text:
Talk:Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Copyright
Hello. What is the copyright status of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia? Who wrote it, exactly -- was it an official publication of the Soviet government? Any information about the status of Soviet-era copyrights in general, and the GSE in particular, would be very helpful. Thanks for your help, Wile E. Heresiarch 17:39, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * It is public domain as are all Soviet government documents published before I think 1973. Fred Bauder 21:54, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * According to the GSE page, the third edition was translated into English in 1973. Any idea what the copyright status is of Soviet Government works made after that date? (It says on the GSE page that the 3rd edition is available online from some Russian site, if it really is verifiably public domain, it could be a really good, or at least interesting, resource.) Kadin2048 21:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Within Russia, the first edition and the second edition up to the entry on Forester (vol. 24) are in the public domain. Later editions and the second edition from vol 24/25 on are copyrighted. That's the rules employed at the time of this writing on the Russian Wikipedia, see ru:Википедия:Авторские права. The reasons for this are manyfold. See ru:Обсуждение:Большая_советская_энциклопедия, and also see Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. about copyrights in Russia on collections (such as newspapers or encyclopedias) of individual articles. Incidentally, these rules are consistent with my own analysis of Russian copyrights at Template talk:PD-USSR and at commons:Template talk:PD-Soviet.
 * Outside of Russia, the waters become muddy. If we only consider Russia and ignore the other CIS nations, we could conclude that those editions and entries published anonymously before 1945 would also be PD in other signatory countries of the Berne Convention (1945 = 1995 - 50; 1995 is the year Russia joined the Berne Convention, and it had a copyright term of 50 years at that time, and that copyright term applied retroactively, even to works that had gone out of copyright under the previous Soviet legislation.) 1945 only leaves the first edition PD.
 * Which means that the image of the first page of the third edition is not in the public domain as claimed. Lupo 10:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What about the translation copyrights? If the orginal was not coprighted, can its translation be copyrighted? And if so, can the Russian text be retranslated and released into PD in the second translation? How much difference must be between first and second translations, so that the second is not accussed of being a rip-off the first? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Even if the original text does not have a copyright, any translation of it into another language (such as English) would have its own copyright, owned by the translator; the translator would then be completely free to put the translation into the public domain.
 * As for similarity between two different translations, there is no simple rule that can be applied. However, the same basic principles will apply to a translated work as for a wholly original creation, so the longer the translated work is, the less probable it is that another translator's work would be the same or similar.
 * Silverhelm 09:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC).

Not that I see many people copying more than "what is needed for personal research" or "quotes for reference" - it is more interesting as a concept which might be applicable elsewhere.

To what extent would the above rules apply to other "official publications of no longer extant states"? The present governments of former Communist states which remain extant probably retain the copyrights of Communist-era publication (or would advise) - but what about eg Czechoslovakia? Jackiespeel 17:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Paste in revisions
All articles which related to Bolshevik leaders who were purged were changed, Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev. Fred Bauder 21:54, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that, in subsequent versions of the encyclopedia entries were removed from new books. For example, in the online GSE, one can find "Trotskyism", and "Trotsky-Zinovev anti-Leninist block", but no biography of Trotsky, as the original one was removed in versions of the first edition after he fell out of favor.  So new books, new versions would not have that article.  Beria is the only cut-and-paste one I have heard about though.  And of course, Beria was post-Stalin. Ruy Lopez 09:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How many volumes, how many years?
I've just translated the article to Japanese wikipedia, but the publication date and the volume number of each edition of the Encyclopedia are different from the Russian Wiki, and some other sources (Here I picked up from Encarta and some American uni's library catalog(?)).

This article (English wiki)
 * 1st edi. 1926-1947, 65 vols.
 * 2nd edi. 1950-1958, 51 vols.
 * 3rd edi. 1969-1978, 30 vols.

Russian
 * 1st edi. 1926-1933, 65 vols.
 * 2nd edi. 1950-1960, 50 vols.
 * 3rd edi. 1969-1978, 30 vols.
 * Though I don't understand Russian.
 * There are mistakes here. See years of release of all volumes here and I think, you'll easily discover a source of mistakes. If you won't, please, ask me to explain this. Cmapm 19:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

MSN Encarta
 * 1st edi. 1926-1947, 64 vols.
 * 2nd edi. 1950-1958, 51 vols.
 * 3rd edi. 1970-1978, 30 vols.

and, http://web.library.emory.edu/subjects/humanities/history/CCCP/Guide.html
 * 2nd edi. 1949-1958
 * 3rd edi. 1971-1978

Does anybody have any info on this? Can anybody confirm which publication data and which volume number are true?Hans castorp81 16:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Firstly, concerning the 3rd edition. I've looked into it and found, that 1st vol. was signed "ready for printing" on November 6 1969 and released in 1969, the 30th was signed on October 6 1978 and released in 1978. Besides that, a volume of indexes was released in 1981.

 * Concerning the 1st and 2nd edi., in the 3rd edition in the article about the encyclopedia itself is written, that 1st edition was released "in 1926 - 1947 years in 66 volumes" (66th volume, released in 1947, was about the USSR). 2nd edition was released in "1950 - 1958 years in 51 volume (51st volume is complementary)". Besides that, two volumes of indexes to the 2nd edi. were released in 1960. You can see this article online here (in Russian).

 * You can also look here to find years of release of all volumes of each edition (in Russian, but pretty intuitive, I think). The only doubtful issue for myself is why there is written, that the 2nd edition was released in 1949 - 1958, although in another article  on the same website is written, that it was released in 1950 - 1958. My guess for this is that the 1st vol. was signed "ready for print" in 1949 and released in 1950.

 * To sum it up, I believe that the following is true:
 * 1st edi. 1926-1947, 66 vols.
 * 2nd edi. 1950-1958, 51 vols.
 * 3rd edi. 1969-1978, 30 vols.
 * Or to be careful, you can write "65 vols.+ a complementary volume about the USSR". Cmapm 19:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I see..Thanks for a fast reponse. So the last volume (66th) of the first edition was a complementary one. I'm gonna change the number for Japanese Wiki (But since the both vol number seems OK (i.e. not wrong) and I'm not partiipating in Enlgish wiki, I'll leave it as it is for English wiki).. Cheers :). Hans castorp81 15:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * This was already fixed here by Mikkalai, when I wanted to fix this. I also looked through the Japanese version, it's nice work. Best wishes :-) Cmapm 00:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I've got the 3rd edition of БСЭ. It has 31 volumes, numbered from 1 to 30. There are two volumes with number 24: '24-I' (roman 1) and '24-II' (roman 2). The first one is the 'regular' alphabetic volume with articles from Собаки (Dogs) to Струна (String). The second one is titled CCCР (USSR), and it is all about the country, its geography, history, science, social life, government bodies, ideology, politics, every one of the 15 Soviet republics, and so on. Volumes 24-I and 24-II are both of full size: 607 and 575 pages respectively. 217.114.151.228 14:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have 3rd edition too, many thanks to my grandfather and grandmother, who subscribed to it 30 years ago. Somehow I managed to forget to include inf. about 24th vol. into the article :-( Thanks to Mikkalai, who fixed this after your notice. Cmapm 23:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Azerbaijani Soviet Encyclopedia
I fill the the original name for the ASE and correct the english translation Azeri to Azerbaijani since it is more suitable. Azeri has a little different meaning which is disputed in fact.--Araks 11:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Dubious (Damnatio Memoriae)
If caught possesing an unrevised copy, one could have faced several years of imprisonment.

There could have been no official law saying that, so there is no way to know that "one could have faced" such a thing. From what I know about Soviet reality, it seems unlikely - revisions in party ideology and evaluations of specific political figures changed many times during Soviet history, but nobody was prosecuted for the mere possession of official state-published materials reflecting earlier dogma. I have inherited a copy of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia from my own grandfather, and his copy has the "original" Beria article. He was never imprisoned, as far as I know. :-) --91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed as dubious and having been marked so since April. If anyone can find any reliable source for this claim, it can be added back, of course.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Access to encyclopedia
The series formerly in Ealing Central Library is no longer on general access. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian Soviet Encyclopedia
needs help. Whoever's watching this, please address if you can. Or I'll do it later. -- Y not? 19:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Repeated removal of WP:RS
I cited the source: (Richard Pipes, (1995), Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime, New York: Vintage Books, Random House Inc., ISBN 0-394-50242-6, page 297). Please cite your source.). Please cite your secondary  sources if it tells something different, instead of removing content you do not like.Biophys (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Repeated removal of a WP:OR invention

 * Over the course of several days I reverted your insertions of fabricated statements with unambiguously clear edit summaries like this: . I asked you to read the Great Soviet Encyclopedia before saying that it did not mention Glavlit: the link to the text from the online version discussing the departments of the Soviet government is here, where one can see that the GSE clearly talks about Glavlit:

 * "'При Совете Министров СССР имеются (1971) следующие Г. у.: архивное; геодезии и картографии; гидрометеорологической службы; микробиологической промышленности; по иностранному туризму; по охране государственных тайн в печати и др.'"

