text:
Talk:Baby talk

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Gustavus Adolphus College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from on 14:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Foreigner Baby-Talk?
For the section "Foreigner talk" I'm not so sure if that is similar to Baby Talk, more so than Cave-man like talk. Usually people do not use high pitches nor do they use repeat single syllable words to refer to things like "boo-boo" when speaking to a foreigner (Usually because those may be culture specific vocabulary that other cultures may not understand). Some other things I noticed also were for the examples of Baby Talk. It might be a good idea to have examples from other languages as well, including phonetic reading, just to get a better idea of baby talk. For the sections "Phonology" and "Syntax", maybe some diagrams or trees would be helpful. Jcjjfu52 (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

2014
This article should be titled more appropriately towards the linguistic terminology, such as Child Directed Speech or Infant Directed Speech. The general description of the term “Baby Talk” is vague and unstructured concerning facts and content. The “Purpose and Implications” section could use some organization within subcategories to break up the paragraphs to make it easier to navigate the different ideas. Give less examples of “Baby Talk” in the “Vocabulary and Structure” section, maybe limit it to 10-15 examples.

Contko (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

2006
I think it's interesting how words such as "mother", "father", "dad" etc probably are derived from Baby Talk... But that is likely(?) from babies, themselves, rather than their mothers. Maybe we could add something about that...
 * Well, dad, and mom are from baby talk, but mother and father are not. JayW 19:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Mom and dad are from baby speech, not baby talk. -Acjelen 03:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

--

I removed the reference quoting the researcher regarding baby talk being similar to poetry. It's not a mainstream idea at this time, and I don't think it's appropriate for an article on such a general topic to quote one single researcher on recent findings, especially subjective or controversial findings. That should be left to magazine or newspaper articles. Jeeves 18:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Um... Why "especially mothers"? Alveolate 06:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Or lack thereof?
I was extremely disappointed to see that this article has (essentially) no information about the many societies that don't use CDL. I suppose I'll have to dredge through my bookshelf to get more, but here's a snippet from Language Development by Erika Hoff (Wadsworth, 2005, p. 117):
 * Furthermore, in many cultures - including the cultures of the Samoans (Ochs, 1982; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986), Papua New Guineans (Schieffelin, 1979, 1985), aboriginal groups in Australia (Bavin, 1992), Mayans in Mexico (Brown, 2001), and U.S. African Americans in the rural South (Heath, 1983) - adults simply do not address speech to prelinguistic infants. In these cultures, infants are loved, held, and cared for but not talked to, yet they learn to talk. The fact that language acquisition is universal whereas infant-directed speech may not be raises the question of how important the properties of infant-directed speech can be for language development...

The studies cited are: I guess I'll try and chase those down when I get a chance. This data should really be in here. It's appalling that it's not. 69.140.12.199 18:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ochs, E. (1982). Talking to children in Western Samoa. Language in Society, 11, 77-104.
 * Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15, 163-191.
 * Schieffelin, B. B. (1979). Getting it together: An ethnographic approach to the study of the development of communicative competence. In E. Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental Pragmatics (pp. 73-110). New York: Academic Press.
 * Schieffelin, B. B. (1985). The acquisition of Kaluli. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Vol. 1. The data (pp. 525-594). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
 * Bavin, E. L. (1992). The acquisition of Warlpiri. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Vol. 3. (pp. 309-372). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
 * Brown, P. (2001). Learning to talk about motion: Up and DOWN in Tzeltal: is there a language-specific bias for verb learning? In M. Bowerman & S. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development. (pp. 512-543). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 * Heath, S. E. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 * Yes, please be bold and add information about such research. It sounds fascinating. :-) Ruakh 06:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, go for it. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit - Agree?
I recently removed a "Sex and the City" reference that involved the mention of "Titty Witties," feeling this was inappropriate and could be found offensive by someone who stumbles upon it unknowingly. Just wanted to get peoples' opinions on this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.249.66.23 (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Suggestion
Maybe someone who's informed could provide some theories as to *why* people use CDS with babies and children?

