text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Image:TrangBang.jpg

Image:TrangBang.jpg was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous. Failing to reach a clear consensus to delete, the image is kept. It should be noted, however, that several specific legal questions were raised during this dicussion. The Votes For Deletion process is a consensus-building process designed for making policy and editorial decisions about encyclopedic content. The decision reached by the VfD process should not be considered binding on any future decisions specifically addressing the legal issues involved. Rossami 07:08, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Image:TrangBang.jpg
 * This image is clearly copyrighted by the AP. See here for proof of that fact. People argue it's fair-use. It's not our place to argue these sort of things. Terms state clearly that copyrighted material is not to be submitted. Delete ASAP.   —  マイケル   ₪  16:26, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * After extensive discussion on the Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List, I've decided to retract my vfd. Keep   —  マイケル   ₪  21:42, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. A lightning rod for legal problems. WP's claim to using this photo is uncertain at best; I don't see any good reason for leaving solid ground for a legal morass. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:16, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree (delete). This image is obviously still under copyright, and the people you see using it have either paid for it (BBC) or are using it illegally (everyone else, including the person or people who keeps putting it back.) I also do not think it is a good example of strategic bombing. This would really fall more under a tactical scope. And the origin of the incident in question is in doubt, as well. -Joseph 17:01, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)
 * No, the photographer is not supposed to make money off it every time it is used. US law never grants the photographer a monopoly over fair use of a work, so no license or payment is required for any fair use.Jamesday 03:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This is not fair use. See below. -Joseph 22:39, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

 * Keep. Fair use. One of hundreds of images currently posted in articles of similar status. 172 18:24, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * How is it fair use? Can you prove it? Just because they have it doesn't make it so. A photo being famous doesn't automatically make it public domain, or even fair use. This was a newswire or magazine photo, right? That makes the photo the property of the photographer, publisher, etc., and he is supposed to garner money off of it every time it is used. So unless he or his agent gave you permission, it is verboten. Furthermore, here is the link you can use to purchase the photograph in question on behalf of Wikipedia, if you choose. -Joseph 19:51, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

 * ???: I brought up this question initially. I have no opinion on the matter.  I respect the copyright law and the effort to which AP went to get the photo, and I see the fair use argument as presented by Jamesday on Image_talk:TrangBang.jpg.  I am not as concerned as  マイケル   ₪  about the violation of Wikipedia's terms (namely the text on the checkbox) because there are a great many fair use images on Wikipedia, for which none has received permission, but I am not entirely clear that Jamesday's argument falls squarely in the "fair use permitted" court, perhaps because I'm not a copyright lawyer (or any other kind, for that matter).  If AP asked us (insisting, no doubt, in a letter from their lawyer) to remove the photo, I'm certain we would comply rather than fight it in court, but that situation has not arisen. (Then again, how many other AP photos do we have? - perhaps we should get a subscription to their wire photos, but then what would that do to our photo license terms?) -- ke4roh 21:40, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Who are we to decide for the entire wikipedia community what is legal? We aren't lawyers. If anyone is a real copyright laywer, please step forward with your expertise. What happens when AP sues us for copyright infringment? It won't matter if we remove the image, they could still pile of tons on court fees. I don't think it is our decision to make on what the wikimedia foundation can pay for in legal fees. I think this is a serious issue that should be brought up the whole wikipedia community, especially the board of trustees.   —  マイケル   ₪  21:56, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * To me, this is simple. We're breaking copyright law in the U.S. and likely other countries, and there's no way anyone can deny it. The only choice is to a) hope AP gives us permission to use the image (unlikely) b) pay for it (with what funds?) or c) delete it. Photographs do not fall under "fair use" -- only texts or audioclips do, and even then, only excerpts, and under certain circumstances. Corporate logos do, when used in a relevant article, but this is not a relevant article. But also, the photo in question is the result of a tactical operation, when the article is about strategic operations. I appreciate the effort of whomever to try to present the horrors of war, but if there was an article labeled "Tactical bombing" or "Incendiary bombing," perhaps that would be more appropriate. -Joseph 22:04, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)
 * Since the use is fair, there is no copyright infringement. All copyrightable works qualify for fair use and there is no prohibition on using all of a work (or a reduced size and resolution version such as the one at hand here) if that is what is required for the purpose. Jamesday 03:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The only parties potentially liable are the uploader and those who place the image in an article (because their use in each article must be a fair use). The Wikipedia itself is protected by both the Communications Decency Act and the OCILLA. The issue has already been considered many times by the community here - en accepts fair use and urges replacement with better images as they become available. This is an image case where I'd be very inclined to recommend to the board that we do defend the right to make fair use of a work. You might also want to review the recent mailing list discussion when the British National Portrait Gallery sent a notice inquiring about the status of two images of works in its collection to see how the community might react to bogus claims of infringement. You also appear to under-estimate that and the quality of the free legal advice we'd have available to us in such a case. Jamesday 03:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep. If someone would bother reading the Strategic Bombing article, they would discover that the picture is in reference to the events that kept the United States from conducting a strategic bombing campaign.  As for Fair Use, the picture itself is one of the images most indelibly marked on the Western Consciousness from Vietnam.  The author does not seem to object to the image's use.  The picture is used in numerious other places.  So, the image is historically significant and it is used in a manner that appreciates that.  It also is used elsewhere, and in an image quality that does not cause any lose to the photographer.  So it is clearly fair use.  Therefore, I believe that N327KF's objection has less to do with the image or its' copywrite status, and more to do with some desire to whitewash the United States' involvement in Vietnam. Stargoat 23:21, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, clearly you are skilled at figuring out what I am thinking! </sarcasm> That aside, you just dodged the copyright issue, what you believe I might or might not believe is irrelevant to the issue as it corresponds to Wikipedia. I just said that it might be better placed in another article. Napalm is not used in strategic operations, it is used in tactical operations. Therefore, I believe it's placement in the article is incorrect. If you do want to keep it, throw it in a new article specifically related to such operations–and it's clearly used in other articles. So my objections are just a) copyright issues b) placement within this particular article. -Joseph 23:37, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)
 * Napalm is simply a weapon. The nature of the operation determines whether it's use is strategic or not. Generally wasn't used for strategic targets in Vietnam - may be now, against biological weapons targets. Jamesday 03:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep, and delete the userpage of the copyright paranoid person who listed this. -SV 02:00, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Beg pardon? The guy who listed this is trying to protect wikipedia. Please, let's show more civility than this. -- orthogonal 13:40, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this simplistic and insulting-to-our-intelligence characterisation. "protection" and "defense" are flagwords for "censorship" and "pov attack" - they user is most likely advocating the deletion of the image for political reasons, and hence POV reasons. -SV 03:46, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep. The reasons given for deletion aren't valid - policy here does not prohibit the uploading of copyrighted works and the Wikipedia itself isn't liable for any infringement in the event that an uploader gets it wrong. If someone has a better image to illustrate the political considerations behind US bombing choices in Vietnam, of course, that's certainly welcome. Will be really hard to do better than this one, though, because it had considerable impact. Will also be really hard to replace it as an illustration of the famous work of the photographer, another place where it is used and its use is clearly fair. Jamesday 03:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * "policy here does not prohibit the uploading of copyrighted works?!" What have you been smoking? Have you not read any of the messages the wikipedia puts up when you edit an article or upload an image? This is the message I am getting from the wikipedia right now when I edit this page "By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied it from public domain resources — this does not include most web pages. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!" This is the message I get when I try and upload a file "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." I'd say that contradicts your statement that policy doesn't prohibit uploading copyrighted works. Either that, or we have a policy that we don't follow up on with our statements... In either case, something needs to change here.   —  マイケル   ₪  21:10, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright". Wikipedia copyright links to Copyrights which specifically includes fair use uploads. Jamesday 11:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I just removed this image from Copyright Problems after it had been considered there for a month. Jamesday 03:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * (This should have gone to IfD, but what the hey.) Keep, emphatically keep.  Even the most cursory web search turns up a large number of webpages that are using the exact same photo, and infringing on copyright in the exact same way:
 * http://www.geogr.uni-goettingen.de/kus/personen/vn/vn-1972-napalm.htm
 * http://www.agenda-upifc.org/upifc/sumario/suplement/codigo/cic/cic.htm
 * http://home.sandiego.edu/~hhaynes/photogallery.html
 * http://www.konfliktbilder.de/konf_pic1.htm
 * http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/vietnamgenocide/TrangBang.html
 * http://hypo.ge-dip.etat-ge.ch/sismondi/C_Pedagogie/Disciplines/Histoire_geo/America60/Vietnam/Viet_images.html
 * http://cgi.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/southeast/04/26/vietnam.damage/
 * This is a historic photo that opened many people's eyes to the realities of warfare in Vietnam. If other sites have the courage to show this, then why shouldn't we?  Are we so petty?  Would anyone have a problem with the image if it were a clothed adult in a similar state of suffering?  --Ardonik 04:56, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
 * Which part of illegal do you not understand? -Joseph 05:03, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
 * Years ago, I discussed the image in high school history class. My teacher didn't get permission from the AP to display the picture, either.  Come off it.  --Ardonik 06:00, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
 * Classroom use gets the most liberal interpretation of fair use there is. Showing almost any image in a classroom ==> fair use. Distributing copies for a course ==> dodgy, but for a single image I've never heard of anyone pursuing it. Placing on the Internet specific to use for some class ==> Much dodgier, especially if you don't meta-tag your page "no robots", and you might lose in court if anyone ever bothered to sue you but if it was only up there temporarily for the time it was discussed in class, might be fair use. Posting in an encyclopedia, intended to endure indefinitely, well publicized, open to search engines? Implying that anyone within the bounds of GFDL can also use it? If I were the owner of the image, and I were at all inclined to litigate, I'd figure I had a pretty good case. Reluctantly delete unless we can get overt permission. Too bad. -- Jmabel 23:17, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's nice to see someone with some actual knowledge of the statute and expert opinion commenting here. All i'll add is that
 * Classroom use gets the most liberal interpretation of fair use there is.
 * is not a statement that the law has been been interpreted to give more leeway in the classroom. What JM is referring to is that there are two specific passages of the statute that say that besides what everyone gets under fair use, classroom use and specific cataegories of libraries, respectively, get additional rights.  (IANAL, but doesn't it seem obvious that the statute implies that no one else has the fair use rights given explicitly to teachers or those librarians? Take heed.) --Jerzy(t) 07:57, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