 * Biophys contends that his source for the material is Richard Pipes: :

 * "'I cited my source (Richard Pipes, (1995), Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime, New York: Vintage Books, Random House Inc., ISBN 0-394-50242-6, page 297). Please cite your source.'"

 * But the only sourced material from Richard Pipes is his claim that the Great Soviet Encyclopedia said that "The October Revolution put an end to both tsarist and bourgeois censorship." (Obvious from the diff here: ) What is being done is the insertion of deliberate WP:OR, which Biophys is obviously aware of. Pipes does not claim that the Great Soviet Encyclopedia does not mention Glavlit (which is false, as any idiot can see from the link indicated above). Is this an attempt to deliberately discredit GSE? It is not a stellar source, obviously, but the effort being made here is to point to it as a lying and propagandistic piece, which is far from a justifiably uncontroversial claim. This is certainly so with the "evidence" Biophys provides in order to perform this maneuver.

 * So Biophys' insertion and reinsertion of the text is clearly a fabrication in light of my requests that Biophys actually read the GSE and my offers to provide the link in case he is unable to do so. Accordingly, I am again removing the fallacious content he keeps reinserting into the text. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we dial down the heat, please?
 * The entire content of Encyclopedia was heavily controlled by the Soviet censorship agency Glavlit for consistency with the Communist Party line. However, the Encyclopedia did not even mention the existence of Glavlit. Instead, it asserted:

Is the issue that we're saying Pipes does not mention Glavlit? In that case the appropriate action is to tag the Glavlit sentence as requiring a source. It's not question of WP:OR. If a publication is subject to censorship while it claims to end other censorship, that is useful and informative Also, while one can infer Glavlit is mentioned in PasswordUsername's passage with reference to the "protection of state secrets," what is stated is only that the function reports to the Council of Ministers. Moreover, there is no statement the GSE is reviewed by those engaged in the "protection of state secrets." Uncivil charges of idiocy are not helpful here. (Vecrumba      TALK 05:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Vecrumba, since you are not a Russian speaker, let me point out that there is no inference. The article in question is from the GSE article Glavnoye Upravleniye, a Soviet government department title: as examples of Soviet departments (glavnoye upravleniyes), the GSE cites the Glavnoye Upravleniye po Okhrane Gosudarstvennykh Tayn v Pechati – abbreviated after its original founding name as Glavlit. We do not need tags for things that are demonstrably false. ("Other scientists assert that the Earth is flat. [citation needed]") If the point is to outline the encyclopedia's shortcomings with factual (reliable) sources, that's fine with me. I accept that the GSE had its flaws. I also accept that Western encyclopedias have theirs. If somebody asserts that the GSE is more flawed, that's fine with me. If the point is to demonize the encyclopedia by inventing things that are contrary to reality and compounding it by misrepresenting the sources in order to poison the well in its entirety, then... well, I object utterly and totally. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps your reaching out could have merely mentioned your reasoned response here instead of threatening me with Digwuren sanctions, no? And since the article does not utilize the shortened "Galvlit" anywhere, you could have simply indicated as such to avoid confusion or calling Biophys an idiot. Vecrumba      TALK 18:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you keep user conversations on user talk pages instead of bringing them here? I did not call Biophys an idiot. I said any idiot can see that GSE mentions Glavlit. Perhaps Biophys did not bother to take a look through the encyclopedia he's talking about – but I had offered to provide him a link three times in a row. The guy still managed to bring in his patently false WP:OR into the article three times, despite my offer to him. You are very well aware of this. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, when you address a response to someone and state "even an idiot" you're denigrating them as even stupider than an idiot, so my characterization regarding you calling Biophys an idiot was generous—please don't split hairs on how you've addressed editors in discourse after (I checked the time stamp) lecturing me on civility.
 * Thank you for your explanation regarding "Главное управление в СССР". You can see where the abbreviation "Glavlit" as the group charged with "on the protection of state secrets in the press" (Г. у. по охране государственных тайн в печати) is not mentioned and does require outside knowledge. That still leaves the issue that Glavlit is not mentioned in the GSE as a body censoring the GSE.
 * Which brings me back to the original question before we got side-tracked, which hasn't been addressed. Is the problem that Pipes does not mention Glavlit? Vecrumba      TALK 20:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, again: I did not call Biophys an idiot. You can read into my post what you want. The problem is that Biophys makes false claims that the GSE does not talk about Glavlit (which *is* mentioned as a government department in the GSE). This essentially gives a distorted view of the scope of the GSE.
 * Is it from Pipes? Apparently not, despite Biophys assertions that his text is referenced. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(od) I've entered alternate content for now regarding censorship leaving out the issue of whether the GSE self-mentions censorship by a department of the same organ the GSE reports to (Council of Ministers). I trust you will find that an improvement. (As for civility, not using "idiot" in the first place avoids any miscommunication and misperception, no?) As Pipes is not available online and I don't have it in print, I can't support or dispute what Pipes contends with regard to Glavlit and the GSE. Vecrumba      TALK 21:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Communist propaganda
I added communist propaganda category to this article, but User:PasswordUsername reverted my edit. Great Soviet Encyclopedia was written from a communist viewpoint. It was not any scholarly encyclopedia, but simply propaganda. Your article itself says The Great Soviet Encyclopedia had a strong pro-communist bias. Then why these two categories were removed? BTW I have a reliable source as per wiki guideline which says the purpose of Great Soviet Encyclopedia was propaganda. --Joklolk (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's another ref to support the inclusion of the cat radek (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And here. BTW, even though today the term "propaganda" has a negative connotation, the Soviets (and the Nazis for that matter) did not see it that way and freely admitted that they were engaging in propaganda (i.e. political persuasion).radek (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

 * And certainly the editors themselves professed to the mission of inculcation of Soviet thought. V ЄСRUМВА  ☎  12:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia was certainly biased and presented material in a manner that did not create the impression of conflict with the ideology of the state, but none of this is the same as calling the factual material stated in the encyclopedia a piece of "propaganda." Neither of the refs given by Radeksz actually even attempt to discuss the Soviet encyclopedia as a propagandistic piece -- "Great Soviet Encyclopedia" and propaganda do not even occur in one sentence anywhere in the provided links. Hence, "Great Soviet encyclopedia = communist propaganda" is WP:OR and should be removed. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

 * All encyclopedias have their biases. Doesn't this one have some too? I suspect that the GSE's article on Sunflowers was less propagandistic than it's article on Trotsky. I suspect that EB's article on Sunflowers is also less biased than on their spin of the sinking of the Lusitania, or of the Boer war. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have refs calling the Great Soviet Encyclopedia a piece of propaganda, it'd be good to see them. Radeksz's references don't claim that, so there's a need for reliable sources – or we get WP:OR. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * William Benton, based on his interviews with the editors of the GSE, states that the GSE was ordered by the state as a "propaganda weapon." When I have a chance I'll expand the article. For now, the categories return. You will note that the very own statements of the GSE scream propaganda, just avoid that word. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Article expanded. Also, I have to take issue with PasswordUsername's contention "but none of this is the same as calling the factual material stated in the encyclopedia a piece of "'propaganda.'" Propaganda is a combination of content and purpose; there is nothing that says propaganda is not factual—the best propaganda blends fiction, fact, and bias into a seamless unity. No one has ever stated there is not factual material in the GSE, let's not put words in other editors' mouths. That there is factual material in the GSE does not make the GSE "not propaganda." V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  17:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

 * An example of propaganda would be the Programme of the CPSU or a speech during an election campaign. Contributors to the encyclopedia have the highest academic credentials, making it impossible to characterize the encyclopedia as propaganda. Just a few of the thousands of contributors include: S.S. Ginzburg, doctor of art history; E. Aleksandrova, doctor of chemical sciences; A. Aganbegian, member of the Academy of Sciences; I. Braginsky, member of the Academy of Sciences of the Tadzhik SSR.Kravavi (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

 * There are -- or were, at least -- elements of propaganda and/or bias in it. I read an article about Catholicism in the copy we had at the James Branch Cabell Library at VCU in Richmond, and right after stating the official number of catholics in the world, it added in parentheses: "obviously exaggerated". Kinda funny, I think.76.113.104.58 (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Errors in the English translation
Years ago I had the opportunity to read the English translation at a university library (see, http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/). It was amusing to observe that the article on Boston, Massachusetts (where I lived at the time) showed a picture of the "State Bank" near a paragraph indicating Boston's importance as a financial center. The picture was actually of the 225 Franklin Street building of the State Street Bank and Trust, which is a private bank, not a "State" bank (gosbank) at all.

