove it. — Matt 09:35, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) Starx I have no problem viewing it, but I can easly see how it could be too much for someone.  Safer to have it as a plain text address (not an active link) for those who decide they would like to view it.

Haven't looked at image, should be linked to or removed

 * 1) Dissident (Talk) 20:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Snowspinner 20:49, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Should be linked to, but on a non-Wiki server.
 * 3) fabiform | talk 20:57, 12 May 2004 (UTC) should be linked to
 * 4) Adam Bishop 21:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Jwrosenzweig 21:27, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Sorry, I know I can't take seeing it. I do think that linking to it might be appropriate, but I'm afraid if it was removed I would shed no tears for the photo (though my sorrow and sympathy for Berg and his family is another matter altogether).
 * 6) .derf 22:25, May 12, 2004 (UTC) I really have no desire to see a decapitation.  It doesn't inhibit anyone's ability to view the image if it's linked.
 * 7) Use a link. --bodnotbod 22:45, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) I dont even want to, for heaven's sake! Remove, this is not a chock site and suffering is not encyclopaediac. MvHG 10:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) MvHG is right. There are other places for people looking for that kind of stuff. Let's be decent and remove the video and image! Philipp
 * 10) BL 23:20, May 13, 2004 (UTC), although I don't think silly WIKIen-l discussions should have any bearing on real-life Wikipedia decisions whatsoever.

Offensiveness not decisive, other opinion

 * 1) I would prefer this image not be here, but I strongly feel that the decision should not be made at Nick Berg alone, but should also apply to the bulk of the images at Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, which are included to the extent of gratuitous shock. I personally find the action described here more offensive, but the Abu Ghraib pictures more offensive. To deal with one article in isolation amounts to choosing sides in propoganda, since pictures have more impact than words. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) In the purely informational sense, what purpose does it serve to have such a photo present? Does it inform the reader of something?  And if so, can we definitively say what?  I checked over at the Decapitation page and there is not an image archive of decapitations for reference (maybe there should be), so until such a time as there is, what is the purpose of putting this one specific photo up?  Is it so that readers might learn what a decapitated head looks like?  Is it to illustrate the actions of kidnappers and terrorists in some concrete way?  Is it simply to archive the most information possible about an event?  All three or something else entirely?  I would like to know and I think the answer might help in guiding the proper course of action.   --Iosif 21:44, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I will join with Cecropia here, if only to show my support for depoliticising the issue. It seems clear to anyone that the concern with both this and Abu Ghraib is the War on Terror, and the issue is generally about attacking or protecting the premise which supposedly justifies continuing it. The real purpose of featuring this kind of photo front and center was only to inflame; to assert a justification for continuing a racist attack on Arabs, because of the acts of some thugs. The Abu Ghraib photos were newsworthy, and shown almost in their entirety on prime time TV. The screenshot by comparison will not be, and should not be. This is not the place for it. All that said, I join Cecropia in advocating a concrete policy- what exactly that is may be something we learn over time. There are those who have no interest in seeing this material, and theirs is the view to respect, not the view that says it fine to rub everyones noses in it. -Stevertigo 21:56, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * One needs to remember that the "almost in their entirety" above is because any suggestions that the prisoners had genitals were blurred out. Eclecticology 07:54, 2004 May 13 (UTC)
 * Huh? Why the "Moron Terror|War on Terror"?  Didn't you come to this thread as a neutral admin (the first thing you did was lock the article)?  What's this "continuing a racist attack on Arabs"?  --M4-10 22:39, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The purpose of the image is to expose truth (not obfusicate it, a charge many over the war espouse [i.e., ppl don't get to see the "real" information]); To show what is occuring in the continuing war against terrorist [BTW, Arab does not equal terrorist; the Arabs are fighting the same individuals (go look up the bombings in Saudia Arabia)]; and expose the acts of the thugs. The "real purpose" is much akin to showing the prison photos, or the WTC falling, or the any other atrocity ... to expose the truth. JDR [PS., Stevertigo, the "Moron Terror" wikilink above is telling.]

 * I see. So, "the purpose of the image" - in otherwords, 'the purpose of making the video,' ergo 'the purpose of killing Nicholas Berg of West Chester Pennsylvania,' was to "expose truth." But did'nt they made the video to shock people?  Some here also seem to support the notion of shocking people.  Does it not concern then that by disseminating and propagating the photo, they perhaps are doing the will of those who murdered him?

 * Think about it, and consider the difference between this and Abu Ghraib, which were not intended for public release. There is indeed an attempt by some here to exploit Berg's murder politically, as an offset to the previous offenses.  But by doing so these people demonstrate how completely desensitized (ignorant) they are to his humanity.  The Abu Ghraib photos exposed the humanity of the detained Iraqis, just as much as they exposed how callous of the soldiers involved had grown.  And I have never claimed to be neutral where the War on Terror is concerned, and the use of this photo as propaganda to support yet another moronic, racist and doomed-to-fail Crusade is something to shed some light on; sunlight being the best disinfectant. The photo that is in place is enough, because it shows Berg as both brave and composed.  It does honor and justice to his humanity, wheras the other shows only a vain attempt to desecrate him.