 * Wrong page. Please Read The Fucking Manual. Keep --Jiang 07:54, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see how this is fair use just because people say it is.  Since when does fair use allow you to republish a work in its entirety?  Gamaliel 08:03, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * deletethe image is available for sale from the owner/the image is the entire work and is not an exerpted portion of  a work. it can't be fair use if 1)its not anexcerpt and 2)it's for sale the issue is not the nudity or the obscenity of war, it's a commodity that is currently owned and for sale,so how do we use it and claim we aren't thieves???
 * Comment. RTFM: we have Images for deletion Copyright problems.    — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 11:08, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)'
 * From Images for deletion "This page is only for listing images which are duplicates or otherwise unneeded. For cases of (possible) fair use, see Fair use. For copyright infringements, use Copyright problems." So I'd say based on that description, it doesn't belong there.   —  マイケル   ₪  21:03, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * So it belongs at Copyright problems. It doesn't belong here. Please move this entry. --Jiang 00:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * It was already listed there and had been for a month, until I removed it shortly after this VfD started. I decided to refrain from just deleting this VfD or merging it with the possible copyvios, since the purpose of the listing here seems not to be to determine whether it's fair use but to try to change policy or because of the nature of the image - the edit comments for some of the removals suggest that it was the content of the image, not the copyright status, which prompted the removal. Jamesday 11:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nick Ut took the pic, he works for La calif. AP
 * according to the AP

I just spoke with a coworker (from the photo dept./LA bureau of AP) of Nick's who stated that it is the property of AP,

that wikipedia

IF it is a member of the AP may use any AP photo, and

if not, may not use any photos legally without payment.

as he is not in a position to make a final judgement, he referred us to the New York office for a definitive answer or permission. New York API office denied permission to use in an Encyclopedia without payment -- phone call.

strong vote for deletion copyright reasons only. photo is so famous that a verbal description would serve as well IMOPedant 19:12, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) and Pedant 20:39, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
 * No permission is required for fair use. It's not one of the rights granted to a copyright holder, so they aren't in a position to license fair use. Jamesday 11:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

These photograph are copyrighted, and we're using them. There are thousands more like them on Wikipedia. The argument to delete the photograph has less to do with copywrite issues, and more to do with some misplaced and jingoist desire to whitewash US involvement in Vietnam. Stargoat 21:10, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Nothing to Do With Copyright
 * I think that the involvement of the US in Vietnam was an appalling crime. My vote to delete has nothing to do with that opinion and everything to do with wikipedia rules and copyright law.  Please  assume good faith on the part of others. Gamaliel 07:14, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. This does NOT fall under free use, no matter how much Wikipedia might wish otherwise. The images Stargoat mentions should also be removed. Wikisux 00:15, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I wish we could use this picture, and I want a pony too. Wishing doesn't make it so. -- orthogonal 13:40, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep unless consensus is reached for a change of policy regarding images that claim fair use. That change, however, cannot be reached on VfD, meaning that there are no current grounds for deletion. Snowspinner 14:06, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to define fair use specifically as the term concerns photographs. I think that since the AP is charging on a per-photo basis, that indicates that it doesn't apply here, but we need a concrete definition. Only some people here think that the image falls under fair use -- so the issue is not whether or not fair use images are permissable, it's whether or not the image itself is fair use. -Joseph 14:12, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
 * For an example of fair use of a reduced size version of an image, see Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation or just look at Google's image search, which provides such images in every search result. I recommend reading the full decision as well. The article was written by both me and a professional copyright lawyer, Alex. Jamesday 11:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep Fair use applies. Image is used for educational purposes, and for comment on an issue.  Negligable $ effect on AP.  Image is famous enough to be newsworthy.  Entire work argument is immaterial because the photo is a very small work to begin with.  Low-res jpg contributes to fair use argument. The Steve 18:11, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fair use. Cited from 17 U.S.C. 107: "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching... scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." Relevant issues: comment, teaching, scholarship, and research. Skyler 19:23, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that doesn't mean this automatically falls under fair use. Much the same as university professors and teachers need the publisher's permission to distribute photocopied material in class, Wikipedia must have the copyright holder's permission to host and display this image, as well as the other copyrighted photos pointed out above. Reason? Fair use very rarely allows the reproduction of a work in its entirety, not even for eduwhich is what's relcational use. I doubt there's a court in the U.S. (evant) that would find our use of this photo to be fair use. I want to see Wikipedia improved as much as anyone, but it's important that we not run afoul of copyright law in the process. It's really not worth the risk. Wikisux 03:38, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is absolutely not fair use, but a blatant infringement. Would the people who keep claiming that it is fair use read the article instead of just linking to it? This image fails all the criteria for fair use:
 * Purpose and character: Although Wikipedia is educational, the license permits redistribution for profit
 * There are several parts of this test. Here's the full set:
 * (1) the commercial or nonprofit educational nature of the use (discussed above); (2) the "preamble purposes", i.e. criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research (this list is not restrictive, and falling within one of these purposes does not create a presumption of fair use, it is just one factor to consider) (3) the degree to which the work has been transformed, has the fair use added to the original work in some way giving it a different character, or adding the original and giving it a new meaning or message. And here's how I analysed all of those factors on the image talk page "the use is to illustrate an encyclopedia article (is tranformative), is of considerably lower resolution than the original work and serves to educate the general public about the consequences of some strategic bombing approaches for the general population of the areas subjected to them (preamble purposes: criticism, teaching). There's no attempt to make money from this use (though reusers may not have this argument available). The use is part of a project to create a globally accessible, neutral encyclopedia for the world and the work as a whole has received numerous awards and been featured for several weeks as a good example in the foyer of the United Nations building." Jamesday 11:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Nature of the copied work: This is an exceptionally important and famous work, taken under trying circumstances that cannot be reproduced. Some people have suggested that that would make fair use easier to claim - in fact the opposite is true! Further, this is an image that has been widely published legally. Once again, that does not weaken its copyright, it weakens fair use, since it is perfectly possible to discuss or analyse the image without including an unlicensed copy. (Indeed, we could simply link to a legal copy of the image.)
 * The nature of the work is a factual news photograph which has been previously published. Unpublished would tend to weigh against fair use. Published tends not to. As a factual image, fair use is easier than if it had been a highly creative one. Jamesday 11:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Amount and substantiality: It is 100% of the image, at fairly high resolution. The "fair use" claim would be more defensible if it was cropped, or at lower resolution (but even then, the claim would be weak).
 * See Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation for a case considering reduced size images of works. This isn't a full copy of the image, it's a highly reduced resolution one, at 300x180 pixels max. That's about 2.25x1.5 inches on this screen or about 1"x0.5" at the 300 dots per inch of a low resoluton laser printer, half that for the now-routine 600 DPI laser printers. It doesn't come remotely close to the nearer 3,000 DPI a professional print publication in a book or magazine would be likely to use. This makes it largely unsuitable for high quality reproduction in print or newspapers, the purpose for which it was taken. Jamesday 11:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Effect upon work's value: The copyright holder is currently selling commercial licenses to reproduce the work. Under our license, we would be giving it away for anyone to do with as they wish.
 * Fair use allows anyone to do with it as they wish, provided the use is fair. Our license is irrelevant - we aren't asserting that the image is covered by the GFDL. The fair use test, inpart, assesses the effect on the market for the work. What's the effect of the use here? I wasn't aware that the image was taken by Huynh Cong Ut or where to obtain a license if I wanted to use a high resoluton print, so I for one am now more likely to be in a position to know how to buy it. The use of the image in the articles clearly identifies the phtographer (because I made sure they did when I removed the image after a month at copyright problems a few days ago) and that presumably enhances awareness of the works of the photographer and their value. The image description page links to the AP sales site (because became aware of that site as a direct result of the use of this image in the Wikipedia and just added it). Those tend to increase the chance of sales. Jamesday 11:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Further, it clearly does not even fall within the spirit of Fair Use, which would only apply if the article was about Ut's photograph, rather than simply exploiting its fame to improve our articles.
 * That's part of the "purpose and character" fair use section. The image is currently used in articles covering: nudity (a direct reference to the use of nudity in this image and its acceptability in this context), Vietnam War (the impact of this image and similar images on the conduct of the war), Strategic bombing (same as Vietnam war), Kim Phuc Phan Thi (presence in this photograph), History of the United States (1964-1980) (effect of this photograph and similar photographs), Huynh Cong Ut (the photographer, discussing possibly his most famous work). Every one of those uses is one of the preamble purposes for fair use (the "preamble purposes" are criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research), since all are about this work or its impact. Jamesday 11:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * There is also the issue of fair dealing. Wikipedia is international in scope, and many countries' fair dealing rules are stricter than in scope than the US' fair use doctrine. I am posting from Australia, and it is definitely illegal here.
 * Does Australian fair dealing prohibit use for criticism, comment, scholarship and teaching? Those are the purposes for which it is being used. Jamesday 11:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Finally, the claim that Wikipedia is not vulnerable for such violations has been discussed before and it is widely held that it could in fact harm the project (e.g. see Avoid Copyright Paranoia, which is just about the weakest take on it.) Maybe if Wikipedia was sued, the EFF would come to our rescue. But a shortfall of even a few thousand bucks could destroy the project.
 * The CDA and OCILLA apply and it's been very well established that they cover this sort of situation. Please ask on my talk page if you'd like some examples of their use. Jamesday 11:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Securiger 03:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Unlike some others may, I do not base my arguments on information obtained from Wikipedia articles. I came to the conclusion after reading the text of 17 U.S.C. 107 as well as subsequent Supreme Court decisions evetually reverting back to Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., et al. v. Nation Enterprises et al. (which seems to be the most oft cited precedent for interpreting the fair use clause of the Copyright Act). I still believe that the picture falls under fair use and that the argument would hold up in court. Fair use is a defense and not clear cut. However, upon reflection, I come to the realization that any litigation, whether it would be won or lost, could destroy Wikipedia. Therefore, I am choosing to err on the side of caution and reversing my previous vote. My vote: Delete. Skyler 23:31, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * This picture is one of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of fair use images on Wikipedia, and they are all here to stay. And if this images is deleted, I will continue to upload it over and over again. 172 03:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * He just defined to you why it is not fair use. Why do you keep ignoring that point? And uploading it over and over again, especially when it had been deleted either by vote or by policy, who are you to override that? Good way to get yourself deleted, if it came to that. -Joseph 04:35, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)
 * Are you going to sue me? 172 04:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You know what, nevermind. It's clear that you are not capable of responding in a rational manner, when you have to resort to vigilantism and taunts. Also, removing the tag from the image itself while the subject was under discussion was very inappropriate. (See the history for [[Image:TrangBang.jpg]] -Joseph 04:43, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)
 * That was a rational response based on the legal issues. As the theoretically libel party, I'll reconsider my stance pending a lawsuit. Otherwise, the use of this image does not go against established practice on Wikipedia. 172 04:51, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Nobody threatened to sue you, least of all, me. And you said the "Delete" voters were being paranoid? -Joseph 04:53, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)
 * Great. Then it sounds like the image is staying. 172 04:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Believe whatever you want. It's not my role, nor the role of anyone party to this discussion to enforce copyright law or terms of licensing. The whole idea is to strike a balance between providing information and keeping Wikipedia out of trouble. It's clear that you wish to skirt around the arguments as to why this image is not fair use, and exercise your whim. You proved this by not only threatening to make unilateral changes in spite of the indeterminate (as of yet) outcome of a vote or policy decision, but you went and removed the image in question from the Votes for Deletion page. -Joseph 04:59, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