Finding errors in an encyclopedia is something that stirs the heart of anyone who has done even the least bit of work on Wikipedia. There must have been other curious errors of that sort, as the Great Soviet encyclopedia is huge and I viewed only a small part of it. I believe that a gold mine of errors awaits someone with access and with the gumption to wade through the English translation. A small list of errors could be a fine addition to this article. The research involved wouldn't be tremendously original, would it? Snezzy (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The article misinforms
Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is USA-oriented, it informs only about the anti-US bias of the Encyclopedia. In fact many nations, people, ideologies and events were attacked or concealed.
 * Different bias of the three editions should be explained.
 * having a strong Marxist bias - the GSE has a strong Soviet bias. A Marxist bias understood as direct usage of Marx' ideology is anti-Soviet. You aren't allowed to use the theory by yourself, you have to obey the recent Party line. Xx236 (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Every aspect of Soviet life is systematically presented, including history, economics, science, art, and culture - obviously false, Soviet crimes and errors aren't presented at all or their descriptions are fabricated.Xx236 (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Informations about censorship have been removed.Xx236 (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Well, the US was a prime target of Soviet anti-Western agitation. That would be reflected in historical and political accounts; science and art, on the other hand, would likely be less tainted by political concerns. This is not supposition, this is from the editors of the GSE themselves. The GSE certainly isn't going to cover the underbelly of the USSR when its mission includes extolling the virtues of Marxist-Soviet life. I really don't understand exactly what your problems are here with content which has been stable for quite some time. VєсrumЬа ►TALK

Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if the US was a prime target I don't see any reason to ignore other targets. The article says "Overall, some entries indicate an anti-American bias" which is biased, maybe "Overall, some entries indicate an anti-Western, mostly anti-American, bias" would be better. The source is demanded.Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you please explain me the connection between stability and quality in this Wikipedia? What is your source? An article can be stable because noone is interested or it's dominated by some kind of bias and the opponents are terrorised or banned. Here any mention of Soviet censorship of the Wikipedia hes been removed and surprisingly the authors of the removed edits are happy. I bet that an average contemporary reader doesn't have any idea about the logic of creating and censoring GSE and succh logic is different than in "capitalistic" societies.Xx236 (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You have included long quotes. As far as I understand we should write rather than quote.
 * I am also concerned with the addition of a criticism section which reads as follows:
 * Aside from the fact this looks like a high-school homework assignment, rather than sober criticism by experts, are we really serious that we have US critics analyse a Soviet encyclopaedia on the merits of the coverage of a war the US conducted? Is this a new definition of an impartial, NPOV source? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις   04:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * With all dues respect I have the impression that the Southern Utah University is a university. The Guide is used, it's linked from http://www.li.suu.edu/page/research-guides Xx236 (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am highly concerned with the level of this article. Xx236 (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we really serious that we accept Soviet coverage of anything without explaining the context?
 * Are we really serious that we accept Soviet coverage of anything without explaining the context?

Xx236 (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the University of Arizona a university?

...someone studying Stalinist culture might use the GSE as a primary source (as a product of the culture)...
 * http://intranet.library.arizona.edu/users/brewerm/sil/lib/primary.html

 * It's rather about the 2nd edition of GSE.
 * If I'm crazy there are at least few brothers in insanity around the world.

Some foreigners believe that US (in fact sometimes Canadian) TV series are a source describing the life in the USA and don't accept the real USA. The same the GSE presents the life in the SU and the outside world. A number of forigners emigrated to the SU and died young there or were exported as spies (it's better to construct the communism in the USA than in Siberia). Xx236 (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Congratulations that you understand that Southern Utah University is a university. Same goes for understanding that the University of Arizona is also a university. This is great. With that out of the way, please also understand that the assignment from the university website looks very simplistic. The level  of the assignment is that of a high-school and looks simple as if made for newbies. That is all. Universities sometimes try to teach high-school students as well as university students as part of their educational mandate. This assignment looks simple. Therefore its level is not very high, even though it is hosted by the website of a university. I hope you understand now  what I was trying to tell you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις   09:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

 * What kind of education do you need to understand the difference between right and wrong? A university rareley helps people who lack conscience.
 * The low level of US Sovietology remains a mistery to me and many Poles. We, victims of the Soviet system, hoped that the free world understood us and documented Soviet crimes.
 * I understand the difference between a reviewed paper and a manual for entry level students. Where are the serious reviewed papers about the Soviet Union, eg. about the GSE? Xx236 (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

There was a discussion in 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard%2FArchive_34#Russian_scholarship_from_Soviet-era

One of the editors was a sock puppet of Jacob Peters and has been blocked indefinitely, the same as Jacob Peters himself.Xx236 (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Who cares if someone was a sockpuppet? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  09:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition informs about many critics (Notable commentaries on the Eleventh Edition) and today opinions, this article doesn't.Xx236 (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

 * To all lovers of the GSE: "С построением социалистического общества в СССР Голод и массовое недоедание полностью ликвидированы." Xx236 (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please avoid characterisations like "lovers of the GSE"? Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  00:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry but I don't understand you. I have addressed "lovers of the GSE". Why do you claim that I meant you? Xx236 (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Evaluation of Reference Services edited by Bill Katz and Ruth A. Fraley
http://books.google.pl/books?id=2C4-Pq8N8MMC&pg=PA308&lpg=PA308&dq=great+soviet+encyclopedia+evaluating+source&source=bl&ots=aNK8p_csrV&sig=KYjlgT5F4N8OC4qqryBqn3LsV_Q&hl=pl&sa=X&ei=RYpeUZ3FLIKxO6H0gWg&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=great%20soviet%20encyclopedia%20evaluating%20source&f=false

GSE interprets events from a Communist viewpoint.

The silent supression of alternative viewpoints or interpretations constitutes bias. Xx236 (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Pot shots (pro or not pro GSE) are not encyclopedic content
"Basic Library Research Skills - Evaluating Reference Sources of the Southern Utah University gives an example of a biased and outdated source - the GSE article "American aggression in Vietnam": [17]" This is really an unencyclopedic inclusion for a criticism section. @Xx236, no one would accuse me of being pro-Soviet, so consider that you confuse what the GSE is described by its editors as to its intentions versus it not being complete because it doesn't document the Soviet underbelly. The article as it stood did not indicate that that the GSE was unbiased. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Any article should use academic sources rather than advertising: a car, CD, monument. what the GSE is described by its editors is advertising.
 * I have written Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition informs about many critics (Notable commentaries on the Eleventh Edition) and today opinions, this article doesn't. Why another standards exists for the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition than for the Great Soviet Encyclopedia?
 * The article as it stood did not indicate that that the GSE was unbiased. - you assume that the reder has unfinite knowledge - but such reader doesn't need any Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are written for readers, who want to get informations. And the informations are - there is something which is called an encyclopedia, it looks like an encyclopedia so it's probably a reliable source of the quality comparable with EB or Wikipedia. In my opinion both EB 11 and the GSE are primary sources and the reader has to know the culture of the 1911 USA or due period of Soviet history respectively to understand many articles. And the culture of the 1911 USA is quite popular due to the movies and books, the real image of the SU or reading "between the lines" isn't.

Xx236 (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I removed that section altogether. I haven't read the article yet to form an opinion on the rest of the dispute. BTW comments like "To all Lovers of the GSE", if they continue by the other editor, they will be reported. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  00:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * THe Encyclopedia is extremely biased and should be read with extreme caution. Any edition has specific logic. Xx236 (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

To this and above section and POV tag
There's no good reason for the POV tag. My original expansions of the article as to what the GSE has stated within itself and what its editors have stated were probably sufficient regarding the GSE promoting the Soviet way. There's no dispute that history served politics in Soviet life and as reflected in Soviet reference works, and that the GSE is not reliable for versions of history created to serve the aims of the Soviet regime. I've reviewed the article and don't see any blatant alleged "pot shots" and am removing the tag. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is the tone. The source repeatedly cited is very difficult to verify due to how vague it is, and the claim that because it serves the country or ideology it must be a propqganda outlet is odd. Many media claim to serve democracy, and Voice of America claims to be in the interest of the United States. Not as big a deal as you'd think. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources describing the Soviet Union - the total censorship, the Party control over everything. Please read and discuss later. BTW - you don't speak Russian according to your User page.
 * The Voice of America was jammed in Communist countries.
 * The VoA was so boring that only few people listened to it, mostly jazz by Willis Conover. What is the connection between jammmed radio propaganda and the main Soviet encyclopedia used by millions of students who didn't have access to any independent source? Xx236 (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Editors

 * Why these specific editors are listed?
 * Three of them have been murdered and their biographies edited describing them as criminals. Were their biographies available to the readers?Xx236 (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Other Soviet encyclopedias
The table should inform about Attempts and Editions.Xx236 (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The GSE is one of ...
Was the GSE one or rather three? The infobox misinforms.Xx236 (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Role and purpose in Soviet society
The section informs about the 2nd and 3rd editions, nothing about the 1st one.Xx236 (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Operating on Marxist-Leninist theory - 1949
There was no Marxist-Leninist theory in 1949, only the Stalinist one.Xx236 (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Our article Marxism–Leninism disagrees with you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Marxism–Leninism doesn't discuss the problem, it describes the period. The standard propaganda poster of that times presented Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, so at least Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism.
 * Works by Marx, Engels and even Lenin were censored and replaced by Stalin's primitive texts. You won't find serious Marxism in the GSE under Stalin (if ever). The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) was learned by heart by tens of millions. Xx236 (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The Communists always cliamed they followed Marxism-something... but they followed Soviet indoctrination learned in Party/Comintern schools.Xx236 (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"Marxist-Leninist theory" is Stalinism, because the term "Marxism-Leninism" originated with Joseph Stalin. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071205081257/http://truthnews.com/world/2003090026.htm to http://truthnews.com/world/2003090026.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109103700/http://vmdaily.ru/news/sergei-kravec-rossiiskaya-enciklopediya--eto-i-est-mi--1339530563.html to http://vmdaily.ru/news/sergei-kravec-rossiiskaya-enciklopediya--eto-i-est-mi--1339530563.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

"Great Soviet Encylopaedia" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Great Soviet Encylopaedia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC  678  15:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Great Soviet Encyclopedia


text:
Talk:RTÉ2

From ten to seven "in error"?
The article refers to an announcer on the opening night stating RTE 2 would start weekday evenings at "ten to seven", later said to be "in error" and implied that it was said around the wrong way.