Restoring "examples" section
Retitling it "examples in literature" and using those for which a reference is clear (it not explicit). I don't see any indication here or in edit comments of why it was removed. It is useful in documenting the way baby talk is used in dialogue, and as indicating its cultural universality at least in the English-speaking world. It also shows how perfectly recognizable a 1917 example is to modern ears. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Vocabulary
The most recent editions appear to be more pronunciations than actual words... should they not be removed unless they can be found in actual dictionaries. Hesitant to do it myself though. 198.54.202.242 (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I would say that a word isnt a baby talk word proper unless adults use it and it is the word itself that has a special meaning rather than just the tone of voice.  e.g. Adults do use /w/ for L and R in a humorous way among each other but I dont know if that really counts as baby talk because it isnt tied to any particular words.  If we can find people saying sowwy to their kids then it should stay ... but they dont, as far as I know.  Haplolology Talk/Contributions 12:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to baby talk as the common name for the topic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Request to move
Child-directed speech → Baby language — item of psycholinguistics with ancient denomination Caceo (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose quite strongly: the former gets more Google hits than the latter, which to me is pretty strong evidence it's more than valid, given it's unlikely a phrase like "child-directed speech" would get many spurious hits. Moreover, hits include scientific papers from .edu addresses and similar, while "Baby language" mostly gives Wikipedia itself. --LjL (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please look interlinks de:Babysprache, fr:Langage enfantin, it:Linguaggio infantile, pt:Fala de bebê. Why not the exact translation and ancient denomination in english ? target Baby language is empty. --Caceo (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Uhm, well, it's only empty because you removed the redirect that it contained to Dunstan Baby Language. Also, what other languages call something is irrelevant to what English calls it. You say "baby language" is the common term in English; maybe you're right, but Google hints to the contrary. Maybe scientific usage of the concept is more common than, uh, common usage, in which case the scientific term should be employed. --LjL (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What the sources of this scientific terme ? How translate it ?

 * (english) Child-directed speech (CDS) = direct talk to child
 * (fr) Discours Direct à l'Enfant (DDE) - source ?
 * (es) Discurso Directo al Enfante (DDE) - source ?
 * (it) Discorso diretto all'Infante (DDI) - source ?
 * If it is without sources to have exact translation, the common ancient translation should be applied. --Caceo (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying that the concept was only "imported" from other languages into English...? --LjL (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I say that the name is "Baby language", while "direct talk to child" is a specific concept of it, at present without sources to be eligible to substitute the exact and common inter-links denomination. --Caceo (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, you mean to say that there are no sources to substantiate this being a commonly used scientific term in English rather than a WP:Neologism? Well, in that case, I have added a few now. --LjL (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please cite in that section Child-directed_speech. We know that the ancient term Baby talk is the one use by researchers and psychologists in other languages (also german). therefore cite the source that state english researchers and psychologists are preferring the term Child-directed speech. --Caceo (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the English Wikipedia, not the German, Italian, French or Spanish one. Anyway, I've added the reference requested. I've also already said that it's easy to see which term is preferred by simply making a Google search for both terms, "baby language" and "child-directed speech". Try . --LjL (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The cited source do not say what you are saying. It only call a specific topic and do not state a redefinition of "Baby language". Otherwise please cite statement quoting it. --Caceo (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose - Never heard of "baby language"; the vernacular name is "baby talk".  --Una Smith (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Specification of object: we are speaking about moving Child-directed speech to Baby language, (empty voice so far and topic of psycholinguistics, not to move to "baby talk"). The Una Smith vote above is invalid. --Caceo (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, it's not at all invalid. Una Smith clearly said that "baby language", what you proposed to move to, is not considered acceptable, while "baby talk" (which, however, is taken), if anything, would be the vernacular name for this subject. Please, don't say whose votes are invalid based on your own misunderstanding... --LjL (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose Sorry. While I don't particularly like the idea of having this article at Child-directed speech either, I believe the best solution would be to move it back to baby talk, where it was for several years, and not to baby language.   Child-directed speech is indeed a mainstream term used in psychology. --- Soap Talk/Contributions 20:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that article should be moved to baby talk, nevertheless i report that all others WP translate baby language (fr:Langage enfantin etc.) because baby cognition is based not only in talk. Baby language in my knowledge remain the psycholinguistic more adequate denomination. --Caceo (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh by the way, why did you point the it: article to "Linguaggio infantile", which is merely a redirect to "language acquisition" on the Italian Wikipedia? Hopefully not just to give undue support to your point of view on the issue... The actual article on the Italian Wikipedia is "baby talk". In English. :\ --LjL (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I moved the italian article to adjust italian denomination, because the french one was exact and the italian one was wrong. No problem! --Caceo (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

SITUATION CHANGED I put off the move question to a later time, to see the evolution of the new articles. --Caceo (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Both possible target articles baby talk and baby language have ben created some hour ago.
 * Some suggestion what to do ?