-Stevertigo 06:13, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Your open declaration of prejudice explains why the photo should stay. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * And your senseless denial of it explains why consensus rule, hope, and faith in God are necessary. -Stevertigo 06:33, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * ...hope, and faith in God ...? What's that about. Is it a reference to the murderers shouting "Alahu Akbar!" as they hacked a Jew's head off? -- Cecropia | Talk 06:43, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Stevertigo, you've shown you were wrong to come to this thread in an admin capacity, and I hope you refrain from using your status as an admin again for this article. --M4-10 06:51, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree. If you can't keep your personal opinions from influencing your decisions in an admin capacity for an article, you shouldn't use your admin privileges in that article. --Werbwerb 20:47, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

I just see it as illustrative. It may offend some people, but so may the photos on Abu Graith. IMO, some of those photos are actually more offensive, and they are certainly more detailed and graphic. --Delirium 06:38, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * That's why I share the view that some separation is in order, accross the board. Not just here, but also with Abu Ghraib, JFK, etc. How else do we make policy, othen than through a new case scenario like this one... Regards, -Stevertigo 06:41, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Comments
Why, exactly, are those who have not seen the image voting? They do not know the image and hence cannot and should not vote on whether appropriate. --OldakQuill 20:57, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I've also never seen Lemonparty, so I suppose I can't make any sort of informed judgement as to whether or not I want to see it? Wikipedia doesn't display Goatse, Tubgirl, Harlequin Fetus Syndrome, or any other 'fun' pages inline.  Based on the fact that the image here depicts the violent death of a human being, I hold that I don't want to see it.  Furthermore, I fail to see how this position undermines my ability to determine if I want to see the image or not.  If we're going to put this inline, why not add in pictures of Budd Dwyer? .derf 23:16, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd say Wikipedia should store an image of goatse or tubgirl if those pictures get the same world-wide press coverage that the images of Nick's decapitation gets. I think the image should be stored for historical purposes. In 10 years, someone is going to wonder what all that fuss in 2004 was about - and then Wikipedia should be able to provide an answer. Abigail 23:39, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * Is Wikipedia set to become just another mirror for these images? I'd like to think the people coming to the site are there to edit or learn, not look at those images. - Mark 01:34, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I have listed the image for deletion. Wikipedia is not a snuff site. Vote here: WP:IFD. Dori | Talk 20:58, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * I haven't looked at the image because I don't want to see it. Ergo I don't want to see it displayed in the article.  However, I don't want to stop anyone seeing it who wants to, so I support the idea of linking to it.  I think we're all capable of discussing an image which has been described to us.  fabiform | talk 21:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * If we keep this, Wikipedia will end up hosting Goatse and all sort of other crap. I think we need to set a limit and a precedent. Dori | Talk 21:06, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Dori, where do you stand on the "prisoner abuse" pictures, nine of which are on this site, and which were obviously offensive enough to be a proximate cause of this outrage. How are these pictures appropriate to Wikipedia. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:09, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Those images are not on the same level as this. Those prisoners did not die, and you can't tell their faces. Nonetheless, I am close to agreeing that they shouldn't be on Wikipedia either. Dori | Talk 21:18, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, to be entirely accurate, one of the prisoners did die, and there's a photo of his dead body packed in ice. The face is somewhat obscured, however. --Delirium 21:46, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it's quite an insult to Nick Berg and his family to dismiss the images of his death as "snuff", or to compare the image of his decapitated head to goatse or tubgirl. Abigail 23:43, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * I haven't looked at the image because I believe it's wrong to invade the family of Mr. Berg's privacy more than it already has been. Similarly, I think we ought not display it. However, we are obliged to report on its existence - but we should not partake of the invasion of privacy. Snowspinner 21:08, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Why is a picture of the beheading any different in terms of privacy than a description of it? Maybe I'm just dense, but the two seem to me like essentially the same "violations of privacy," just in different forms. -- Seth Ilys 21:12, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * An aside, but let's be clear that there is no "photo" that exists, it's a still image from the video and the image is a secondary result of the video, not a primary document. --M4-10 21:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * For the same reason that a celebrity obituary isn't an invasion of privacy, but paparazi photopgraphers shooting the funeral from helecopters is. Describing the existence of a picture is one thing - going and "experiencing" the death is another. Snowspinner 21:19, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * (Speaking only for myself) I experienced Mr. Berg's death much more vividly in my imagination (which turned out to be surprisingly accurate) when I first heard the news on the radio than when I saw the picture of the dismembered head. -- Seth Ilys 22:51, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone have a similar problem with the photo of slain President Kennedy found at John F. Kennedy assassination? Both were victims, although Kennedy was a celebrity before he died. If one does not disrespect the dead, the other should not. (However, policy may need to visit if both should follow the same ruling for inline images.) - Tεx τ urε 21:23, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I do not think that the photo of the slain Kennedy adds anything to that article. Snowspinner 21:28, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I have a problem with it for the same reason. It's needlessly shocking without providing much real information, and doesn't need to be in the article, IMHO. I removed it once, but didn't want to get into a revert war.... -- BCorr | Брайен 21:29, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

The title dispute should end - I re-uploaded the pic to a more neutral title. WhisperToMe 23:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Those who haven't clicked on the link might want to. It's not nearly as graphic as I had assumed. It's conceptually disturbing, yes, but it's not particularly gory. It shows a militant is a somewhat triumphant stance holding up his head, which is identifiable, but the entire image is grainy and blurred, and relatively little blood or gore is visible. --Delirium 23:16, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Have we reached a conclusion?
We can debate abstract policy issues until the cows come home, but it looks to me like we have a generally acceptable compromise in linking to the image only -- that takes the middle ground between those who want to include the image inline in the article and those who want to delete it entirely. This is an evolving news story featured on the Main Page and it's now been protected for a substantial fraction of its time in existence. I say we let the link stand unless further *discussion* (not edit wars) generates a new consensus, or until we generate a consistent Wikipedia-wide guideline for dealing with offensive images, and unprotect the page post haste. -- Seth Ilys 22:06, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that we seem to have reached a consensus (to link to the image). Now we just have to find an admin who hasn't commented on this page. ;) fabiform | talk 22:09, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I have seen the video. Showing the picture is not needed and is in poor taste. It is not needed to actually see the severed head, when the article explains what happened. Also, the severed head screenshot is not released under the GFDL. Wikipedia should try to be above cheap shock value. Should we include a pic of Bob Goatse on shock site? I'm sure that is falls under 'fair use'. In short, the people that want to display the image are sick fucking bastards and should be ashamed of themselves. When you die I will dig up your bones and take pictures for all to see. 66.167.235.171 22:15, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