It's quite likely that this wasn't in error and it actually did start at 6.50pm - for instance, a contemporary article from a Wicklow newspaper at the time of RTE 2's launch (republished by Transdiffusion in 2023 in the lead-up to the channel's 35th anniversary) corroborates the 18:50 start time, at least right at the start of its existence. - Spi' 05:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:RTÉ2


text:
Talk:Rad Racer

Comment
Criscih: Please do not write over my edits to the text without motivation. The intro text is still very POV, and the images should not all be at the bottom of the article like they are now.

If you place a note here when you're "finished" with the article, I can take it upon myself to do some NPOV cleanup. I don't want to risk that you overwrite the work again.

Even though you somewhat addressed the points I brought up on your user page, the rest of the text is still not neutral ("awesome music", for example), and the text still reads as a game tutorial / instruction booklet. In an encyclopedia, one should rarely address the reader as "you".

David Remahl 17:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

comment concerning 3-d glasses
I own the game the NES and a pair of the original packaged 3D glasses and have found them to be more of a gimmick than an actual 3D component to the game, I have editted the article accordingly. Drfool 23:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

World Record Holders
Is there any reason the original posting of the Twin Galaxies World Record was omitted? The game was popular both at the time and in today's competitive gaming circles, and unless you want to strike TwinGalaxies' existence from Wikipedia for a lack of notability, it's at least worth having a discussion over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.60.178 (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sales
Rad Racer was a big hit with North American audiences, selling about 2,000,000 copies in total. It was Square's best selling game on the NES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.247.2 (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Nintendo World Championship
I'm stunned there's no mention of this being one of the three games on the (in)famous Nintendo World Championship cart. 68.13.130.204 (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rad Racer


text:
Talk:Circumcision/Archive 4

Various topics
Editing of Introduction Reference to ridged band and speculative "sensitivity" deleted to maintain neutrality. It is not acceptable to focus only on male circumcision as this indicates that circumcision is only mentioned so as to criticise the male practice. For the rest editing serves to balance the introduction between male and female circumcision. The subheadings are in need of review and extensive editing and rewriting. Robert Brookes

---

References removed to review

The references were such that would be more inplace on an anti-male circumcision web site. They have been removed with the intent to compile relevant references once the whole article has been reviewed. Robert Brookes

---

External links weeded down ...

Starx wrote: External links weeded down to 7 on each side, though I think that's still too much.

This article is called "circumcision", no? The article should be about male and female circumcision and not a platform for the debate around male circumcision, yes? In an article about the earth would you insist that the "flat earth society" got the right to an equal number of external links? Why?

I suggest that when the entire article is rewritten and restructured and this particular aspect reviewed in detail later on in the process a selection of references and external links can be made. There is little point in keeping any of the references or external links as they now stand. Robert Brookes

*Obviously a complete article on circumcision is going to have to address the debate. And your comment about the Flat Earth society is absurd. The earth is round, this is a scientific fact that is not disputed by anyone with credibility. The pros and cons of circumcision are disputed by credible people on both sides. Untill that's resolved to a certainty by the medical community the article, in the spirit of NPOV, should try and represent both sides equally. --Starx 17:18, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Responding to Starx If you analyse the volumes of trash posted by someone (I suppose it would have to be anti-circumcision) to the circumcision article you can see that the entry is not supposed to be an explanation of circumcision but rather a platform for a anti-circumcision rant. I am sad that this simple fact seems to escape you.

By all means have an entry/article by the title The circumcision debate where the "debate" will be the central point and where each side can have 10kb to state their case, but would it need any more than a passing reference and a link on the circumcision page?

Now a question. For the love of G_d can you explain to me what a link to foreskin.org is doing on the page of the circumcision article? Now I suppose it follows that the entry on "foreskin" should be dominated by coments and links to circumcision sites and issues?

As to absurd comparisons. The comparison with the flat earth society is not as absurd as you may think. It takes a fertile imagination and a joint to turn the humble old mammalian penile sheath into the prime sexual organ of the male. Its off the wall stuff. By all means mention this stuff but for heavens sake keep it in perspective otherwise it is really like demanding the Flat Earth Society is granted equal time at every geography conference. Robert Brookes

 * If you think the circumcision debate should be in it's own article then go ahead and do it. But there's no need to take a bad attitude towards people trying to keep NPOV of the article as it currently is.  And once again, about the comparison.  You obviously don't share the views of those that are vehemently anti-circumcision, neither do I, but as you are probably not a doctor, I am certainly not doctor, and as there are plenty of doctors advocating both sides, it clearly does not take a momentus lack of common sense to be anti-circumcision as does to believe the earth is flat. --Starx 16:46, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Of bad attitudes and NPOV. Well I come back to my analogy with the Flat Earth Society. You see it as being a pro side and an anti side, so you see a debate, so give them equal exposure/time, right? My question remains, would you grant equal time to the Flat Earth Society at a geography convention? Would you provide equal time to the growing anti-vaccination movement at all conferences/meetings/discussions relating to immunization? That is why I call for perspective. Let no one make the mistake of allowing a small (vocal and obsessed) single issue group to exploit wikipedia for propaganda purposes. The current "circumcision" article is a disgrace. It is not really about circumcision at all but rather about why people shouldn't circumcise. Surely you can see that? I mean you who claims to be striving to maintain a NPOV and all? The article needs to be restructured, cleaned up maybe even rewritten. Now having observed the debate around the "genital integrity" article I'm am not sure the wikipedia sysops are up to the task reaching truth, accuracy and a NPOV rather than a mere compromise where those very same factors are sacrificed on the alter of expediency. -- Robert Brookes

 * No, I would not give the Flat Earth Society the same exposure. The concept of NPOV doesn't apply because the shape of the earth is not debatable.  Circumcision, on the other hand, is debatable, so NPOV applies.  Why does my edit even bother you?  I trimmed down the links, what I wrote wasn't meant to encourage any kind of debate, just simple reasoning as to why I did what I did.  You complain about the article but take no steps to fix it, you copy and paste my edit description into the talk page so you can jump on me for it.  What are you waiting for?  If you think something needs fixing, go fix it; that's what I did. --Starx 04:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I am not jumping on you. (Stop being such a fragile flower). I am responding to what you term my absurd comparison. Behind the facade of the male "genital integrity" and "intactivism" movements is the off the wall premise that the foreskin is the prime sex organ of the male. This is about as much a lunatic assertion as that of the Flat Earth Society. As to those who simply do not support male circumcision that is simple. The potential benefits accruing through male circumcision are not considered sufficient for the AAP and most other medical associations to recommend the routine circumcision of every male infant. That's a no brainer. So they leave it to parents to decide (on the basis of the potential benefits) what would be in the best interests of their child. A matter of either you do or you don't. Who cares? Aha ... but there is a small but vocal single issue group that does care. They are prolific in posting to the internet and go way beyond what any medical association does by claiming that male circumcision is actually harmful. Back to the Flat earth Society analogy then. While the earth is claimed to be "round" most know that it is not exactly so in that it is somewhat oval. Round or oval or whatever that is where reasonable and sane discussion can take place but the moment you let the Flat Earth Society in you the wheels come off. It is the same with ALL matters relating to the foreskin and circumcision the moment you let the lunatic fringe in all hell breaks loose. You've seen the crazies and their antics in the "genital integrity" debate what more evidence do you need? - Robert Brookes 06:11, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * The crazies and their antics that appeared on the Genital Integrity VfD don't represent everyone who shares their feelings. For every issue there is going to be a fanatic minority obsessed with it, that doesn't mean that that entire side of the issue is fanatic and without base.  You're using the nonsense that happened over the Genital Integrity page to build yourself a strawman, and to corner me and others into a debate so you can push your POV.  There are credible doctors that believe circumcision is a helpfull practice.  There are credible doctors that believe circumcision is a harmfull practice.  There are credible scientists that believe the earth is round.  There are NOT credible scientists that believe the earth is flat.  It's a stupid analogy. --Starx 14:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Ok so you are a little slow on the uptake. Let's try it from another angle then. Clearly the crazies (having got in early) have had the opportunity to post the biggest load of non-NPOV stuff on the subject. What I am trying to do is to work towards balanced articles which will not result in the kind of ridiculous situation that developed around the "genital integrity" entry. The aim is a series of balanced entries, yes?. My point is simple, that unless one confronts the crazies of the lunatic fringe it will deteriorate into a "box of frogs" once more. I have no problem with my edits being re-edited (as some have been already) to improve and bring a greater neutrality to the article. My point once again is that the crazies have no word such as "neutrality" in their vocabulary and as such need to be slapped down if sanity is to prevail. From (the experience of) the "genital integrity" fiasco it is doubtful if the sysops have the balls to do this. That is why what should be a reasonably simple exercise will in all likelihood turn into a real mission. - Robert Brookes 18:04, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * The solution to dealing with crazies is not to become a crazy for the other side of the debate. That's childish and it's only going to escalate things.  The solution is to just keep working toward NPOV, it's the adult thing to do. --Starx 04:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the advice. As and when the crazies start to pop up all over the show can you be counted upon to yank their chains? - Robert Brookes 16:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Female circumcision

Recent editors of this page have seemed to act under the conception that male circumcision and female circumcision are both forms of circumcision, and therefore should both be the focus of this page. However, it seems to me that circumcision is a modification of the male genitalia, and while some modifications of the female genitalia are sometimes called "female circumcision" by analogy, they are not circumcision.