 * Keep. I agree with User:172.  The moon is looking rather bluish today.  Still as melodramatic as ever, though, aren't you?    --Robert Merkel 06:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia does not have the legal right to redistribute this photograph. -Sean Curtin 07:09, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Del. (Even tho this is not Copyright problems, it would be nice if we deleted it here and saved the effort of deleting it from there in spite of a failure to delete here.) Both use of authentic fair-use images, and non-atty. judgements about this highly technical and not yet fully litigated area of law, are harmful to WP; see Copyright problems. --Jerzy(t) 07:57, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)
 * Delete. The image is not fair use in any of the articles it is currently used in. User:Securiger has explained why. And I want a pony, too. -- Jao 08:42, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I find Jamesday's rebuttal more compelling than Securiger initial reasons for deletion. There are reasons to be opposed to take advantage of fair use in a GFDL text, but given that we have chosen to take those reasons and deal with them, I think this is an extremely strong candidate for fair use. Pcb21| Pete 14:04, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. From what I see, this is fair use. Nikola 17:11, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - and let's have all the other copyvios listed here. We cannot risk this project in fighting legal battles that are outwith our objectives to create a copyleft encyclopedia. If this were an article about photojournalism there might be a fair use argument but not if the image is purely illustrative. Cutler 21:39, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, reluctantly. Timeless image, but it belongs to someone who has clear ownership. "Fair use" is a thief's call on this one. Denni ☯ 01:13, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

 * (Already voted). A strong consideration of the "delete" lobby appears to be that we might be putting ourselves at risk of a (necessarily catastrophic) legal case if use this image. I don't really understand why you guys believe this is so. In particular
 * We are online. The DMCA/OCILLA acts apply. If AP decided that our fair use defence is invalid, they would have to issue a takedown notice. If we then decided to comply with notice, there is no possibility of a suit?
 * Further, given the wide availability of low res versions of this image available online, it appears that AP, whose lifeblood is photos and text, have decided not to pursue users of its copyrighted image, hence indicating that they too believe the iconic nature of this image makes for a strong fair use claim.
 * Thus I think some of these delete voters are not remembering to avoid copyright paranoia. Pcb21| Pete 10:21, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Jamesday and yourself both make compelling arguments with regard to the legal liability of Wikipedia and the question of whether they could be sued or not. The arguments were so compelling that I had to check on the provision. Unfortunately, you are both incorrect. Regardless of what the notice regarding copyrights before people post or the notification provision prior to suit states, 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(1)(A) requires that to relieve monetary responsibility, that the service provider (in this case, Wikipedia) "(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing" and "(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material." This entire discussion constitutes evidence of knowledge of the violation and to not remove it would make the good faith provision previously mentioned void. Sorry, no change of vote. Skyler 23:12, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep if resolution reduced slightly. This is fair use, IMO, although I'm highly worried over the fact that we're denying the original author of royalties. However, if CNN (and just about anybody else) can get away with this (get a way as in, not being pestered by AP), so can we. Johnleemk | Talk 16:35, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * CNN is an AP client. That's how they get away with it. -Joseph 19:46, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
 * CNN "gets away with it" by actually paying for the use of the photo. Gamaliel 02:15, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep --I was not aware of this listing on VfD until coming across a nascent revert war over it. There does not appear to be a clear consensus to delete this image and I don't understand why it was deleted. In any case, so long as we are using a relatively low-resolution copy and are giving appropriate credit I think this falls under fair use. older ≠ wiser 11:58, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) (sig added later)
 * Keep. If this is to be deleted, then all fair use images must be deleted, with the exception of book cover scans and the like.  I am all for removing unnecessary fair use images, but this one we cannot replicate.  As Jamesday points out, we are unlikely to be liable for damages for hosting the image.  A printed edition would require more caution.  Also -- why was this deleted already?  There is certainly not a consensus to delete.  Dan Gardner 16:15, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Is 'fair use' something that can be debated? We really need a lawyer's opinion on this. And IANAL. -Joseph 16:28, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