 * What, "some hour ago"? Baby talk has existed since May 26. Baby language is now a stub (while it was previously a redirect to something else, and had been for months) saying that there's two different "baby language", one of which is receptive (I assume that would be our "child-directed speak"). It only remains to be backed up by WP:Reliable sources... --LjL (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have emptied Baby language (13:52, 5 July 2009 Caceo) removing it's wrong redirection. Now it is edited and is a stub, as well as baby talk, thus I wait their evolution. Thank you! --Caceo (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Receptive language is not child-directed speech, but the ability to understand language. Babies' receptive language normally develops in advance of their expressive language, thus for example they can understand simple instructions from adults long before they are able to repeat the instructions.  --Una Smith (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Move to Baby talk. Technically, child-directed speech is any speech by an adult directed to anyone under the age of majority, normally 18 years old. Clearly not what the article is about. Baby talk is well known and a very common term for the subject of the article, which is an adult choosing a baby-like pattern of speech directed only to a very young child - a baby. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your source for claiming that technically CDS is what you said it is, please? --LjL (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Any dictionary. Child = anyone under 18. Directed = to someone. Speech = verbally. Child-directed speech, therefore, is any adult talking to anyone under 18. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I find this to be nonsense. This is a scientific topic, what matters is how WP:Reliable sources (and I added a few just at the beginning of the article, in case anyone missed them) use the term, now how a dictionary defines the single constituents of the terms - building from that would be obvious WP:Original research. This is basically a compound word, and its meaning isn't necessarily the sum of the meanings of its constituents. --LjL (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A more accurate term, if you want to stick with 10 cent words, is "infant-directed speech". The common term, however, is baby talk. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. I revised the dab page accordingly.  --Una Smith (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Move to Baby talk, the common name, and move the new dab to Baby talk (disambiguation). Having seperate stubs as mentioned earlier would represent a content fork. Dekimasu よ! 05:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to anyone reading: this proposal is the same as the situation that we had had from 2004 up until about a month ago. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 13:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose --Invitamia (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which move is it that you're opposing? -- Soap Talk/Contributions 13:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm opposing to move to baby language, which is very unclear. --Invitamia (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Move to Baby talk, the common name, yes I agree Dekimasu argument. --Caceo (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Caceo, in this case you should oppose this proposal, which is to move this article to Baby language; and after it closes then propose moving the article to Baby talk and moving the disambiguation page to Baby talk (disambiguation). --Una Smith (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment. No second move request is required. It is quite common for a move request to morf into something else, and the closing admin (or whoever closes) will move to baby talk if that is the consensus. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Opppose move to Baby talk. That title is too ambiguous and so I support having that title be a disambiguation page.  I also Oppose moving it to Baby language, as that to me would imply either Babbling or Dunstan Baby Language, not child-directed speech.  Powers T 14:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see nothing ambiguous about baby talk. The purpose of a disambiguation page, however, is not to explain ambiguous terms, but to distinguish between identical terms - for example, if you look, baby talk is the name of a couple of songs, etc., each of which, clearly, is referring to "baby talk". If you want a scientific term, use Infant-directed speech, but that is clearly not the correct title, which needs to use the common name. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that when someone searches for or links "Baby talk", we have no basis on which to make a reasonably certain guess as to which article is meant. It could be any number of things, although Babbling and child-directed speech the most likely candidates.  But I see no basis on which to distinguish between those two in terms of primacy.  Powers T 16:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support a move to baby talk. Maybe not ideal but less ambiguous and more precise than "child-directed speech."  —   AjaxSmack   06:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I believe this talk page should be moved, as well (though for that matter, I really believe the above was a "no consensus", too, so...). --LjL (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was taking care of some other matters—a history merge of baby talk and baby talk (disambiguation), fixing double redirects and then reporting a cluebot false positive reverting one of the double redirect fixes. Have patience:-) As for reviewing the arguments made, assigning them weight against policy and thinking there was no consensus, we'll have to disagree on that one.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree the consensus was to move to Baby talk, but I wish my argument against that move had been refuted more clearly. I'm still not convinced that this is obviously the primary topic compared to Babbling or Baby language.  Powers T 10:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Update
We are working on updating this page for our college Psychology class, Psychology of Language. As changes are made we will post them to this page for editing and feedback. We look forward to expanding the depth of this topic on Wikipedia. Ahartlin (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Kfinsand (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

comments
I'm so sorry iof I deleted anyones comments, I thought you were supposed to delete it so you could add in your comment, I was completely unaware, I guess u can say i'm a newbe to wikipedia an im only doin it for a project. so sorry :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princesspaperieca (talk • contribs) 22:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No real problem, everything is easily repaired. =)  I'm sorry I don't have an answer to your question.  You might want to try the Reference desk.  Powers T 13:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Update
The Wikipedia article on “Baby Talk” or “Infant Directed Speech” describes this practice as the use of high pitched speech with short words to communicate most often with children. In addition, the article outlines alternative names for this method of speech. Possible purposes of “baby talk” include that babies are more likely to respond to this method and prefer to listen to this type of speech. “Baby talk” also aids infants in their ability to learn words as they are usually in simplified forms as well as providing a base for infants to understand the fundamental attributes of language structure. Further, “baby talk” has been linked to the development of the ability of children to ask questions. This article includes a section regarding universality of “baby talk”. However, this particular section needs to be expanded and will be a major site of revision through this project. We hope to include a section on differences by region regarding this topic as well. The article highlights that “baby talk” is not solely used with infants and can be used in communication with foreign language, in a condescending manner, or with pets. This Wikipedia article also includes a list of vocabulary often used in “baby talk” which may need to be condensed. This does not allow the reader to understand the implications or structure of baby talk, rather simply provides a list of examples. We hope to expand this article to include additional specifics about the characteristics of “baby talk”, adding phonology and syntax sections to the vocabulary section, and, finally, add a section outlining the implications of “baby talk” in order to provide a more comprehensive view of effects. This may include, but is not limited to, how “baby talk” impacts word recognition, social preferences, and aids cognitive development.