Therefore, I think this page should contain a sentence in the header that acknolwedges that female genital modification / mutilation is sometimes called female circumcision, provides a link to the article on these practices, and states that this article concerns the removal of the prepuce.

The approach adopted by these recent editors seems aking to writing the article at ship to equally concern oceangoing vessels and lighter-than-air aircraft, on the grounds that the latter can be called airships, or writing the articles at carriage to concern horse-drawn vehicles and automobles, on the grounds that the latter can be called horseless carriages. Shimmin 17:49, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Response to Shimmin It is not helpful when to dabble in a subject you clearly know little about. Quite clearly there are aspects of female circumcision which are unique as there are aspects of male circumcision. The anti-male circumcision mob hang onto the female circumcision activism (not because they give a jot about what happens to women but) so as to attempt to have some of the respectability of that activism rub off on their own psycho-sexual obsession. 30 odd KB can't do justice to the subjects of both female and male circumcision. It would make sense to then have a "circumcision" page which acknowledges the two, highlights what is common and what is different and the allows interested parties to go to either (or both) a female circumcision or a male circumcision article.

This is the easy part. The difficult part is ensuring the objectivity of the end result. Take a read through the "circumcision" article as it was (and mainly still is) and see what a lack of NPOV and also the lack of factual accuracy means (this is a glaring example). One understands that the “first in” get to decide on what gets posted but eventually sanity must prevail, yes?

Seeing you see only a major difference between male and female circumcision would you like to draft such a paragraph? Robert Brookes

Re-establishment of Male circumcision as a separate entry I propose that as for the "Female circumcision" that "Male circumcision" be re-established as a separate entry. I would have done this myself if I had known how to terminate what appears to be a redirect to the "Circumcision" entry. This will effectively leave the circumcision entry with only an introduction and any areas of specific gender commonality together with internal links to sub-topics. Some help with removing the redirect will be appreciated. - Robert Brookes 19:48, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Establishment of History of male circumcision as a separate entry History of male circumcision has been established as a separate entry. I have exported all the relevant stuff to the new entry but left "Origins of male circumcision" in place as it seems to be applicable to both entries. - Robert Brookes 19:54, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Terminology
I've been following with great apprehension this renewed discussion on circumcision. I'm not going to comment on any other matter at the moment besides nomenclature. "Circumcision", without attribution, refers to what this article is now redundantly calling "Male Cicumcision". It's not logical, it's not equitable, and it's sexist, but it's the way English works. Using "circumcision" to mean "both circumcision and female circumcision" is just a misleading misuse of the language. Nohat 21:12, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Agreed. In fact, the recent edit of the introduction tacitly admits that there is nothing much in common between (male) circumcision and "female circumcision" by, instead of beginning "Circumcision is....", beginning, "Male circumcision is.... Female circumcision is...."  It's more or a tacit admission that there's nothing that can be said about circumcision in general without reference to either male or female circumcision.  The one thing I can think of that could be said in general, "Circumcision is a form of gential modification...." suggests what I think is the correct strategy.

 * The small amount of material that relates to circumcision in general probably belongs at genital modification and mutilation. This page should discuss (male) circumcision, with a sentence in the introduction telling where to find info on female circumcision.  There should be (and is!) a separate article on female circumcision.

 * "Male circumcision" is a redundancy. "Female circumcision" is a euphemism, but is probably the best NPOV term we're going to come up with. Shimmin 23:22, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * Ok so you have made the changes necessary to support your contention. Further you carried out a minor edit. Too many inacuracies in such a short piece. Do you really feel up to this NPOV thing? - Robert Brookes 16:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I am actually glad that someone has initiated the task of cleaning up the state the last edit war left this article in. However, this work will only be worthwhile if it can be undertaken without starting another edit war.  Key to doing so will be the maintenance of civility on the talk pages.  Please read over  Civility before continuing the Great Work.  It will, I hope, lead to greater durability in the eventual product. Shimmin 16:46, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Separating article
I think that creating a separate article for "male circumcision" is completely unnecessary. The word "circumcision" almost universally refers to the circumcision of the penis, so moving all the information related to this practice is not good. Acegikmo1 23:41, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * OK so let the work begin. Can you be counted upon to work towards NPOV in the article? - Robert Brookes 16:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I hope that I can. I believe that the NPOV policy is especially important when it comes to controversial articles like this one.  You have been bold in your edits to the article and I think that's a good thing.  My edits to this article and others related to it haven't been quite as substantial.  Nevertheless, I feel that it is important that the pro-circumcision and anti-circumcision arguments are given equal consideration in the article, and I hope that my future edits will display this view and bring the article to a NPOV.

 * I do have one question for you. Why have you made History of male circumcision a separate aritcle?  It doesn't seem to have enough substance to warrent its own page.  Nor is the circumcision page too long.  I'm just wondering.

 * Acegikmo1 16:48, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * The article is verbose. Prune it heavily to the bare necessities and then flesh it out where appropriate later?

 * I thought the article was about circumcision, no? If you want a debate start an article "The circumcision debate" and give each side 1,000 words to do their thing. The article should aim at "explaining" about circumcision and should not be a platform to either promote it or attack it, no? This would be the best way of achieving NPOV.

 * It was too long when the history was included. Perhaps after the cleanup it can all be put back together again? - Robert Brookes 17:03, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, I agree that we should try to trim the article. If cleanup is sucessful, then we can reinstate the history.

 * Regarding the topic of the article, I understand your point. The article shouldn't be a platform for any type of activism.  At the same time, the fact that the practice is so controversial is important and the reasons why each group feels the way it does should be outlined.  Circumcision isn't listed at List of controversial issues for no reason.  As an analogy, the article on Euthanasia would not be very useful if it simply described the practice without detailing the arguments for and against it (in fact, it has its own section for doing preciesly this).  The idea is to present those argumetns in a neutral way, which is what we must do here.  Acegikmo1 18:45, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Redirect restored The redirect from "Male circumcision" has been restored. I am happy to give the current option the best chance of working out. - Robert Brookes 16:40, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks! Acegikmo1 16:48, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Other English-speaking countries
The sentence, "In the other English-speaking nations, this is no longer the case." has caused some problems. I think it should be included because it it significant.

The preceeding sentence is, "In the United States, the majority of men are circumcised for medical purposes." Hence, the sentence above states that other English-speaking countries (e.g. Britain) the majority of men used to be circumcised for medical purposes but no longer are. This relates the the following section, "Prevalence of Male Circumcision".

Acegikmo1 16:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * That would be factually incorrect. Are you trying to say that in all English speaking countries the majority of males were (at one point) circumcised (for medical reasons) or that of all the males circumcised the majority were for medical reasons? Perhaps we can cut the crap. If your point is that in English speaking countries (other than the US) there has be a significant reduction in the number of non-religious circumcisions then say so (and support it with facts). - Robert Brookes 17:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Athough I agree that the statement could be more precise, I think the implication is clear that the "other English-speaking nations" are the ones in which the majority of men were circumcised for medical reasons in the past.

 * This is clarified later in the article: "Historically, routine neonatal circumcision was promoted during late Victorian times in the English-speaking parts of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States and the United Kingdom and was widely practiced during the first part of the 20th century in these countries. However, the practice declined sharply in the United Kingdom after the Second World War, and somewhat later in Canada, Australia and New Zealand."

 * Sadly, most of the statistics regarding circumcision rates (espeically historical ones) come from sites that are either strongly pro or anti-circumcision. This page from CIRP gives a few historical statistics indicating that in countries like Australia and Canada, the circumcision rates have dropped substantially in the last few decades.  I'm not sure what you think about using it as a source.  Do you have an objective and accurate source in mind for statictics?