 * Keep This image is controversial in two senses (the political and the fair-use issue). This makes it (imo) a bad choice to delete on fair-use grounds since it could affect the policy of using copyrighted images. The risk is that the image may get deleted on partially political grounds. Policy-makers may then conclude (from the discussion and votes) that fair-use is not acceptable. Instead, choose an image without other controversies than copyright/fair-use to argue over. Or keep the discussion in the general policy making forums. When the policy on fair-use has become more clear the discussion over this particular image may be reopened. J grafstrom 18:01, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You can't say that it's bad because you don't like the potential answer (re: whether it affects the policy on fair use.) The goal on that point is to determine whether or not it is really fair use. Do you wish to expand upon that point? -Joseph 18:17, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)
 * Sure. There seem to be a number of viewpoints here: The image stays because it is relevant and legal. It goes because it violates copyright. It goes because it is irrelevant. It goes because its use is biased. Or any combination thereof. A potential result "Delete it" may be interpreted as if most people think fair-use cannot be used like this. This might not be the case though, if voters had both the fair-use question and the relevance/POV question in mind when arguing and voting. Therefor I would like the image to stay until the question of fair-use images is decided in general by discussions in other forums. In short: Dont delete it now, but let the question be open til the fair-use policy has been decided. J grafstrom 19:04, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * My initial concern came from the relevance to strategic bombing. If the assertation is that it is the result of an ARVN operation, how does that relate to an article on aerial theory? -Joseph
 * I think the image is relevant to the article (public opinion making bombing difficult, civilians suffer). Regarding fair-use question, i'd say wait for a general policy or a cease and desist from AP, whatever comes first. J grafstrom 22:12, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Possibly. But I don't believe that this is strategic bombing. Where was the strategic target? Nobody has indicated that. -Joseph 23:38, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)

 * I won't vote, as this is not an issue to be decided on VfD. However, as I have stated on the mailing list, I believe this image is fair use in two of the articles it appears in but still feel it should be deleted, because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and these are not free images. anthony (see warning) 14:04, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

= Count =
 * Delete: 14
 * Keep:   16
 * Abstain: 2
 * Revised count now at the top of the page (by name for easier verification)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text: Category:Talk Talk albums

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

title: Category:Talk Talk albums


text:
User talk:Anirvan/Archive 1

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

India related links
Hi, just noticed that you hv been a member of WP from Aug., 2004 and thus, you may already know of the above links. Yet, I thought it better to be on safe side and hence am adding the links above. --Gurubrahma 16:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio
Hi, now that you mention it, it looks typical of ACK. However, I got it off the German WP (here) and if there are no copyvio issues on German, there ought not to be on en:. Of course, vice-versa holds. Please do as you think fit, but be consistant -- you seem to be new; are you sure you want to handle this? Also, its helpful if add your signature to your messages, this will happen if you type four '~' marks. Regards, ImpuMozhi 22:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism WikiProject
Hi Anirvan, I've seen that most of your edits on Wikipedia are Hinduism related. There is a project on Hinduism here, where people improve information together. You may consider joining. Thanks GizzaChat  © 22:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Brahmanism case
Please go to User:Jbolden1517/anti-Brahmanism

Categories in Userspace
Hi! I noticed that in your scratchpad / draft / alternative article User:Anirvan/Anti-Brahmanism you have the categories still activated, so it's showing up in Category:Caste and Category:Indian culture. Could I suggest that you deactivate them (by putting a colon before 'Category' in the link) until such time as the article is in the mainspace rather than the userspace? (As per WP:CG, "If you copy an article to your user namespace (for example, as a temporary draft or in response to an edit war) you should decategorize it".) Cheers, Z iggurat 02:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Accusation
You wrote: Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Robert Metcalfe. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Anirvan 02:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC). I have no idea who Robert Metcalfe is, I never edited or vandalized that page. Please let me know if this is a misunderstanding. Shrinkshooter

Blackhawk Museum
Hello, just wanted to let you know that the Blackhawk Museum article has been listed as a possible copyvio. Thanks. --Geopgeop 13:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Rang de Basanti
Good catch. I wrote that sentence, I'm ashamed to say, and I had the grandfather's diary serving in the army :) Zora 03:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Friends of South Asia
I read the page (this version) but I really know too little about the issues to say much about the content. Over all, it left me with a positive impression of the group as well-meaning people. I'll put the page on my watch list for a while and keep an eye on it, and I'll jump in if I see a chance to contribute. Tom Harrison Talk 20:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like things have been quiet for a couple of days. If you want, make a couple of small incremental changes to correct the problems you describe, and we'll see how they are received. Tom Harrison Talk 13:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding links to Hinduism
Hi Anirvan, I am not sure if you did it intentionally, but adding links to other sites if they do not serve any useful purpose is called spamming. Wikipedia does not allow it. -- Lost 10:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought as much... Sorry for doubting. Carry on the good work -- Lost 11:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Wendy Doniger
I was directed to the Wendy Doniger article by an RfC a few weeks ago and have been spent an enormous amount of time attempting to reason with a particular editor who has developed quite a sense of ownership. I seem to have made little headway and have come to believe I might be going about it the wrong way. Could you have a look at the article and the talk page and perhaps make a couple of contributions there that would give the discussion fresh momentum? Thanks. Hornplease 09:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello
I saw you on the page of the Lost, and I found you. Nice meeting you. Ami Bhalo. Thanks. --Bhadani 18:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism
--D-Boy 08:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

persistent problem with user karthik

 * There has been persistent vandalism from user Karthikcomplex both in the Praveen Togadia article as well as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad article. I've reverted it in the latter, but I will also report him.Plz watch the vhp article for further vandalism on his part.

 * Contribs of Karthik

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Karthikcomplex Netaji 23:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

FetNA
I have made a comment on the discussion page of your FetNA userpage. I would like to commend you for ridding the article of POV and providing the cold hard facts. Bakaman Bakatalk 00:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Blackhawk Demographics
Do you happen to know where we can find demographics for the groups that live in Blackhawk?69.236.78.192 01:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

response
i am sorry for lower case h. I intended to move it to Anti Hindu as hiphen is not normally used while linking to it. You can revert my change. But i would suggest keeping Anti Hindu. Or better, why not move it to Hinduphobia, and give it a new start.nids(♂) 20:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

 * You do the needful now. I will be back only after some 20 hours. Bye.nids(♂) 20:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder...
Great job reverting vandals, however, please remember that warning them is just as, if not more important that reverting. I noticed here that you did not, and so he has kept on spamming. Thanks heaps! - GI e n 07:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Fetna
Hi, I agree with mot of your edits. However, an anon ip has been vandalizing your recent edits to the article. I have reported him but he still persists.Hkelkar 22:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Dalitstan

 * Here are my problems with your edits, which I feel whitewash what is essentially hate-speech in the "books"

 * Since the "books" do not fulfil WP:Reliable Sources they are not books and can't be listed without qualification. Reputable is not a matter of opinion on wikipedia. There are criteria for reputability. Check the policies. They are not published "AT ALL". Anyone can tout any garbage as a "book" on the internet. If they are not circulated by a publishing corp with fact checkers, editors, proofreaders etc. they cannot be listed as books. If we follow your maxim, there are a whole bunch of Neo-Nazi websites that also have "books" like the ones on Dalitstan but no wikipedia article on them recognize the posts as "books".

Hkelkar 23:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Furthermore, since Dalitstan is recognized as a hate site (per http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/FAS/Bromley/classes/confres/hatedir.pdf ) by academia, their (erstwhile) posts, by default, have no scholastic legitimacy until YOU find references to the contrary.Hkelkar 23:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Furthermore, look at the JewWatch article. This is a hate site similar to Dalitstan in many ways and the article clearly states their claims as allegations whereas you state similar allegations made b Dalitstan as "fact" without checking multiple sources per wikipedia policy Reliable sources or adequately Evaluating the reliability, treating partisan, religious and/or extremist websites with caution.Hkelkar 23:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Then the article must say "unpublished works" (w/out the quotes). Again, I quote JewWatch as precedent. None of their publications are mentioned as books on wikipedia.Hkelkar 00:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you like it now? I put in the edits I said above. Let me know what you think.Hkelkar 00:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As per your criteria, all of the links below are books:

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgovernments-USSR-Jewish-Bolshevism-Jewish%20Role.html http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-terrorists-mossad.html http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgovernments-folder.html

 * These are all archived online in a site that claims to be a "library" (library consists of books), they are all organized into chapters, they are copyrighted etc. etc. Yet, if you look at the wikipedia article JewWatch no mention of books anywhere. All are listed as "claims".

 * Jewwatch.com is basically the same as Dalitstan was, except replace "Jew" by "Brahmin" or "Hindu". The same standards of definitions must be followed for both articles on wikipedia.