--68.100.195.118 22:14, 12 May 2004 (UTC)Terrorists are stomach turningly SICK. Anyone who would torture/kill/hurt someone. I don't understand how these people can be of existance. They are like a living nightmare, or some horrible virus that has bred out of controll. I am saddened/sickened physically by the video, and knew I would probably be. Though I did not expect the degree of my sensitivity to it. I did not know it would have such a stong affect to make me feel physically ill. If you are not sure whether you can handle it or not, do yourself the favor and don't succumb to your curiousity. It is not natural for people with a compassionate nature to witness such a horrific event.

 * Where is this consensus? There is no consensus at all! --OldakQuill 23:15, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I am interested in this discussion being in favor of removing the video link from the Daniel Pearl page. I suggest that two pages be made -- one for Nick Berg (the person) and one called Nick Berg Video (the video) which are two entirely different subjects and merit two different Wikipedia entries. Thus both camps are assuaged and the video page can have some kind of spoiler at the top. Would there be huge objections to this? See also Talk:Daniel Pearl --laurap414 00:08, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Circumstances surrounding the beheading and the validity of the beheading
A lot of people doubt the authenticity of this beheading, the protagonists are suspect, they don't seem to be Iraqis, the person who is supposed to be Nick Berg, doesn't look like the one we've seen on pictures. Also, in the video, like it's been said before, the sound and the images are out of synchro. Finally, when Berg is supposedly beheaded, there's no gushing of blood and Berg seems to be dead already. Someone is trying to hide some facts that should be taken into account when analyzing the validity of this "execution". In the end, these facts should be added, because the validity of this beheading is somehow not credible.VincentG 18:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Killing of Nick Berg/Archive 2


text:
Oyster toadfish

The oyster toadfish, Opsanus tau, also known as the oyster toad, ugly toad, oyster cracker, oyster catcher, and bar dog, is a Northwest Atlantic species of fish of the family Batrachoididae. The maximum length of this toadfish is 43.2 cm, but they infrequently surpass 38 cm. The world record size for this species is 19.2 inches which is 48.76 cm. They are generally yellowish with a pattern of brown oblique bars. The species can live in poor conditions and needs little food to live. They can be found near the shore from Maine to Florida.

In 1998, NASA sent the oyster toadfish into space to investigate the effects of microgravity on the development of otolithic organs. The study found little difference between terrestrial development and those in space.

Spawning and life cycle
Oyster toadfish spawn in coastal estuaries from May through August, with some variation between latitudes. Males excavate nests under rocks or other debris and begin making advertisement calls, also known as boatwhistles and foghorns. Females are attracted to these calls. Females choose a mate, enter the nest, attach eggs to the underside of the structure, then leave. Females provide no parental care. Males fertilize the eggs, then defend and clean the nest while embryos develop. Toadfish embryos are large and, as a result, have been studied for over a century.

After about 4 weeks the eggs hatch. At first, the young toadfish stay attached to the yolk. When the yolk has been absorbed for energy, the young toadfish learn to swim. Even when the young have started to swim, the adult still protects its young.

Juveniles reach sexual maturity at 2-7 years and have a lifespan of 8 years. Little is known about individual range or whether toadfish exhibit natal philopatry.

Predators and prey
Toadfish are ambush predators during the day, when they remain buried or hidden under structure and lunge for passing prey. At night they forage. Toadfish eat benthic invertebrates (e.g. polychaetes) and xanthid crabs. Toadfish have sharp teeth and powerful jaws.

Oyster toadfish are apex predators on oyster reefs. Nonetheless, evidence exists that they are prey for birds (e.g. cormorants ). A related species, Opsanus beta, is prey for dolphins. Research has demonstrated that toadfish will call less when dolphin sounds are played from a nearby speaker. For protection, toadfish have a venomous spine in the first ray of the dorsal fin. They can bury themselves up to their eyeballs in sand, and might be capable of camouflage.

Physiology
Like many bony fish oyster toadfish have a swim bladder that is used to maintain buoyancy. Like some vocalizing fish, the swim bladder is also used to make sounds. Oyster toadfish males use their swimbladders to make advertisement calls. The fast-twitch swimbladder muscles of toadfish can contract as much as 300 times per second, more quickly than fast-twitch muscles in most vertebrates.

Model for hearing and behavior
Toadfish are easy to observe and collect because they spawn in shallow water. Also, male advertisement calls are easy to detect and are critical for the animal's reproductive success. For these reasons, toadfish have been widely studied in research that examines mating behavior, hearing sensitivity and the impacts of anthropogenic noise.

Cuisine
Oyster toadfish are hard to fillet due to their bony bodies. The meat of the oyster toadfish is flaky and is described as having a sweet flavor, similar to that of blowfish.

title: Oyster toadfish


text:
Petrocurrency

Petrocurrency (or petrodollar) is a word used with three distinct meanings, often confused:

 * 1) Dollars paid to oil-producing nations (petrodollar recycling)—a term invented in the 1970s meaning trading surpluses of oil-producing nations.
 * 2) Currencies of oil-producing nations which tend to rise in value against other currencies when the price of oil rises (and fall when it falls).
 * 3) Pricing of oil in US dollars: currencies used as a unit of account to price oil in the international market.