 * Acegikmo1 18:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Penile body modification
Because most circumcisions are done for religious or cultural reasons, not medical reasons, it is correct to describe non-therapeutic circumcision as a form of permanent body modification. Non-therapeutic circumcision is the most common form of permanent body modification of the penis. DanBlackham 22:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree. Acegikmo1 22:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Medical benefits vs. risks and harms
There is a broad consensus in the medical community as expressed in the official policy statements of national professional medical organizations that the small potential medical benefits of infant circumcision are about equal with the medical risks and harms. Stating the potential medical benefits of circumcision are larger or smaller than the medical risks and harms is POV. DanBlackham 22:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Again, I agree. Acegikmo1 22:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Nonsense. How the benefits and risks weigh against each other is finite. Circumcision advocates would tend to exaggerate the benefits and understate the risks while the other side will do the opposite. Subsequently anti-circumcision monomaniacs often win arguments that the benefits and risks balance each other out on the basis of being the “last man standing” rather than on the merits of the argument. - Robert Brookes 11:33, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cultural and social reasons, not medical reasons
Although the majority of male infants in the United States are circumcised by doctors, they are circumcised primarily for cultural or social reasons, not medical reasons. DanBlackham 22:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I recently discovered this tempest in a teapot, out of a combination of amusement and dismay at learning that this topic was considered "controversial". (Just so you know where I'm coming from, I was circumcised shortly after birth, and am quite happy with what I've got. If I had a son, I probably wouldn't have him circumcised, but neither would I refuse my consent if his mother wanted it done. If there's a holy war going on here, I think I'm pretty much an agnostic.)  I haven't researched the full history of the article, so forgive me if I rehash something, but I do want to offer a few observations from a fresh set of eyes:Tverbeek
 * Maybe one should consider that as the article has got so far out of hand that one starts from scratch and uses the vaccination article as an example? Robert Brookes
 * The article as it reads now has a definite anti-circumcision slant, mostly coming from the volume of information that serves to question the practice. Reading it, I felt like someone was trying to wear me down with the weight of their arguments (not the strength of them).  The "contemporary attitudes" section is very one-sided, neglecting to even acknowledge the main argument parents present when questioned about their decision to circumcise: conformity.  It's still done by a majority; there must be reasons why.  If circumcision advocates (or fair-minded opponents) can't come up with enough verbage to explain this and balance the section, then the negative side should be made more concise to avoid giving it an obvious POV.Tverbeek
 * Exactly all the article is, is an attempt to hijack a wikipedia article and turn it into an anti-circumcision rave. Robert Brookes
 * The citation of Kellogg and the citations from experts criticising 19th century beliefs on the subject (i.e. 90% of the "Anti-masturbation panic and male circumcision" section) seems like it's just setting up pro-cirumcision strawmen to ridicule. I don't believe anyone today considers these theories valid, so there's no point in quoting and refuting them so extensively.  A brief acknowledgement of past attitudes (and let the reader infer whether they're behind current attitudes or not) should be sufficient.  And it seems like this is a section better suited for the "history of" article in any case.Tverbeek
 * Of course it is ridiculous. Any sane person can see that.Robert Brookes
 * The link to foreskin.org makes no sense, except to serve as anti-circumcision propaganda (analogous to photos of children attached to an article about abortion). If it were a link to photos of circumcision or its outcome, it might be justifiable (albeit provocative); instead, it's simply off-topic.  If someone wants to learn more about foreskins and see photos of happy, smiling penises wearing turtlenecks :), they can click foreskin in the opening paragraph and be on their self-educating way.Tverbeek
 * That has been said before. Robert Brookes
 * The comparison of circumcision critics to the Flat Earth Society is unjustified and prejudicial. Robert, you may deep down in your heart believe that the research cited by circumcision critics is pseudoscientific nonsense, but that doesn't make it so. A substantial population of the world's experts apparently think it's valid or at least worthy of consideration.  That doesn't mean they're right, but it means they have the right to present their case - concisely and dispassionately - here.  (And speaking of "dispassionately", you might want to lay off the remarks about "crazies" with a "psycho-sexual obsession".  That's inflammatory, and suggests a dogmatism that's just as hostile to reaching NPOV as the original propaganda piece was.)I'll try to do some work on the article in the next few days to address some of the issues I pointed at here, but I wanted to give fair warning before doing so.Tverbeek
 * Your comments are read and understood. My point was simple and your comment on the article bears that out (as does the fiasco around the genital integrity article). Try to get your head around this. There are people who are vocally pro-circumcsion and there are those who are vocally anti-circumcision and there is the vast mass in the middle who don't talk/care about it. Then we have the crazies. Like we saw on the genital integrity fiasco. Do you or anyone really think that they can make any positive contribution whatsoever to shaping an article here? This is a disccusion, comments made here do not make it to the article, so I'm as free as the next man to call it as I see it. And while we are about it if you are able to point to any edits I have made which are anything other than striving to reach NPOV please point them out. My point is simple the circumcision article should be an encyclopedia entry about circumcision and not an opportunity carry forward any debate on the subject. At the end of the article there can possibly be (like with the vaccination entry) two entries each for pro and anti sites. What say? - Robert Brookes 04:37, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(This message was posted by Tverbeek) - Acegikmo1 22:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It appears as if you posted it. Can you explain why? Robert Brookes

 * I don't think it does. If you check the edit history, it is clear that the message above was posted by Tverbeek (See ).  It is also clear that in replying to several messages, I signed for him, much like you did to some individual sections .  Acegikmo1 05:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * It's good to see that someone who hasn't edited this article before is interested in bringing it to a NPOV. While I don't think that anyone can be entirely objective on this issue, I do believe that the edits you have proposed above will help balance the article and I support your intention to make them.  Acegikmo1 22:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Did you invite this person in? Robert Brookes

 * No, I did not. Acegikmo1 05:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I neglected to sign my remarks; Acegikmo1 noticed my oversight and did it to clarify. You're being excessively suspicious, Robert. As for your contribution to NPOV, I'd say that your generally insulting and sometimes hysterical tone in these comments serves to provoke responses and resistance from those you're belittling, and discourages centrists from participating in the process. I know that I don't plan to put up with it for very long; I'm gonna take a crack at a few revisions and then get away. Todd VerBeek

 * Before you go, pray tell where this little gem you slipped into the text came from? "(A circumcised penis has fewer sensory nerve endings than one with a foreskin.)" I suggest that you consider that a "centrist" position between a point of view in favor and that of the lunatic fringe in the other direction is not necessarily NPOV. There is a major difference between the style of the "talk" around an article an what a person attempts to edit into the article. I would have thought that would have been obvious. But well done on some further weeding out of more garbage from the article, now we wait for somone willing to be bold in pursuit of NPOV. - Robert Brookes 16:06, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That "gem" I inserted is mathematics: You start with the number of sensory nerve endings in an uncircumcised penis, then you subtract the number of sensory nerve endings in the foreskin that is removed, and you end up with "fewer sensory nerve endings". Do you dispute the comment's factuality? If so, then go stand in line with the Flat Earthers. The purpose of that information in that context is not to argue an opinion, but to explain the scientific basis for anti-circ-ers' claim of greater sensitivity. So it is consistent with NPOV. Your objection is noted, but it is also baseless.Tverbeek

 * Oh dear. So you were really called to "help out" with the little problem on this article. I would suggest that you save that argument for children in the future for most adults know that nerves have different and specific functions. Suddenly all sensitivity becomes "sexual sensitivity"? Suddenly all sensory nerve endings have a sexual function? Is that the lie you are trying to sell here? That is an opinion. That is rank speculation. That is stupidity. That is not NPOV. Robert Brookes

With all due modesty about my own contributions, I think the article in its current form is pretty close to NPOV. The historical background (with its biased selection of facts) is a separate article, and can be tackled separately. The bulk of the information about the anti-circumcision movement (which was not about circumcision per se, and introduced bias by discussing a specific POV) has been removed; a separate article about the movement as a social phenomenon, where copious information about their agenda and arguments would be on-topic and not inherently biasing, would be appropriate I think. There's certainly still room for quibbling, corrections, and such over this article, and I'm sure folks from both lunatic fringes will object to the other's viewpoint still being represented without ridicule. But that just supports the notion that it's close to NPOV. Tverbeek 18:04, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Save the contrived modesty. What we see is merely the offer of a "trade off" whereby you take out the garbage and offer the opportunity for republishing in another article and insert your wild speculation about nerve function. Do you really believe the truth has been served (let alone NPOV) or is everything in your view negotiable? - Robert Brookes 05:31, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Circumcision/Archive 4


text:
Category:British heavy metal musical groups

The British heavy metal musical groups category is for heavy metal groups who were founded in Britain.

It may or may not apply to groups which were founded elsewhere but contain British musicians; judge each case carefully. It should not apply to groups which were founded elsewhere but had their main success in the UK.


text:
Laboratoires Pierre Fabre

Laboratoires Pierre Fabre is a French multinational pharmaceutical and cosmetics company. The company had a consolidated turnover of 1.978 billion euros in 2012 (including 54% international). It is headquartered in the city of Castres, Midi-Pyrénées, France.

Founded in 1962 by Pierre Fabre (1926-2013), the company is present in over 130 countries. Laboratories Pierre Fabre had approximately 10,000 employees in 2012, 33% of whom are internationally based, while the remaining 6,700 employees were based in France. The company's business activity is focused on research, development, manufacturing and marketing of cosmetics, prescription medicines and family health products. Pharmaceuticals and phytotherapy represent 47% of turnover, whereas cosmetics represent 53% (percentages of 2012 turnover).

Pierre Fabre is best known for its vinorelbine (Navelbine), an anticancer drug of the vinca alkaloid class. They also developed vinflunine, a fluorinated vinca alkaloid derivative available in Australia for "advanced or metastatic transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelial tract after failure of a prior platinum containing regimen."