Hkelkar 00:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Per your last message, anything that is published online cannot POSSIBLY be called book because then I can show you "books" that claim that aliens in UFO's are doing mind-control experiments on dogs and Apemen from the Earth's core are secretly plotting to invade the Earth. The name "book" slants the article towards falsely legitimizing such claims, which is POV.Hkelkar 00:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Since Dalitstan journal is their own propaganda mouthpeice, we can't call them books either. I can add that they are published by THEIR presses.Hkelkar 01:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Added that they were published by the "Dalitstan Journal".Hkelkar 01:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Per your last post, again, I cite jewwatch as precedent. They have multiple "books" by multiple authors. Frank Weltner himself, plus other White Nationalists/Neo-Nazis of the National Vanguard etc etc. Still, the wikipedia article does not regard them as books.Hkelkar 01:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can
Hi Anirvan, would you care to come back to the Anti-Brahminism article? If not, do you have some advice for me how to deal with the way these issues are playing out on Wikipedia? I am seeking advice from people who seem moderate to prevent me from getting too inflamed. Thank you for your advice. Gschadow 05:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

where?
did you go? Baka man  22:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Question
Do you think I am such a fool that I can't see what's really going on here? Henceforth, please refrain from bothering me in my page and interact with me in the articles' talk pages. Fabindia 09:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

American India Foundation
A template has been added to the article American India Foundation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. Oo7565 07:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Anirvan/Archive 1


text:
Orienta

Orienta may refer to:

Places

 * Orienta, Wisconsin
 * Orienta, Oklahoma

Things

 * Orienta (album), 1959 exotica album by The Markko Polo Adventurers
 * Orienta (ship), yacht owned by Edward R. Ladew
 * Orienta (moth), subgenus in the family Oecophoridae

title: Orienta


text:
Marc René, marquis de Montalembert

Marc René, marquis de Montalembert (16 July 1714 – 29 March 1800) was a French military engineer and writer, known for his work on fortifications.

Life
He was born at Angoulême, and entered the French Army in 1732. He fought in the War of the Polish Succession on the Rhine (1733–34), and in the War of the Austrian Succession made the campaigns of 1742 in Bohemia and Italy. In the years preceding the Seven Years' War, Montalembert (who had become an associate member of the Académie des Sciences in 1747) devoted his energies to the art of fortification, to which Vauban's Traité de l'attaque attracted him, and founded the cannon foundry at Ruelle, near his birthplace.

On the outbreak of war he became French commissioner with the allied army of Sweden, with the rank of brigadier-general. He constructed the field fortifications of Anklam and Stralsund. In 1761 he was promoted maréchal de camp, and began the works on which his fame rests. Montalembert's fortress has been aptly described by an English author as an "immense battery." The intricacies of trace by which Vauban and Cormontaigne sought to minimize the power of the attack, are abandoned in favour of a simple tenaille plan so arranged that the defenders can bring an overwhelming fire to bear on the works of the besieger.

Montalembert, who himself drew his idea from the practice of Swedish and Prussian engineers, furnished the German constructors of the early 19th century with the means of designing entrenched camps suitable to modern conditions of warfare. The "polygonal" method of fortification is the direct outcome of Montalembert's systems. In his own country the caste-spirit of the engineer corps was roused to defend Vauban, and though Montalembert was allowed to construct some successful works at Île-d'Aix and Oleron, he was forbidden to publish his method, and given but little opportunity for actual building. After fifteen years of secrecy he published in Paris (1776–1778) the first edition of La Fortification perpendiculaire.

At the time of the Revolution he surrendered a pension, which had been granted him for the loss of an eye, although he was deeply in debt, particularly on account of his Ruelle foundry, on which 6000 livres were due to him from the state, which he never received. Persuaded by his writer and actress wife, he joined in the emigration of the noblesse, and for a time lived in England. All his possessions were thereupon sequestrated by the republican government. He very soon returned, divorced his wife, and married the daughter of an apothecary. He obtained the annulment of the sequestration.

Carnot often called him into consultation on military affairs, and, in 1792, promoted him general of division. Proposed as a member of the Institut de France in 1797, he withdrew his candidature in favour of General Bonaparte.

His wife, Marie Josephine de Comarieu, was the hostess of one of the best-known salons of Louis XVI's time. She wrote two novels of merit, Elise Dumesnil (1798) and Horace (1822). She died in 1832.

Works
Besides his masterpiece, he wrote L'Art défensif supérieur à l'offensif (1793; in reply to attacks made upon his earliest work, La Fortification perpendiculaire, of which in later editions it forms part); Mémoire historique sur la fonte des canons (Paris, 1758), and other works on the same subject; Correspondance pendant la guerre de 1757-1760 (London, 1777); Rotation des boulets (Acad., 1755); and Relation du siège de Saint-Jean-d'Acre (Paris, 1789).

He also wrote short stories and verse, as well as comedies. He also modelled a complete course of fortification (92 models), which he offered to the Committee of Public Safety. His bust was sculptured by Bonvallet.

Montalembert's position in the history of fortification may be summed up as a realization of his own wish to do for the defence what Vauban had done for the attack. It was the inability of his contemporaries to see that Vauban's strength lay in his parallels and batteries and not in his bastions that vitiated their methods, and it was Montalembert's appreciation of this fact which made him the father of modern fortification. See Tripier, La Fortification déduite de son histoire (Paris, 1866).

Family
His nephew, also called Marc-René (1777-1831), is father of Charles Forbes René de Montalembert who was a French politician.

title: Marc René, marquis de Montalembert


text:
Bentleyville

Bentleyville may refer to:

 * Bentleyville, Ohio, U.S.A.
 * Bentleyville, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

title: Bentleyville


text:
Benton City

Benton City is the name of some places in the United States of America:

 * Benton City, Missouri
 * Benton City, Washington
 * Benton City, Texas (ghost town)

title: Benton City


text:
User talk:Manjughosa

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

title: User talk:Manjughosa


text: Category:Violent Femmes albums

title: Category:Violent Femmes albums


text:
Blackdown Cadet Training Centre

The Blackdown Cadet Summer Training Centre is a training centre for Cadets Canada located in CFB Borden, Ontario. Formerly known as the Army Cadet Summer Training Center Blackdown for Royal Canadian Army Cadets, it includes training for the Royal Canadian Air Cadets, and Royal Canadian Sea Cadets since 2003.

Description
It is the largest summer training centre for cadets in Canada, with approximately 2500 cadets each summer enrolled in 2 or 4-week courses. As of 2024, the following courses are available:

 * Drill and Ceremonial Instructor (Tri-Service) - Alpha Company; 4 weeks
 * Survival Instructor (Air Cadets)- Bravo Squadron; 6 weeks
 * Expedition Team Leader (Army Cadets) - Charlie Company; 4 weeks
 * Basic Drill and Ceremonial (Tri-Service) - Delta Squadron; 2 weeks
 * Basic Fitness and Sports (Tri-Service) - Foxtrot Company; 2 weeks
 * Fitness and Sports Instructor (Tri-Service) - Golf Squadron; 4 weeks
 * The Blackdown Cadet Training Centre School of Military Music (Tri-Service) - Juliet Company; 4 weeks and 2 weeks
 * The Blackdown Cadet Training Centre School of Pipes and Drums (Tri-Service) - Kilo Company; 2 weeks and 4 weeks
 * Basic Survival (Air Cadets) - Lima Squadron; 2 weeks
 * Basic Expedition (Army Cadets) - Mike Company; 2 weeks

History
In the summer of 1943, Army Cadet Camps were organized in eleven locations across Canada for 10 days duration each. In the summer of 1947, the first experimental six-week camp was held at Camp Ipperwash on Lake Huron, North of Sarnia, Ontario. Originally opened on 28 January 1942 as A29 Canadian Infantry Training Centre.

Although A29 CITC ceased operations in 1945, the camp remained open as a training centre for the Regular Force, Reserves. In 1946, the camp was used as a two-week summer camp for army cadets, as an experiment. It was a success and as a result was expanded in 1947 as the summer home of the Central Command Cadet Camp. Cadets attended Basic Training, Signalling, Driver-Mechanics, and Senior Leaders courses.

In 1948, the camp was further expanded and paved the way for similar camps in Dundurn, Vernon and Aldershot in the late 1940s and early 50s.

In 1994, because of a First Nation land claim, the Ipperwash Army Cadet Camp moved to Canadian Forces Base Borden, and was renamed the Blackdown Army Cadet Summer Training Centre.

The first Commanding Officer of this new Cadet Training Centre was LCOL Dirk in 1994. Since then Blackdown has continued to evolve both in the types of courses offered and the facilities themselves. From 1994 until 2003 cadet sleeping quarters and training facilities were modular tents with cots. Since 2003, there have been significant additions including improvements to the sleeping quarters.

In 2003, the first of many tri-force courses arrived in Blackdown Cadet Summer Training Centre.; which meant the closure of the Borden Air Cadet Camp.

In 2012, the training centre saw 179 adult staff members, 193 Staff Cadets and 1819 Course Cadets enter the gates.

title: Blackdown Cadet Training Centre


text: User talk:69.0.102.142

title: User talk:69.0.102.142


text:
Labcorp Drug Development

Labcorp Drug Development presently known as Fortrea is a contract research organization headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina, providing nonclinical, preclinical, clinical and commercialization services to pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. Formerly called Covance, the company is spin-off from Labcorp, which employs more than 70,000 people worldwide.