Oil-producers' trading surpluses
"Petrocurrency" or (more commonly) "petrodollars" are popular shorthand for revenues from petroleum exports, mainly from the OPEC members plus Russia and Norway. Especially during periods of historically expensive oil, the associated financial flows can reach a scale of hundreds of billions of US dollar-equivalents per year – including a wide range of transactions in a variety of currencies, some pegged to the US dollar and some not.

Currencies correlated with oil prices
The pound sterling has sometimes been regarded as a petrocurrency as a result of North Sea oil exports.

The Dutch guilder was once regarded as a petrocurrency due to its large quantities of natural gas and North Sea oil exports. The Dutch Guilder strengthened greatly in the 1970s, after OPEC began a series of price hikes throughout the decade that consequently increased the value of all oil-producing nations' currencies. However, as a result of the appreciation of the Guilder, industrial manufacturing and services in the Netherlands during the 1970s and into the 1980s were crowded out of the larger national economy, and the country became increasingly non-competitive on world markets due to the high cost of Dutch industrial and service exports. This phenomenon is often referred to in economics literature as Dutch disease.

The Canadian dollar is sometimes viewed as a petrocurrency, but this status is controversial. In theory, as the price of oil rises, oil-related export revenues rise for an oil exporting nation, and thus constitute a larger monetary component of exports. As their oil sands deposits have been increasingly exploited and sold on the international market, movements of the Canadian dollar have sometimes been correlated with the price of oil. In 2015, University of British Columbia Professor Werner Antweiler predicted that if the share of oil and gas exports increases further, the link between oil prices and the exchange rate may become even stronger. However, in recent years, the opposite trend has become apparent, with the Bank of Canada and major Canadian financial institutions reporting that there is a disconnect between oil demand and the Canadian dollar's movement (having been virtually static within foreign exchange markets throughout the 2021–2022 global energy crisis). There is no conclusive explanation for this disparity, but speculated reasons include weak investor interest in Canadian oilsands (due to the growing rise of ESG investment), the increasing size of the US petroleum industry and the relative reputation of the US Dollar.

Currencies used to trade oil
As the world's dominant reserve currency, the United States dollar has been a major currency for trading oil (sometimes the term 'petrodollar' is mistakenly used to refer to this concept). In August 2018, Venezuela joined the group of countries that allow their oil to be purchased in currencies other than US dollars, thus allowing purchases in Euros, Yuan (Petroyuan) and other directly convertible currencies. Other nations that permit this include Iran.

World War II to 1970
After WWII, international oil prices were for some time based on discounts or premiums relative to that for oil in the Gulf of Mexico.

After the Bretton Woods conference in the year 1944, the UK and its allies discontinued linking their currencies with gold; however, the US dollar continued to be pegged to gold, at $35 per ounce—from 1941 to 1971.

1970 to 2000
President Nixon cancelled the fixed-rate convertibility of US dollars to gold in 1971. In the absence of fixed value convertibility to gold, compared to other currencies, the US dollar subsequently deteriorated in value for several years, making fixed USD to local currency exchange rates unsustainable for most countries.

Since the agreements of 1971 and 1973, OPEC oil is generally quoted in US dollars, sometimes referred to as petrodollars.

In October 1973, OPEC declared an oil embargo in response to the United States' and Western Europe's support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War.

Iran
Since the beginning of 2003, Iran has required payment in euros for exports to Asia and Europe. The government opened an Iranian Oil Bourse on the free trade zone on the island of Kish, for the express purpose of trading oil priced in other currencies, including euros.

OPEC and shale oil boom
The unconventional tight oil (shale oil) boom in the USA starting in the early 2000s through 2010s (as well as increased production capacity in many other countries) greatly limited OPEC's ability to control oil prices. Consequently, due to a drastic fall in Nymex crude oil price to as low as $35.35 per barrel in 2015, many oil-exporting countries have had severe problems in balancing their budget.

"Thirty years from now there will be a huge amount of oil – and no buyers. Oil will be left in the ground. The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil."

By 2016, many oil exporting countries had been adversely affected by low oil prices including Russia, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Venezuela and Nigeria.

Venezuela
The petro, or petromoneda, launched in February 2018, is a cryptocurrency developed by the government of Venezuela. Announced in December 2017, it is claimed to be backed by the country's oil and mineral reserves, and it is intended to supplement Venezuela's plummeting bolívar fuerte currency, purportedly as a means of circumventing U.S. sanctions and accessing international financing.

China
In March 2018, China opened a futures market denominated in Yuan which could encourage the use of its currency as a petrocurrency.

title: Petrocurrency


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dagger of Amon Ra

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled The Dagger of Amon Ra.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to keep the article.

One-line description of a game. If it's an important game, it should be made into an actual stub at the very least; else, it should be tossed. Grendelkhan 14:07, 2004 May 14 (UTC)

 * Unstub or delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:22, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Sandbox refugee. Expand or delete. - Lucky 6.9 16:06, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: I've written an actual article on the game in place of the non-entry that was nominated for deletion. -Sean 03:37, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sean has indeed written a more than servicable short article. --Tagishsimon
 * Keep new stub. -- Cyrius|&#9998 23:14, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, fine now. Dpbsmith 23:23, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I almost hate to call this new article a stub. Keep. - Lucky 6.9 16:44, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Denni 20:48, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Joe Juneau (prospector)

Joseph Juneau (May 28, 1836–March 1, 1899) was a French Canadian miner and prospector known for co-founding, with Richard Harris, the city of Juneau, Alaska, United States. The city has been the political capital of Alaska since 1900.

Biography
Joseph Juneau was born in the Lower Canada town of Saint-Paul-l'Ermite (later renamed Le Gardeur and now incorporated into the city of Repentigny) to François Xavier Juneau dit Latulippe and Marguerite Thiffault Juneau.