Olivier Bohuon was Chief Executive from September 2010 to April 2011.

The Pierre Fabre Foundation
The Pierre Fabre Foundation was recognized as a public utility in 1999, and its mission is to enable communities from less advanced and emerging countries, as well as those plunged into severe crisis by political or economic upheaval and/or natural disaster, to access the quality and levels of everyday health care and the widely-used drugs defined by the WHO and other organisations as essential to human health.

title: Laboratoires Pierre Fabre


text:
Victoria, Malta

Victoria (Il-Belt Victoria, meaning "the city Victoria"), also known among the native Maltese as Rabat (which is the name of the old town centre) or by its title Città Victoria, is an administrative unit of Malta, and the main town on Gozo. Victoria has a total population of 6,901 (as of March 2014), and is the most populous settlement in Gozo.

The area around the town, situated on a hill near the centre of the island, has been settled since Neolithic times. Victoria is the name given on 10 June 1887 by the British government on the occasion of the Golden Jubilee of Queen Victoria, at the request of Pietro Monsignor Pace, Bishop of Gozo (Monsignor Pace later became Sir Pietro Monsignor Pace, Titular Archbishop of Rhodes and Bishop of Malta). However, many Gozitans, mainly older Gozitans, still often refer to it by the name Rabat. It is usually known as Rabat, Gozo to distinguish it from the town of Rabat on the main island of Malta.

Architectural heritage

 * The Cittadella, including:
 * Cathedral of the Assumption
 * Gozo Museum of Archaeology
 * Gran Castello Historic House (Folklore Museum)
 * Natural Science Museum
 * Old Prison
 * St George's Basilica (St George's Square)
 * Heart of Gozo: Il-Hagar Museum (St George's Square)
 * War Memorial (Independence Square)
 * Banca Giuratale (Independence Square)
 * St Francis' Church (St Francis Square)
 * War shelter under the Cittadella (Cittadella)
 * War Shelter under Triq id-Dejqa (Narrow Street)
 * War Shelter under St Augustine's Square (St Augustine's Convent)

 * Churches in Victoria
 * Cathedral of the Assumption
 * St. George's Basilica, Malta
 * St Francis Conventual Church (Franciscan Friars)
 * St James the Greater Church
 * Nativity of Mary Church (Savina)
 * St Augustine Church (Augustinian Friars)
 * St John Bosco Oratory Church
 * St Martha's Church
 * Annunciation Church
 * Cana Movement Church
 * Good Shepherd Church
 * Manresa Church (Jesuits)
 * Our Lady of Grace Church (Capuchin Friars)
 * Our Lady Help of Christians Church (Salesian Nuns)
 * Immaculate Heart of Mary Church (Franciscan Nuns)
 * Our Lady of Pompei Church (Dominican Nuns)
 * St Barbara's Church (Citadel)
 * St Joseph's Church (Citadel)
 * Immaculate Conception Church (Seminary)
 * Nazareth Chapel (Poor Clares)

Cittadella
In the heart of Victoria lies the Cittadella (Citadel), formerly known as il Castello, which has been the centre of activity of the island since possibly Neolithic times, but is known to be first fortified during the Bronze Age c. 1500 BC. It was later developed by the Phoenicians and continued into becoming a complex Acropolis by Roman times.

The north side of the Citadel dates back to the Aragonese domination period. The south flank, overlooking Victoria, was re-constructed under the Knights of St. John, namely between 1599 and 1603, after Ottomans invaded the city in 1551. The massive defensive stone walls of the fortifications rise above the town and were built by the Knights to protect the village communities from foraging corsairs attempting to take slaves and threatened invasion of Moslem forces fighting Christendom.

Within its walls lies a fine 17th century baroque Cathedral designed by Lorenzo Gafà, the Maltese architect who also built the Cathedral of Mdina. It is said that it lies on the site where a Roman temple dedicated to Juno once stood. It is most famous for the remarkable trompe-l'œil painting on its ceiling, which depicts the interior of a dome that was never built. The Cathedral is built on one of the oldest religious sites in Gozo, if not the oldest, with evidence of some sort of temple dedicated to a goddess or female figure long before the Romans.

The Cathedral also houses a beautiful statue of the Assumption of Mary, donated to the Cathedral by the Leone Philharmonic Society (1863). The statue was originally bought by the band from Rome from the Fabbrica di Statue Religiose of Francesco Rosa in 1897, when the band had its first disagreement with its first 'daughter-band' the La Stella Philharmonic Society (1880), and the Leone Band took control of the feast of the Assumption of Mary, and the La Stella Band took control of the feast of St. George. The statue was then donated to the Cathedral on the 29th of April, 1956 after many other disagreements between the bands.

St George's Parish
St. George's Basilica, Malta, caters for half of the population of Victoria, as it is a personal parish (as opposed to other parishes who are territorial) operating in the city of Victoria. Its parish church, dedicated to St George, has the status of a Basilica. This church was built in the 1670s and suffered severe damage in the earthquake of 1693. A new façade was built in 1818. The dome and the aisles are of recent construction (1930s and 1940s). There are several works of art in this church which include the painting of the dome and ceiling by Gian Battista Conti of Rome and other paintings and sculptures by Mattia Preti, Giuseppe d'Arena, Stefano Erardi, Alessio Erardi, Francesco V. Zahra, Giuseppe Calì, and contemporary Alfred Camilleri Cauchi and John L. Grima. The titular statue of St George was carved from solid wood by Pietro Paolo Azzopardi in 1838 and is the first titular statue on the island. The area over which the church is built is of considerable archaeological interest.

The parish celebrates two feasts during the year: 23 April, the official date celebrating the death of the martyr, and the third Sunday of July, when the solemn festivities in honour of Gozo's patron saint are held.

In February 2013, the Basilica opened the doors to its new modern museum, one of a kind in the country. It is the first building built for the purpose of a museum. The Museum and cultural centre, named as Heart of Gozo: Il-Hagar, displays a rich collection of historical and artistic artefacts previously inaccessible to the general public. The museum is found on the left side of the Basilica.

Villa Rundle Gardens
These gardens are situated between Republic Street and the Main Car Park in Victoria. One can see in these gardens a bronze bust of the Gozitan 18th-century historian and grammarian Canon Giovanni Pietro Francesco Agius de Soldanis and another of Gozo born French poet and writer Laurent Ropa. One can also find a memorial commemorating the invasion of Gozo by Ottomans in 1551.

Notable people from Victoria

 * Censu Tabone, 4th President of Malta
 * Gaetano Pace Forno, Bishop of Malta
 * George Pisani, Poet
 * Giovanni Pietro Francesco Agius de Soldanis, Archpriest
 * Giuseppe Monsignor Pace, 7th Bishop of Gozo
 * Joseph Farrugia, (Archpriest Emeritus of St George's)
 * Joseph Monsignor Mercieca, Archbishop of Malta
 * Sir Pietro Monsignor Pace, Titular Archbishop of Rhodes and Bishop of Malta
 * Alfred Xuereb, private secretary to Pope Francis
 * Mary Meilak, Poet
 * Ninu Cremona, Author

Zones in Victoria

 * Belliegħa
 * Ċittadella (Citadel)
 * Demnija
 * Gelmus
 * Għajn Lukin
 * Il-Ġnien
 * Qasam San Ġorġ
 * Sellum
 * Ta' Ħamet
 * Ta' l-Ibraġ
 * Ta' Mliet
 * Ta' Wara s-Sur
 * Taċ-Ċawla
 * Taflija
 * Tal-Far
 * Tal-Grazzja
 * Tal-Maltija
 * Tal-Mejda
 * Villa Rundle
 * Wied Tal-Grazzja
 * Kapuccini

Victoria's main roads

 * Pjazza Fuq it-Tomba (Tomba Square)
 * Pjazza Indipendenza (Independence Square)
 * Pjazza San Frangisk (St Francis Square)
 * Pjazza San Gorg (St George's Square)
 * Pjazza Santu Wistin (St Augustine Square)
 * Triq Dingli (Dingli Street)
 * Triq Enriku Mizzi (Enrico Mizzi Street)
 * Triq Fortunato Mizzi (Fortunato Mizzi Street)
 * Triq Gedrin
 * Triq George Borg Olivier
 * Triq Għajn Qatet
 * Triq Ġużè Ellul Mercer (G. Ellul Mercer Street)
 * Triq id-Dawwara
 * Triq il-Kappuċċini (Capuchins' Street)
 * Triq il-Papa Ġwanni Pawlu II (Pope John Paul II Street)
 * Triq ir-Repubblika (Republic Street)
 * Triq it-Tabib Anton Tabone (Dr Anton Tabone Street)
 * Triq l-Ewropa (Europe Street)
 * Triq l-Imgħallem (Foreman Street)
 * Triq Mejlak (Mejlak Road)
 * Triq Monsinjur S. Lanzon (Mgr. S. Lanzon Street)
 * Triq Ninu Cremona (Ninu Cremona Street)
 * Triq Putirjal (Main Gate Street)
 * Triq Sant' Orsla (St Ursola Street)
 * Triq Ta' Kerċem (Kercem Road)
 * Triq Tomba (Tomba Street)
 * Triq Viani (Viani Street)
 * Triq Wara s-Sur (By the Bastion Street)
 * Triq Wied il-Lunzjata (Lunzjata Valley Road)i

Feasts of Victoria, Gozo
Five feasts are celebrated in Victoria, the island of Gozo, the two main feasts are the feast of St. George and the feast of Assumption of the Virgin Mary. The feast dedicated to St. Mary, devoted in its Cathedral situated in the centre of the Citadel dominating the whole island is celebrated on 15 August. The other one is dedicated to St. George, the patron saint of Gozo celebrated on the 3rd Sunday of July in St George's Basilica.