Labcorp Drug Development offers services in the preclinical, clinical and post-market phases of drug development, the product life cycles for medical device and diagnostics and development services paired with regulatory support for the chemical testing and crop protection industries. Labcorp Drug Development claims to be a global leader in nonclinical safety assessment, clinical trial testing and clinical trial management services.

Pre-Labcorp Drug Development companies (1968–1996)
In 1968, Environmental Sciences Corporation was established in Seattle, Washington, manufacturing equipment related to laboratory animals. In 1972, it purchased and took the name of Hazleton Laboratories, a contract laboratory that conducted toxicology testing. In 1977, Corning Glass Works purchased a stake in Hazleton. According to material on the Funding Universe website, by 1982, Hazleton had become the largest independent biological testing company and life sciences laboratory in the United States, as well as the largest manufacturer of equipment in the world. The company carried out animal toxicology tests of drugs, cosmetics, pesticides, and industrial chemicals, and bred rhesus monkeys and beagles for its own labs, as well as for chemical and drug companies, hospitals, universities and government agencies. It offered chemical analysis of new compound products for various industries, tested chemicals for gene mutations, and carried out research with monoclonal antibodies.

In 1989, Corning Glass Works purchased G.H. Besselaar Associates, which conducted clinical trials to help drugs gain approval from the Food and Drug Administration, and Hazleton purchased Microtest Ltd., a molecular toxicology center in York, England. Corning Glass Works then changed its name to Corning, and created Corning Lab Services, which included Besselaar and Hazelton. In 1991 and 1992, Corning Lab Services acquired SciCor and Philadelphia Association of Clinical Trials; in 1993, Hazleton, Besselaar, and SciCor were combined, becoming Corning Pharmaceutical Services, then Corning Life Sciences. On January 9, 1995, Corning Pharmaceutical Services announced the acquisition of National Packaging Systems, Inc., an Allentown, Pennsylvania-based clinical trial packaging company; the company was renamed Corning National Packaging Inc.

Labcorp Drug Development as Covance (1996–2021)
After completing the spin-off of Covance from Corning in 1996, Covance began operations as an independent, publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in January 1997.

By 1998, Covance had net revenues of $731.6 million and a net income of $48.6 million. By 2012, it had annual revenues of over $2 billion and over 11,000 employees in more than 60 countries. In 1998, Covance acquired the Berkeley (California, US) Antibody Company.

In 2000, Covance started a central laboratory in Singapore, building on clinical-development services that they formed in Singapore in 1996.

On February 14, 2001, Covance completed the sale of Covance Pharmaceutical Packaging Services Inc., later renamed Fisher Clinical Services, to Fisher Scientific International for $137.5 million. The net proceeds from the sale, approximately $110 million, were used to repay other Covance debt.

In 2002, Covance acquired Virtual Center Laboratory B.V., which is now known as Local Laboratory Services.

In August 2005, it acquired GFI Clinical Services, an 80-bed clinical pharmacology business, from West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc.

In 2006, Covance announced the acquisition of eight early phase clinical pharmacology sites of Radiant Research, Inc. and later opened what was then the largest toxicology expansion in Madison, Wisconsin, US.

In May 2006, it acquired Signet Laboratories, Inc., a provider of monoclonal antibodies used in the research of cancer, infectious disease and neurodegenerative disease.

In 2007, Covance opened a Central Lab facility in Shanghai, China.

In 2008, Covance acquired Eli Lilly’s Greenfield, Indiana campus and executed a 10-year service drug development service agreement with Lilly. Also, in 2008, Covance purchased a minority equity stake in Caprion Proteomics, known for proteomic biomarker services.

In 2009, Covance acquired Merck's Seattle-based Gene Expression Laboratory and entered into a five-year, $145 million contract to provide Merck with genomic analysis services.

In 2010, Covance and Sanofi-Aventis created an outsourcing partnership, which, at the time was considered the largest between a contract research organization (CRO) and a pharmaceutical company. Covance also acquired sites from Sanofi-Aventis in Porcheville, France and Alnwick, United Kingdom.

In 2011, Covance acquired the assets of Signet Laboratories, Inc., a provider of monoclonal antibodies used in the research of cancer, infectious disease and neurodegenerative disease.

In 2014, Covance acquired Medaxial, known for its market access consulting.

On November 3, 2014, Laboratory Corporation of America purchased Covance for $6.1 billion.

In 2016, Covance entered a five-year strategic alliance with Global Specimen Solutions and the use of their specimen management product, GlobalCODE, among other software products. In 2017, Global Specimen Solutions, Inc. was listed as a Labcorp subsidiary.

On August 31, 2017, Labcorp acquired global life sciences business, Chiltern, as part of its drug development services with Covance. The Chiltern acquisition included a subsidiary of Endpoint Clinical Inc and their interactive response technology (IRT) systems.

In 2018, Labcorp sold the Covance Food Solutions business to Eurofins for $670 million.

In 2018, Labcorp acquired Sciformix Corporation to add to the Covance service line with additional post-commercialization services such as Safety & Risk Management, Clinical Research & Post-Approval Support, Regulatory Affairs & Regulatory Operations, Real World Evidence & Market Access, and Technology Services.

In 2019, Labcorp and Envigo reached an agreement for Covance to acquire Envigo's nonclinical research services business. Envigo purchased Covance's research products business.

Labcorp Drug Development Services
The company's primary focus is serving the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. As part of its clinical and non-clinical development services, it provides drug development services across all phases of development and multiple therapeutic areas such as cardiovascular, diabetes, endocrinology and nephrology, immuno-oncology, infectious diseases, inflammation, neuroscience, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), oncology, ophthalmology, rare diseases, pediatrics, and the development of companion diagnostics.

Labcorp Drug Development lists its services in the following categories:

Lead Optimization
Covance reports that it offers Lead Optimization Non-GLP Toxicology, In Vivo Pharmacology, Nonclinical Imaging, Nonclinical Pathology, PK/TK Analysis and Reporting, and Immunology Services.

Analysis Services
The company offers bioanalytical services in small molecule, biologics, translational biomarkers, and LC-MS.

Research
A division of the company, Covance Research Products, Inc. (CRP), based in Denver, Pennsylvania, offers antibody products and antibody-development services to the research community. CRP also deals in the import and sale of laboratory animals. According to its website, CRP breeds and sells dogs, rabbits, guinea pigs, non-human primates, and pigs. It has also bred and trademarked new breeds of animals including the "Mini-Mongrel" dog. The company also imports wild-caught primates. Labcorp Drug Developments's animal-testing programs and facilities are AAALAC-accredited, ISO 9001:2000-registered, OLAW-assured, and USDA-research registered. According to the company, CRP programs and facilities are overseen by attending staff veterinarians and AALAS-certified technicians.

Safety Assessment
Labcorp Drug Development says it offers General Toxicology Studies, Genetic Toxicology, Immunotoxicology, Nonclinical Pathology Services, Safety Pharmacology, Services, Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology, (DART) Studies, and SEND - Standard for the Exchange of Nonclinical Data.

Consulting & Partnering
Labcorp Drug Development partners with pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies in various consulting and partnership agreements by offering drug development program management services, alliance management, early phase development solutions, Labcorp Drug Development MarketPlace, drug development consulting, access and strategy, and evidence generation.

Clinical Development
Labcorp Drug Development supports companies with their clinical trials, which involves early clinical / Phase IIa, Phase IIb / III services, clinical data management analysis and reporting, regulatory services, and Phase IV solutions.

Clinical Testing
In the clinical testing space, Labcorp Drug Development says it offers services involving flow cytometry, a central laboratory, biomarker testing capabilities, companion diagnostics, genomics, vaccines, and immunotherapeutics.

Commercialization
In the drug development commercialization space, Labcorp Drug Development reports to offer a service called MarketPlace and also offers patient support, field services, drug safety and pharmacovigilance.

Manufacturing Support
On the manufacturing side, Labcorp Drug Development reports that it offers chemistry, manufacturing and control (CMC) services.

Informatics
In 2011, Labcorp Drug Development (then Covance) launched its Xcellerate platform as an informatics tool to help optimize clinical trial performance. In 2018, Xcellerate won industry recognition with the Scrip Award for Best Technological Development in Clinical Trials.

In 2016, Labcorp Drug Development entered a five-year strategic alliance with Global Specimen Solutions and the use of their specimen management product, GlobalCODE, among other software products. In 2017, Global Specimen Solutions, Inc. was listed as a Labcorp subsidiary.

Functional Service Provision (FSP)
Labcorp Drug Development reports to help with staffing biopharmaceutical companies in the roles of clinical operations and clinical analytics under the Functional Service Provider (FSP) model. The acquisition of Chiltern in 2017 (as Covance) helped Labcorp Drug Development grow its FSP capabilities.