Juneau's Native American guide in southeastern Alaska was Chief Kowee, who is credited with exploring much of the area later named for Juneau. Harris and Juneau were sent with Kowee by George Pilz, an entrepreneur and mining engineer from Sitka. After trading much of their grubstake for hoochinoo, or homebrew, they returned to Pilz empty-handed but were promptly sent back to the Juneau area. There, Kowee took them beyond Gold Creek (near what is now the site of the city's Federal Building) to Silver Bow Basin. Today, a creek on Douglas Island is named Kowee Creek. After the discovery of gold in the area, Harris and Juneau carried approximately 1,000 pounds of gold ore back to Sitka.

The settlement founded by Juneau and Harris was originally called Harrisburg or Harrisburgh, and later Rockwell. Miners often used both names in their records. There was also a proposal to name the town Pilzburg in honor of Pilz. The town received its current name at a miners' meeting on December 14, 1881, at which the name Juneau received 47 of the 72 votes cast, while Harrisburg received 21 votes and Rockwell only four. Joe Juneau reportedly bought drinks for fellow miners to persuade them to name the city in his honor.

Juneau traveled to Dawson City, Yukon during the Klondike Gold Rush of the 1890s. He usually spent his gold as fast as he mined it, but at the end of his life he owned a small restaurant in Dawson. Juneau died of pneumonia in March 1899 in Dawson. His body was brought back to the town that bears his name and was buried in the city's Evergreen Cemetery on August 16, 1903. His cousin Solomon Juneau founded the city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

title: Joe Juneau (prospector)


text:
User:Eric B. and Rakim

Trouble

jdfkjdfsj*fdsjlk*jflsdj*ffds

More things`?????????????????

fixme

Eric B. for president jj
 * /indenting
 * /The Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G killings
 * /Threads (computer science)
 * /policy

Like:

 * fbdevhw
 * stack trace
 * glDrawArrays
 * glVertexPointer
 * glEnable
 * XFree86 logfile
 * AT keyboard
 * pcidata (GO FRED BAUDER!)
 * /var/log/wtmp
 * line pitch
 * NvAGP
 * libpng
 * crt0
 * cross compiler
 * newlib
 * libiberty

 * /tmp
 * /vertex arrays
 * /make

 * Sailor Mercury
 * Sailor Venus
 * Sailor Jupiter
 * Sailor Mars

 * Captain Marvelous

 * /Jus cerebri electronici

 * George Washington's underwear

 * /mailing list links

title: User:Eric B. and Rakim


text:
Talk:Yarn

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lsmunsiff.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Specialty yarn
I changed the specialty yarn list to a bulleted list. I recomend that it be kept to categories of yarn. If everyone starts to list their favorite brand of specialty yarn it will become chaotic. Jerdwyer 16:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

tanslanizing
Is "taslanizing" really what air texturing is called? The only references I find in google are to this entry. Boojum 14:12, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

There are many hits for taslan on google Knerq 14:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Fiber or Fibre?
Both are in this article. For consistency we should switch to all of one. Which one would be appropriate for this article? Brian Sisco 01:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I personally choose "fibre", as it is already prevalent in the Knitting article.Gloriana232 14:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Decitex

 * Paradoxically, dtex or decitex is the weight in grams of 10 kilometers of yarn.

This certainly isn't "paradoxical," but how is it even odd? If something masses, say, 10 g/km, it will mass 100 g/10 km; or, massing 10 tex, it will mass 100 dtex, just as expected. - Montréalais 06:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Novelty yarn
Is it appropriate that Knitting actually has a more comprehensive section on novelty yarns than Yarn itself? I propose it be moved here, and a See-also link added to Knitting's section under Materials. Gloriana232 14:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Article too biased to home knitting
This article is currently too biased toward home knitting, which gives a wrong impression about what yarn is used for. Yard is the starting point for all fabrics, including commercial woven cloth. hajhouse 16:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Too biased is right!
Most of the above comments are simply examples of "straining out gnats and swallowing camels". The entry on "yarn" is completely slanted to "retail lingo" for yarn crafts such as hand knitting and crochet. There is little or nothing of substance relating to historical or modern yarn production, usage or terminology. Example: "heathered or tweed: yarn with flecks of different colored fiber" - this is inaccurate. "Heathered" yarns are usually composed of several different colored "tops" blended together before spinning. A simple heather effect can be achieved with cross-dyeing a spun yarn with two different fibers. Among other things, "Tweed" refers to types of cloth woven from a woolen spun yarns (as opposed to worsted spun). "Donegal Tweed" refers to a tweed yarn spun with knops or flecks of brightly colored fiber added in the spinning process in the manner of tweeds spun in Donegal. There are many regional "Tweeds" woven throughout the north of England, Scotland and Ireland - none necessarily have colored flecks. This article should be labled "Craft Yarns for Knitters" and then someone take a look at Fairchild's Dictonary of Textiles or Fabric Science and make a proper entry. The person writing this article does not appear to have worked in the Textile or Yarn Industries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billbrandt (talk • contribs) 22:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

 * Perhaps this article seems slanted towards hobbyists, but I imagine those who are experts on other aspects of yarn in the textile industry are welcome to add to it, and I think some of the items you mention here should be added to the article. I personally can only contribute from the crafter/retail POV, so until we have more contributions from the industry side, unfortunately it will seem to remain favored in that direction. LovelyLillith 02:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Not terribly accurate either.
I think the introduction starts off on the wrong foot, as yarn is also used to sew two pieces of fabric together...ie, two pieces of fabric formed from yarn. yarn doesn't become thread just because its purpose changes. it's related to weight, no? Yarn.wench 21:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Images
The images in this article are severely lacking. Many of the there are irrelevant and are only appropriate insofar as they deal with yarn, but don't contribute to the article very well. I think the article could benefit from images of the different kinds of yarn discussed in the article, such as different materials, the novelty yarns, and different measures of yarn. I don't have any such images, so if anyone out there does, or can take some, the article could be much improved if they were uploaded and added to the article. – DroEsperanto 03:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have made an image to illustrate Z-twist and S-twist in yarn. -