In Victoria, there is the feast of the Immaculate Conception in the church of St Francis this feast is celebrated on 8 December of every year by the Franciscan conventual friars. A feast of Our Lady of Divine Grace is celebrated as the last feast of the feast season by the Franciscan capuchin friars in the church dedicated to Our Lady of Divine Grace. The feast of St. John Bosco is celebrated in the Don Bosco Oratory.

Sport
Victoria is home to three football clubs, S.K. Victoria Wanderers, Victoria Hotspurs and Oratory Youths.

Twin towns – sister cities
Victoria is twinned with:
 * 🇮🇹 Nichelino, Italy

title: Victoria, Malta


text:
Kröller-Müller Museum

The Kröller-Müller Museum is a national art museum and sculpture garden, located in the Hoge Veluwe National Park in Otterlo in the Netherlands. The museum, founded by art collector Helene Kröller-Müller within the extensive grounds of her and her husband's former estate (now the national park), opened in 1938. It has the second-largest collection of paintings by Vincent van Gogh, after the Van Gogh Museum. The museum had 380,000 visitors in 2015.

History

The Kröller-Müller Museum was founded by Helene Kröller-Müller, an avid art collector who, being advised by H.P. Bremmer, was one of the first to recognize Vincent van Gogh's genius and collect his works. In 1935, she donated her whole collection to the state of the Netherlands. In 1938, the museum, which was designed by Henry van de Velde, opened to the public. The sculpture garden was added in 1961 and the new exhibition wing, designed by Wim Quist, opened in 1977.

Collection
The museum has a considerable collection of paintings by Vincent van Gogh, such as Café Terrace at Night, and Sorrowing Old Man (At Eternity's Gate). Making it the second-largest collection of Van Gogh paintings in the world (after the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam). Apart from the Van Gogh paintings other highlights include works by Piet Mondrian, Georges-Pierre Seurat, Odilon Redon, Georges Braque, Paul Gauguin, Lucas Cranach, James Ensor, Juan Gris, William Degouve de Nuncques and Pablo Picasso.

Sculpture garden
The Kröller-Müller Museum is also famous for its large sculpture garden, within the forest park, of more than 75 acre and one of the largest in Europe, with a fine collection of modern and contemporary sculptures. The garden reflects Helene Kröller-Müller's conception of a symbiosis between art, architecture and nature. The collection includes works by Auguste Rodin, Henry Moore, Jean Dubuffet, Mark di Suvero, Lucio Fontana, Claes Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen, Fritz Wotruba, Joep van Lieshout and many more.

Administration
Lisette Pelsers has been museum director of the Kröller-Müller Museum since 2012.

The museum had 307,000 visitors in 2012, 330,000 visitors in 2013, 392,000 in 2014, 380,000 in 2015. An average 385,000 in 2017-2019, 405,428 in 2019, and over 173,000 in 2020.

The museum was the 12th most visited museum nationally in 2013.

title: Kröller-Müller Museum


text:
Monkey (character)

Monkey (also known as The Monkey, ITV Digital Monkey or PG Tips Monkey, and often pronounced in imitation of Johnny Vegas' Lancashire accent), was an animated puppet advertising character in the form of a knitted sock monkey. He was first produced by The Jim Henson Company via their UK Creature Shop, puppeteered by Nigel Plaskitt and Susan Beattie and voiced by comedian Ben Miller.

On May 1, 2024, PG Tips officially retired the Monkey character, stating that he was having a "well-deserved retirement".

Monkey has appeared in advertising campaigns in the United Kingdom for both the defunct television company ITV Digital and the tea brand PG Tips, as well as being occasionally featured in TV programmes. Monkey's first appearance was 11 July 2001, featuring in ITV Digital. Monkey is notable as one of a small number of advertising characters to eclipse the popularity of the product they advertise and also to be reused to advertise a completely different product.

ITV Digital
A series of high-profile adverts for ITV Digital featured the laid-back, droll and composed Monkey (in a variety of T-shirts) playing the straight man to the comedian Johnny Vegas's womaniser of a character "Al". Monkey was one of the few positive public relations successes of ITV Digital. Purchasers of ITV Digital were sent a free soft toy Monkey with their subscription.

For a period during the advertising campaign and after ITV Digital's bankruptcy, the original promotional Monkey toys were in high demand and short supply. One sold for £150 at the bankruptcy auction and they were selling for several hundred pounds on eBay, where customers could also find replica Monkey knitting patterns delivered by email selling for several pounds. Later, The Gadget Shop purchased the remaining promotional toys from ITV Digital's liquidators and sold them through their retail stores. These saw a boost in popularity after an appearance in the second series of award-winning British sitcom The Office.

Legal dispute
As Monkey was created and owned by advertising agency Mother rather than by ITV Digital itself, he was the subject of a legal dispute as both claimed the rights to the character. This prevented his use for some time, despite many organisations being keen to acquire the rights. The dispute was eventually resolved by both parties agreeing to donate the intellectual property rights for Monkey to Comic Relief. Following the resolution of the dispute, Monkey appeared in a few TV shows, with the BBC using him for 2001's Comic Relief. He was about to make an guest appearance at the 2002 BRIT Awards but was later pulled out due to restrictions. In both cases Monkey appeared without Johnny Vegas. In 2003, the BBC commissioned a variety show to be hosted by Monkey. A pilot was filmed titled "Watch with Monkey" and featured Dawn French and the Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain. The pilot has never been televised.

PG Tips
In January 2007, Monkey and Vegas reprised their double act in a new series of advertisements for PG Tips tea. The first advertisement was named "The Return" and the adverts make reference to PG Tips' popular series of adverts featuring live chimps which ran between 1956 and 2002, as well as to ITV Digital going out of business (on which low audience figures, piracy issues and an ultimately unaffordable multi-million pound deal with the Football League led to the broadcaster suffering massive losses, forcing it to enter administration in March 2002).

PG launched a website selling the newly branded "PG Monkey" merchandise with profits being donated to Comic Relief, who still own the intellectual property rights. The online shop has since closed but during promotions PG Tips have given away free mini-Monkeys packaged with their tea.

In May 2024 it was announced Monkey had been officially retired from PG Tips advertisements.

Mini movie
Monkey also appeared in a short advertising film which was shown in cinemas at the beginning of selected showings of Horton Hears a Who, The Spiderwick Chronicles, Hannah Montana 3D and The Game Plan. The film was released on 21 March 2008. The film is called A Tale of Two Continents and has Monkey portraying various historical figures as he attempts to make the perfect cup of tea in the Kenya tea farms and then safely take it across the world to England for The Queen. The film was also given away on DVD with special packs of PG Tips tea.

Early life
In Monkey - Hero of Our Time, Monkey writes that his "parents owned a toy shop"; however, this was forced into closure in '1982'. He said "[a]s my parents were clearing away and throwing out what was left of the stock, my mother came across me, stuck behind a pile of empty cardboard boxes" and "[s]he took me home and painstakingly restored me back to my former glory - cleaning me, re-stuffing me and sewing me up. Her love for me was so great that I amazingly found myself able to move and speak." Soon afterwards he claimed that his first words to her were "Put the kettle on, eh Mum? I'm parched.".

Personality and habits
Monkey is sometimes portrayed as being quite cowardly; for example his refusal to take responsibility for dropping a ceramic bowl dating back to 3000 BC, despite being filmed doing so. He is also prone to miserliness, having admitted that he re-uses discarded plasters he finds in swimming pools. Monkey hoards both his and Al's wages, deliberately neglecting to inform the naive Al of the fact that they are in fact paid for their work, stating "I don't bother Al with details" and that his money is "safely invested in a portfolio of bananas". Despite his turbulent relationship with Al, the two share the same bed. Monkey is shown to be very passionate about tea, his favourite serving method being "three stirs clockwise, two stirs back, one and three quarters sugars". He vehemently insists that tea bags should precede milk when brewing. His exact species is never clarified; Monkey himself denies being a chimpanzee (the CHimp logo on his tea-shirt puns on CH sounding like the Chinese word for tea), and his response to Al's idea that he may be "half monkey-half chimp" is limited to "speak for yourself". Though he claims to be a "ladies' monkey", he is caught by Al surfing dating sites, giving exaggerated descriptions of his physical appearance. He is sometimes shown wearing a woman's nightcap, a sheath dress and a ballet tutu. He gets distressed if tea is made in the wrong order.

Monkey's cult following
When the ITV Digital ads came out Monkey was instantly famous and ITV Digital put Plushies in the package for the box.

title: Monkey (character)