Welfare standards
Labcorp Drug Development also shares research on animal welfare topics, such as social housing of nonhuman primates.

Ebola virus
In December 1989 a number of cynomolgus macaques (Macaca fascicularis) were imported from Mindanao Island in the Philippines with the Ebola virus to Covance's Hazleton Research Products' Primate Quarantine Unit in Reston, Virginia. The company was using monkeys there for research purposes, according to The Washington Post. The virus was confirmed in one monkey and suspected in others among a group of 100. In March 1996 two macaques that had been shipped to Hazleton in Alice, Texas, tested positive for the Ebola virus from a group of 100 obtained from the same supplier. The strains were not infectious to humans, and no human illnesses were reported.

Münster, Germany
In 2003 the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) sent a German investigative journalist, Friedrich Mülln, into the Covance facility in Münster, Germany's largest primate-testing center, where he filmed undercover for five months.

The footage was shown on German public television in December 2003. Nature reported that it showed animal keepers dancing with half-anaesthetized monkeys, making their heads move to the rhythm of the music. It also showed staff handling the monkeys roughly and shouting at them. The monkeys were seen living isolated in small wire cages with little or no natural light and no environmental enrichment, with high noise levels caused by staff shouting and playing the radio, and undergoing surgery with no post-operative care. In response, Covance maintained that clips showing different technicians working in different buildings had been edited together, resulting in a sequence of events that did not take place. The company also said there was group housing and pair housing for some monkeys, but the BUAV chose not to show that. Covance said they planned to upgrade the housing to comply with future European Union guidelines.

Jane Goodall, a primatologist, described the monkeys' living conditions as horrendous. Another primatologist, Stephen Brend, argued that using monkeys in such a stressed state was "bad science", and that trying to extrapolate useful data in such circumstances was an "untenable proposition." The environment minister for North Rhine-Westphalia asked the public prosecutor to investigate, and said that if the allegations were borne out, the company would lose its licence to keep primates. According to the European Biomedical Research Association, a lobby group, the authorities inspected Covance and insisted that the company install video cameras to monitor staff working with primates. Covance appealed through the courts, which ruled that video monitoring would infringe the rights of the staff. The public prosecutor's office viewed the film and questioned witnesses, and concluded that Covance "had not rendered themselves liable to prosecution" and that the state veterinary officer "had not failed in his supervisory duties."

Vienna, Virginia, United States
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) alleged similar conditions in Covance's Vienna, Virginia, lab when it sent an undercover investigator to obtain a job there as a technician from April 2004 to March 2005. Subsequent inspections by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) resulted in 16 citations in April 2006. The USDA declined to give details; according to Covance the violations ranged from "administrative issues to scope of veterinary authority." The company agreed to pay a settlement of $8,720.

In June 2005, Covance filed a lawsuit in the United States against PETA and the investigator for fraud, breach of employee contract, and "conspiracy to harm the company's business by deceitfully infiltrating and videotaping the ... facility." In exchange for not suing the infiltrator for illegally filming within Covance's lab, PETA US signed an agreement to hand over all video footage and written notes to Covance, and agreed to a ban on conducting any infiltration of Covance for five years.

The company filed a parallel lawsuit in England in an attempt to stop PETA showing the tape; the British judge called the footage "highly disturbing", and ruled that there was a legitimate public interest in the material being shown. Covance and PETA agreed to a settlement that resulted in no payment to Covance, and with PETA allowed to continue to publish the video.

title: Labcorp Drug Development


text:
Margaret Herrick

Margaret Florence Herrick (September 27, 1902 – June 21, 1976), also known professionally as Margaret Gledhill, was an American librarian and the Executive Director of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. In 1971, the Academy's library was named the Margaret Herrick Library in her honor.

Early life
She was born Margaret Buck in Spokane, Washington, to Nathan K. Buck, an attorney, and Adda M. Buck (née Morie).

In 1929, Herrick graduated from the University of Washington with a degree in library science.

Career
In 1929, Herrick became head librarian at the Yakima Public Library in Yakima, Washington. She moved to Hollywood, California, with her husband and became the Academy's first librarian. She served in that capacity until 1943, during the war, when she became the interim executive director of the Academy, replacing her husband. In 1945, she was offered the Executive Director position permanently and held that position until her retirement in January 1971.

In the mid-1960s, Herrick went on international tours to promote the tenth anniversary of the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. Between 1963 and 1968, she visited many international film institutions.

The Academy's extensive library in Beverly Hills, California, of material on films is named in her honor.

Oscar moniker
Herrick is generally credited with naming the Academy Award an "Oscar", declaring the statuettes "looked just like my Uncle Oscar". However, others, including Academy President Bette Davis and Hollywood gossip columnist Sidney Skolsky, have claimed they invented the name.

Bette Davis said that the statue reminded her of her husband Harmon Nelson's derrière. Nelson's middle name was Oscar. However, Davis later relinquished this claim.

Columnist Sidney Skolsky, who had a syndicated column for over 50 years, referred to the nickname, "Oscar," in his March 17, 1934, column, which is believed to be the first time the award was called the Oscar in print.

Personal life
In 1931, Herrick married Donald Gledhill, an assistant to the executive secretary of the Academy. She and Gledhill divorced in 1945. She married Philip A. Herrick in 1946, and continued to use his name professionally following their divorce in 1951.

On June 21, 1976, Herrick died at the Motion Picture & Television Country House and Hospital in Woodland Hills, California, after a lengthy illness.

title: Margaret Herrick


text:
OCLC

OCLC, Inc., doing business as OCLC, is an American nonprofit cooperative organization "that provides shared technology services, original research, and community programs for its membership and the library community at large". It was founded in 1967 as the Ohio College Library Center, then became the Online Computer Library Center as it expanded. In 2017, the name was formally changed to OCLC, Inc. OCLC and thousands of its member libraries cooperatively produce and maintain WorldCat, the largest online public access catalog in the world. OCLC is funded mainly by the fees that libraries pay (around $217.8 million annually in total ) for the many different services it offers. OCLC also maintains the Dewey Decimal Classification system.

History
OCLC began in 1967, as the Ohio College Library Center, through a collaboration of university presidents, vice presidents, and library directors who wanted to create a cooperative, computerized network for libraries in the state of Ohio. The group first met on July 5, 1967, on the campus of Ohio State University to sign the articles of incorporation for the nonprofit organization and hired Frederick G. Kilgour, a former Yale University medical school librarian, as first executive director.

Kilgour and Ralph H. Parker, who was the head of libraries at the University of Missouri, had proposed the shared cataloging system in a 1965 report as consultants to the Committee of Librarians of the Ohio College Association. Kilgour and Parker wished to merge the latest information storage and retrieval system of the time, the computer, with the oldest, the library. They were inspired in part by the earlier Columbia–Harvard–Yale Medical Libraries Computerization Project, an attempt at shared automated printing of catalog cards. The plan was to merge the catalogs of Ohio libraries electronically through a computer network and database to streamline operations, control costs, and increase efficiency in library management, bringing libraries together cooperatively to best serve researchers and scholars. The first library to do online cataloging through OCLC was the Alden Library at Ohio University on August 26, 1971. This was the first online cataloging by any library worldwide.

Between 1967 and 1977, OCLC membership was limited to institutions in Ohio, but in 1978, a new governance structure was established that allowed institutions from other states to join. In 2002, the governance structure was again modified to accommodate participation from outside the United States.

As OCLC expanded services in the United States outside Ohio, it relied on establishing strategic partnerships with "networks", organizations that provided training, support and marketing services. By 2008, there were 15 independent United States regional service providers. OCLC networks played a key role in OCLC governance, with networks electing delegates to serve on the OCLC Members Council. During 2008, OCLC commissioned two studies to look at distribution channels; at the same time, the council approved governance changes that had been recommended by the Board of Trustees severing the tie between the networks and governance. In early 2009, OCLC negotiated new contracts with the former networks and opened a centralized support center.

In July 2010, the company was sued by SkyRiver, a rival startup, in an antitrust suit. Library automation company Innovative Interfaces joined SkyRiver in the suit. The suit was dropped in March 2013, however, following the acquisition of SkyRiver by Innovative Interfaces. Innovative Interfaces was bought by ExLibris in 2020, therefore passing OCLC as the dominant supplier of ILS services in the US (over 70% market share for academic libraries and over 50% for public libraries for ExLibris, versus OCLC's 10% market share of both types of libraries in 2019).

In 2022, membership and governance expanded to include any institution with a subscription to one of many qualifying OCLC products (previously institutions qualified for membership by "contributing intellectual content or participating in global resource or reference sharing"), with the exception of for-profit organizations that are part of OCLC's partner program. This change reflected OCLC's expanding number of services due to its corporate acquisitions.