PKM 20:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC) The yarn photograph described as "self-striping" would more appropriately be titled "jacquard" as it appears to contain bands self-patterning. It is to some degree a hybrid of self-striping and jacquard, and as such perhaps not the best image to illustrate this type of yarn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.238.22.106 (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup
I've started adding a broader perspective to this article, but the focus on handcrafts is deeply engrained and will take a while to balance out while making each edit result in a coherent article. Any available help is appreciated. - PKM 20:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Things to do:

 * Restructure fibers: discuss bast fibers, recency of cotton compared to bast fibers like linen, hemp, and nettle
 * Make types or categories section to include crepe yarn, worsted, woolen, embroidery floss, tapestry yarn, perle cotton, etc., or at least link out to articles on those items
 * Rewrite measurements to include commercial measurements, embroidery yarn sizes
 * Add history section
 * Probably break out "novelty yarns" into its own article (compare knitting article, see what makes sense)
 * About the novelty yarns stuff: I think what might be good is to make one article for "List of novelty yarns", with a brief introduction of what they are, etc. Then, have individual articles for each of the yarns. It'll be easy to start them off as stubs, since there's already a paragraph or so for each one. If this makes sense, then I can go ahead and do that now. – DroEsperanto(talk 17:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds solid. --Eyrian 17:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. – DroEsperanto(talk 22:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Also need to mention thread sizes, buttonhole twist, button and carpet thread, cotton-wrapped polyester. - PKM 03:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just come across this project within the bigger textile project. I agree very much with the comment above but would like to suggest some further restructuring categories: most significantly there is no historical perspective on the use of yarn. Another suggestion I would make is that instead of drilling down to such a level of detail on applications of yarn (i.e. button hole twist) might it be better to take the pespective on yarn up to a higher level and just refer broadly to application in clothing, furnishing etc and link to other articles for the detail? --Matty smith 07:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Statement(s)
I removed from Structure "A lesser known fact about yarn is the death rate. Last year over 600 people died of yarn ingestion." No source cited, no year cited, sounds pretty ridiculous to me. Deculpep (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yarn Conversions and Uses
Is there someone out there who's more capable than me who'd incorporate a 'conversion' table? There's a note, for instance, that US yarn is sold by the ounce, whereas Euro yarn (and in many other western countries) its sold by the gram, but it doesn't describe how some refer to yarn by its content and ply, rather than a name like 'worsted'. I found something a while back that describes determining the weight of a yarn by wrapping and counting the wraps per inch for US terms, but nothing as yet that aligns this terms with Euro/UK/Aust terms (Ply is determined by who many treads make up part of the yarn, i.e., 4ply can be broken into 4 threads, I think). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.193.248 (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture of cat with yarn
Yes, the cat is cute, but considering how many pictures we have for this page, and how they are pretty crowded, is it really needed? Loggie (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Gauges and General Knitting chart
I think that a general chart showing the different yarn weights e.g. cat 4 medium yarn, types of yarn found in that weight band (same e.g. aran/afghan etc) and the needles you'd knit them up with old UK/US/metric. I think that that would be a useful reference for this page. I can do it but I'm not sure about drawing a decent table on here, however if someone could input the info I'm happy to send them the table El.numbre (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This would be a very useful reference. The Craft Yarn Council's Standard Yarn Weight System table has all the information. I'm also not sure how to create the table on here but I'll look into it. Cgriffioen (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No Thread Size Chart???
How can it be that there is a subheading in this article for measurements of thread width but no subsequent text? There is no independent wiki article for thread, so anything about thread thickness would need to be in this article somewhere... Am going to see if I can fix this personally (as per recommendation above). KDS 4444 Talk   02:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 11:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"Saxony Wool" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Saxony Wool. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 21 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wool Yarn Rolls.jpg

Variegated yarn
The subject should be merged into Yarn. Thanks RV (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? Also, what do your fellow ARS members think of your proposal? -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 10:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well noted. I believe improving it is not a bad idea. Thanks RV (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hosiery Yarn
@ Do not remove any well sourced information. We don't follow any opinion. RV (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Try writing in english then. What you wrote is up to your usual standard, well below what we expect. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 16:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Better you stay out of my way. Thanks RV (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wool Yarn Rolls.jpg

Revisions for clarity
Throughout this article there are multiple topics in a single paragraph, which makes it unclear. I separated out the topics in the "materials" section and gave each topic a subheading. I tried to retain all of the references, although some of them strike me as being not very "scientific." As with some other comments about this page, it isn't clear to me how the topic is being defined. Yarn and thread are actual things that can be described, and hand textile arts like knitting are also things that can be described.This article seems to mix the two in a way that may not be helpful. In fact, the section on "yarn" in the article on Knitting is both more extensive and better written than what is here. However, it totally lacks references, which I will now note on that page. For nearly everything in this page there is a WP article, so it seems that this page needs to distinguish itself in some way. Lamona (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

 * @Lamona Should the second sentence in the wool section be removed? It seems pretty unnecessary and off-topic to me:
 * "The most commonly spun animal fiber is wool harvested from sheep. Due to modern breeding techniques which accelerate wool growth, shearing sheep is required to prevent pests and overheating." 71.121.149.135 (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact of accelerated wool growth seems pertinent. The pests and overheating not so much. It all needs a source. So I would say leave it for now, and it can be edited when we have a source about wool growth. Lamona (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Made the change, with good ref. Lamona (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

SCIENCE
What are the constituents of yarn 2405:204:1098:AB83:D5E9:8C40:795A:9E9B (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Yarn


text:
Omar Ahmad

Omar Ahmad (عمر أحمد; born 1959) was the founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Washington D.C.-based Muslim civil rights organization. He also worked for the Islamic Association of Palestine, a precursor to CAIR.

Biography
He was born in Amman, Jordan. He holds a Masters in Computer Science from Santa Clara University as well as a Masters in Political Science.

He had been the chairman of CAIR's board of directors since its founding in 1994, but stepped down from that position in May 2005. At the time that he resigned, CAIR claimed to be the largest Muslim civil liberties organization in the United States, with over 30 regional offices and chapters.

title: Omar Ahmad


text:
Farina, South Australia

Farina, formerly Farina Town and originally Government Gums, is an abandoned town in the Australian state of South Australia. The name also applies to an area of about 8500 km2 in which the town is located. At the 2006 census, 55 people lived in the larger area; by the 2021 census, the population had fallen to 15.

Farina sits within the arid Lake Eyre basin, 26 km north of Lyndhurst and 55 km south of Marree where the Oodnadatta Track and the Birdsville Track commence. It is 540 km due north of the state capital; Adelaide in the days when the rail connection was narrow gauge to Port Augusta, the distance by rail was 657 km.

History

In 1876, after a police trooper had been posted to the Government Gums, a "long neglected district", a deputation asked for a portion of the district to be allotted as a township so that a post office might be erected; that a telegraph station be opened; and that a weekly mail service from Beltana to the north-west be set up. The townsite, on a reserve surrounding Gums Waterhole, was surveyed and on 21 March 1878, Farina Town was proclaimed.

Originally called The Gums or Government Gums, Farina was settled in 1878 by optimistic farmers hoping that rain follows the plough. The town became a railhead in 1882, but the railway was extended to Marree in 1884. During the wet years of the 1880s, plans were laid out for a town with 432 quarter-acre (0.10 hectares) blocks. It was believed that the area would be good for growing wheat and barley, but normal rainfall proved to be nowhere near enough for that. Several silver and copper mines were opened in the surrounding area.

Farina grew to reach a peak population of about 600 in the late 19th century. In its heyday, the town had two hotels (the Transcontinental and the Exchange), an underground bakery, a bank, two breweries, a general store, an Anglican church, five blacksmiths, a school (1879–1957) and a brothel. In 1909, a 1143 kg iron meteorite was discovered north-east of the town.

Today, little remains of the township, except for stone ruins, a seasonally operating underground bakery, and the elevated water tank of the former railway. The post office closed in the 1960s. The narrow-gauge Central Australia Railway closed in July 1958.

The name Farina was adopted on 5 April 1979.

The town has not been inhabited since 1967, with the closest residents living at Farina station, visible to the west of the town. A bush camping area is maintained by the owners of Farina station.

In 2008, Farina Restoration Group was formed, and in May of that year, 30 people attended a 14-day restoration program at Farina. These efforts have included the repair of the bakery and the addition of informational signs.

Cemeteries
The town's cemetery is a few kilometres away via a signposted track. Of interest is the Afghan corner of the cemetery, which contains several headstones with both English and Arabic inscriptions, plus several headstones without inscriptions, marking the resting place of former Farina residents of Afghan origin, who were involved in or connected with the camel trains which used to provide transport services before the railway was extended. In the Islamic tradition, all the gravestones face Mecca

First World War enlistments
During the First World War, 33 men who were born in Farina enlisted for the duration of the war and for four months after its end. All of them were volunteers. Of the total, five were killed in action, ten were wounded, and one died at sea en route to England. One of the youngest Farina residents to enlist was 15-year-old William James Denham Robinson, who used an alias of Charles Robison; he served in both world wars.

World War II

During World War II, 35 men born in Farina enlisted. Of those, nine served in the Royal Australian Air Force. The first man enlisted on 18 October 1939 and the last man on 15 March 1945. The youngest was 18 when he enlisted and the oldest was 45. Three men were killed in action and a fourth died during his service in the army. The last Farina man was discharged in October 1948.

Climate
Farina has a hot desert climate, although a temperature station has not been in operation there since 1939.

title: Farina, South Australia


text:
Talk:Statistical significance

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. Student editor(s): Cokusiak. Peer reviewers: Cokusiak.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment on Dubious
The citation (USEPA December 1992) contains numerous statistical tests, some presented as p-values and some as confidence intervals. Figures 5-1 through 5-4 show some of the test statistics used in the citation. In two of the figures the statistics are for individual studies and can be assumed to be prospective. In the other two, the statistics are for pooled studies and can be assumed to be retrospective. Table 5-9 includes the results of the test of the hypothesis RR = 1 versus RR > 1 for individual studies and for pooled studies. In the cited report, no distinction between prospective tests and retrospective tests was made. This is a departure from the traditional scientific method, which makes a strict distinction between predictions of the future and explanations of the past. Gjsis (talk)