Presidents
The following people served successively as president of OCLC:
 * 1967–1980: Frederick G. Kilgour
 * 1980–1989: Rowland C. W. Brown
 * 1989–1998: K. Wayne Smith
 * 1998–2013: Jay Jordan
 * 2013–present: Skip Prichard

Services
OCLC provides bibliographic, abstract and full-text information to anyone.

OCLC and its member libraries cooperatively produce and maintain WorldCat—the OCLC Online Union Catalog, the largest online public access catalog (OPAC) in the world. WorldCat has holding records from public and private libraries worldwide.

The Online Computer Library Center acquired the trademark and copyrights associated with the Dewey Decimal Classification System when it bought Forest Press in 1988. A browser for books with their Dewey Decimal Classifications was available until July 2013; it was replaced by the Classify Service.

Until August 2009, when it was sold to Backstage Library Works, OCLC owned a preservation microfilm and digitization operation called the OCLC Preservation Service Center, with its principal office in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

Starting in 1971, OCLC produced catalog cards for members alongside its shared online catalog; the company printed its last catalog cards on October 1, 2015.

, an around-the-clock reference service provided to users by a cooperative of participating global libraries, was acquired by Springshare from OCLC in 2019 and migrated to Springshare's LibAnswers platform.

Software
OCLC commercially sells software, such as:
 * CONTENTdm for managing digital collections
 * Wise, an integrated library system and "community engagement system"
 * WorldCat Discovery, a bibliographic discovery system that allows library patrons to use a single search interface to access an institution's catalog, ebooks, database subscriptions and more
 * WorldShare Management Services, an electronic resource management system

Research
OCLC has been conducting research for the library community for more than 30 years. In accordance with its mission, OCLC makes its research outcomes known through various publications. These publications, including journal articles, reports, newsletters, and presentations, are available through the organization's website.
 * OCLC Publications – Research articles from various journals including The Code4Lib Journal, OCLC Research, Reference and User Services Quarterly, College & Research Libraries News, Art Libraries Journal, and National Education Association Newsletter. The most recent publications are displayed first, and all archived resources, starting in 1970, are also available.
 * Membership Reports – A number of significant reports on topics ranging from virtual reference in libraries to perceptions about library funding.
 * Newsletters – Current and archived newsletters for the library and archive community.
 * Presentations – Presentations from both guest speakers and OCLC research from conferences, webcasts, and other events. The presentations are organized into five categories: Conference presentations, Dewey presentations, Distinguished Seminar Series, Guest presentations, and Research staff presentations.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, OCLC participated in the REopening Archives, Libraries, and Museums (REALM) project funded by the IMLS to study the surface transmission risks of SARS-CoV-2 on common library and museum materials and surfaces, and published a series of reports.

Advocacy
Advocacy has been a part of OCLC's mission since its founding in 1967. OCLC staff members meet and work regularly with library leaders, information professionals, researchers, entrepreneurs, political leaders, trustees, students and patrons to advocate "advancing research, scholarship, education, community development, information access, and global cooperation".

WebJunction, which provides training services to librarians, is a division of OCLC funded by grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation beginning in 2003.

OCLC partnered with search engine providers in 2003 to advocate for libraries and share information across the Internet landscape. Google, Yahoo!, and Ask.com all collaborated with OCLC to make WorldCat records searchable through those search engines.

OCLC's advocacy campaign "Geek the Library", started in 2009, highlights the role of public libraries. The campaign, funded by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, uses a strategy based on the findings of the 2008 OCLC report, "From Awareness to Funding: A study of library support in America".

Other past advocacy campaigns have focused on sharing the knowledge gained from library and information research. Such projects have included communities such as the Society of American Archivists, the Open Archives Initiative, the Institute for Museum and Library Services, the International Organization for Standardization, the National Information Standards Organization, the World Wide Web Consortium, the Internet Engineering Task Force, and Internet2. One of the most successful contributions to this effort was the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, "an open forum of libraries, archives, museums, technology organizations, and software companies who work together to develop interoperable online metadata standards that support a broad range of purposes and business models."

OCLC has collaborated with the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia volunteer community, through integrating library metadata with Wikimedia projects, hosting a Wikipedian in residence, and doing a national training program through WebJunction called "Wikipedia + Libraries: Better Together".

Online database: WorldCat
OCLC's WorldCat database is used by the general public and by librarians for cataloging and research. WorldCat is available to the public for searching via a subscription web-based service called FirstSearch, to which many libraries subscribe, as well as through the publicly available WorldCat.org.

Identifiers and linked data
OCLC assigns a unique control number (referred to as an "OCN" for "OCLC Control Number") to each new bibliographic record in WorldCat. Numbers are assigned serially, and in mid-2013 over a billion OCNs had been created. In September 2013, the OCLC declared these numbers to be in the public domain, removing a perceived barrier to widespread use of OCNs outside OCLC itself. The control numbers link WorldCat's records to local library system records by providing a common reference key for a record across libraries.

OCNs are particularly useful as identifiers for books and other bibliographic materials that do not have ISBNs (e.g., books published before 1970). OCNs are often used as identifiers for Wikipedia and Wikidata. In October 2013, it was reported that out of 29,673 instances of book infoboxes in Wikipedia, "there were 23,304 ISBNs and 15,226 OCNs", and regarding Wikidata: "of around 14 million Wikidata items, 28,741 were books. 5403 Wikidata items have an ISBN associated with them, and 12,262 have OCNs."

OCLC also runs the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF), an international name authority file, with oversight from the VIAF Council composed of representatives of institutions that contribute data to VIAF. VIAF numbers are broadly used as standard identifiers, including in Wikipedia.

Company acquisitions

OCLC acquired NetLibrary, a provider of electronic books and textbooks, in 2002 and sold it in 2010 to EBSCO Industries. OCLC owns 100% of the shares of OCLC PICA, a library automation systems and services company which has its headquarters in Leiden in the Netherlands and which was renamed "OCLC" at the end of 2007. In July 2006, the Research Libraries Group (RLG) merged with OCLC.

On January 11, 2008, OCLC announced that it had purchased EZproxy. It has also acquired OAIster. The process started in January 2009 and from October 31, 2009, OAIster records are freely available via WorldCat.org.

In 2013, OCLC acquired the Dutch library automation company HKA and its integrated library system Wise, which OCLC calls a "community engagement system" that "combines the power of customer relationship management, marketing, and analytics with ILS functions". OCLC began offering Wise to libraries in the United States in 2019.

In January 2015, OCLC acquired Sustainable Collection Services (SCS). SCS offered consulting services based on analyzing library print collection data to help libraries manage and share materials. In 2017, OCLC acquired Relais International, a library interlibrary loan service provider based in Ottawa, Canada.

A more complete list of mergers and acquisitions is available on the OCLC website.

Criticism
In May 2008, OCLC was criticized by Jeffrey Beall for monopolistic practices, among other faults. Library blogger Rick Mason responded that although he thought Beall had some "valid criticisms" of OCLC, he demurred from some of Beall's statements and warned readers to "beware the hyperbole and the personal nature of his criticism, for they strongly overshadow that which is worth stating".

In November 2008, the Board of Directors of OCLC unilaterally issued a new Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records that would have required member libraries to include an OCLC policy note on their bibliographic records; the policy caused an uproar among librarian bloggers. Among those who protested the policy was the non-librarian activist Aaron Swartz, who believed the policy would threaten projects such as the Open Library, Zotero, and Wikipedia, and who started a petition to "Stop the OCLC powergrab". Swartz's petition garnered 858 signatures, but the details of his proposed actions went largely unheeded. Within a few months, the library community had forced OCLC to retract its policy and to create a Review Board to consult with member libraries more transparently. In August 2012, OCLC recommended that member libraries adopt the Open Data Commons Attribution (ODC-BY) license when sharing library catalog data, although some member libraries have explicit agreements with OCLC that they can publish catalog data using the CC0 Public Domain Dedication.

title: OCLC


text:
Orme

Orme may refer to:

United Kingdom

 * Great Orme and Little Orme, two headlands overlooking Llandudno Bay in Wales

United States

 * Orme, Maryland, an unincorporated community in Prince George's County
 * Orme, Tennessee, a town in Marion County
 * The Orme School of Arizona, a private school in Mayer, Arizona

Quebec (Canada)

 * Rivière aux Ormes, in Lotbinière Regional County Municipality, Chaudière-Appalaches
 * Rivière à l'Orme, a tributary of lac des Deux Montagnes on Montreal Island

Other uses

 * Orme (name), with a list of people named Orme
 * Orme's Law, a rule for assessing power requirements for radio controlled models
 * Le Orme, an Italian progressive rock band
 * Orme (horse), a Thoroughbred racehorse

title: Orme


text: Category:Sandra Bernhard albums

title: Category:Sandra Bernhard albums