Statistical significance in Psychology
In the late 80s-early 90's, and perhaps afterwards, Clark University taught that in Psychology, as opposed to just about all other fields of science, P-values under 0.1 were accepted, that was the norm, rather than the standard .05. This was because results often weren't as robust for a variety of reasons, namely that human subjects were needed for the experiments, it was more expensive to get participation (compared to experiments on animals, for example), and humans have rights that require a lot of work to document and follow. I don't think it's a coincidence that it is psychology journals that bring up the issues of statistical significance. It would be great to see additional information on statistical significance in psychology in particular, because that's where its most controversial. Tumacama (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted your recent edit because the problem And concern of overuse is not unique to psychology unless the sources explicitly say otherwise, which I don’t believe they do. danielkueh (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually the onus is on you to provide examples. You can't just revert my claim because you "think" overuse is a problem elsewhere. It has been a systematic issue in psychology for at least the 30 years I was taught it at university. Issue because it's not a few bad eggs, it's a common and accepted practice. If you think it is a systematic problem in other fields, just give a citation. Sometimes I wish Wikipedia didn't work that way, but once I made the claim, you HAVE to provide evidence of the contrary to prove your point. It's a reasonable claim (although I don't think any fields of study welcome this difference, and even "parapsychology" and other fields don't even recognize P-values Tumacama (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia, we have a process called BRD (see WP:BRD) whereby if you were to make a bold edit, and someone else reverts it, the next step would be to discuss it on the article's talk page and seek consensus (see WP:consensus). Also, we stick with the sources (see WP:V and WP:RS). Other than your own anecdotal experience at your university, you have not provided any reliable sources to support the claim that this issue is a perennial problem in psychology and not in other fields. In fact your assertion is not supported by the sources that have been cited in this article. None of the sources listed claimed that this is a problem unique to psychology. So unless the sources say otherwise, there is no reason to change that heading. And as far as burden of proofs are concerned, you have it backwards. I recommend learning the fallacy of "appealing to ignorance" to better understand why. Since you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate it by providing reliable sources that anyone can independently verify. This is consistent with WP's policy (see WP:BURDEN in WP:V). danielkueh (talk) 23:39,
 * BUT ITS NOT A BOLD EDIT IT IS A SIMPLE ADDITION THAT DOESN"T CONTRADICT ANYTHING!!!!

 * 4 August 2020 (UTC) Failing Grade: 89% of Introduction-to-Psychology Textbooks That Define or Explain Statistical Significance Do So Incorrectly
 * Show all authors
 * Scott A. Cassidy, Ralitza Dimova, Benjamin Giguère, ...
 * First Published June 27, 2019 Research Article
 * https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919858072
 * Please indent your comments appropriately so that it is easy for other editors to distinguish them from mine. In WP, a bold edit just means "Go for it." The source that you just gave does not say that there is an overuse of statistical significance in psychology. Rather, it is saying that it is "commonly used" and that it is often defined or explained incorrectly, particularly in introductory psychology textbooks. Also, please do not re-revert the page without achieving consensus. By doing so, you're disregarding the views of other editors and WP's policies. Please be patient and continue the discussion process. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And since you wanted evidence, I encourage you to read this recent 2019 article from Nature magazine, which is a very well-established scientific journal. If you were to scroll down, you will see a passage that states that the authors invited experts to comment on a draft to abandon the "entire concept of statistical significance," which included "statisticians, clinical and medical researchers, biologists and psychologists from more than 50 countries and across all continents except Antarctica." Again, not an issue that is unique to psychology. danielkueh (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"Official statement" from the ASA actually not official
> In 2019, over 800 statisticians and scientists signed a message calling for the abandonment of the term "statistical significance" in science, and the ASA published a further official statement declaring (page 2): [...]

If you click the link, the very first thing the editorial says is this:

> EDITORIAL: The editorial was written by the three editors acting as individuals and reflects their scientific views not an endorsed position of the American Statistical Association. 60.115.154.227 (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Statistical significance


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Conqueror Worm

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled The Conqueror Worm.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to keep the article.

Poorly formatted copy of an Edgar Allan Poe poem (from "Ligeia"), unattributed. Should be on Wikisource, if anywhere. See and in-page search for 'she bade me repeat certain verses composed'. Grendelkhan 14:16, 2004 May 14 (UTC)

 * Wikisource or delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:22, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep the new part. To the text of the poem, I have added a stub about its source in The Fall of the House of Usher, and also about the Vincent Price movie.  Reformat and Wikisource either the poem, or better yet, all of Usher. Smerdis of Tlön 14:43, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The poem is from "Ligeia". While mention of "the unseen but palpable presence of the Conqueror Worm" is made in Usher, the poem itself only appears n Ligeia. Check the link. (Or tell me why is the wrong or incomplete edition of Usher.) Grendelkhan
 * You are right. I knew "The Conqueror Worm" was in Usher, and that there was a long poem there, and confounded them.  I have corrected the stub.  Smerdis of Tlön 15:24, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Can someone fix the formatting? MK 16:31, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Done. DopefishJustin 18:01, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Wikisource this. "...unseen but palpable presence..." is from The Premature Burial, not in the written Usher; maybe it's in the movie, I don't know. Alcarillo 16:54, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The Conqueror Worm is also the name of a Vincent Price movie. Disambig, if kept.  RickK 06:16, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Not to mention a Hellboy book. Grendelkhan 01:02, 2004 May 16 (UTC)
 * Keep the new part. Replace the source text by a link. Andris 00:10, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oranjestad, Sint Eustatius

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Oranjestad, Sint Eustatius.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to delete the article, and move an existing article at Oranjestad, Netherlands Antilles to its location.

I like this page to be removed so Oranjestad, Netherlands Antilles can be moved to it. They both describe the same town, and while Oranjestad, Sint Eustatius is just two sentences, Oranjestad, Netherlands Antilles is a full article. Abigail 14:10, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * I have verified that the long page Oranjestad, Netherlands Antilles contains all the info from the stub Oranjestad, Sint Eustatius, then deleted the stub page and moved the long page to the new location -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:21, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Abigail 14:27, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.