Below is a list of sources that will be applicable to these updates:

Green, J. R., Nip, I. S. B., Wilson, E. M., Mefferd, A. S., & Yunusova, Y. (2010). Lip movement exaggerations during infant-directed speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53(6), 1529-1542. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0005)

Kaplan, P. S., Dungan, J. K., & Zinser, M. C. (2004). Infants of chronically depressed mothers learn in response to male, but not female, infant-directed speech. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 140-148. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.140

Kaplan, P. S., Jung, P. C., Ryther, J. S., & Zarlengo-Strouse, P. (1996). Infant-directed versus adult-directed speech as signals for faces. Developmental Psychology, 32(5), 880-891. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.5.880

Liu, H., Tsao, F., & Kuhl, P. K. (2007). Acoustic analysis of lexical tone in mandarin infant-directed speech. Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 912-917. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.912

McLeod, P. J. (1993). What studies of communication with infants ask us about psychology: Baby-talk and other speech registers. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 34(3), 282-292. doi:10.1037/h0078828

Schachner, A., & Hannon, E. E. (2011). Infant-directed speech drives social preferences in 5-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 47(1), 19-25. doi:10.1037/a0020740

Singh, L., Morgan, J. L., & Best, C. T. (2002). Infants' listening preferences: Baby talk or happy talk? Infancy, 3(3), 365-394. doi:10.1207/S15327078IN0303_5

Singh, L., Nestor, S., Parikh, C., & Yull, A. (2009). Influences of infant-directed speech on early word recognition. Infancy, 14(6), 654-666. doi:10.1080/15250000903263973 Kfinsand (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Thiessen, E. D., Hill, E. A., & Saffran, J. R. (2005). Infant-directed speech facilitates word segmentation. Infancy, 7(1), 53-71. doi:10.1207/s15327078in0701_5

Kfinsand (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible Edit/Delete
There was previous talk on this page about removing some of the vocabulary, as stated above, we are editing this page for our psychology class and have come to the consensus that the extensive vocabulary section is unnecessary and lacking references. We propose to remove this extensive list and replace it with a handful of referenced examples. Ahartlin (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

GAN Nomination
This was nominated with outstanding clean-up tags. Wikipedia articles needing clarification (October 2011), Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases (March 2009, May 2010). These should be dealt with quickly or the article coul be quickfailed. AIR corn (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Impact of recent student edits
This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.

If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:
 * 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
 * 1 - A few minutes of work needed
 * 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
 * 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
 * 4 - More than an hour of work needed

Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Women
Can we expand on why grown women will sometimes speak like this? like, the psychology behind it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblebritches57 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Baby talk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061127114004/http://aune.lpl.univ-aix.fr/~labphon10/abstracts/92.pdf to http://aune.lpl.univ-aix.fr/~labphon10/abstracts/92.pdf

 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070822110409/http://ohioline.osu.edu:80/flm02/FS08.html to http://ohioline.osu.edu/flm02/FS08.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I have checked the sources, but the results are unsatisfactory.

 * The second reference (Reschke at ohioline.osu.edu) was successfully archived and can be retrieved in full from the archive.

 * The first reference (Khattab at aune.lpl.univ-aix.fr) cannot be retrieved from the archive due to that website's robots.txt. We will need to find it elsewhere, or else remove the reference completely.  What next?  yoyo (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment
I am confused about the last sentence in the Aid to cognitive development section, which states that "Some feel that parents should refer to the child and others by their names only (no pronouns, e.g., he, I, or you), to avoid confusing infants who have yet to form an identity independent from their parents." Attempts to find any information related to this turned up mostly empty. The most relevant result I found was an editorial essay in a blog (here: ) which takes a clear idealogical stance in relation to issues of gender and social justice.

In this instance I am unsure whether or not this statement should be removed, or just clarified in some way?

CeraWithaC (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Update: That sentence was deleted on 12 June 2016 – and rightly so! yoyo (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Use with infants - dubious unsourced statement
The section "Use with infants" concludes with the following unsourced statement: "families with a lower-status might just have less time to spend focusing on interactions." This is {dubious} at best, and I've so marked it for discussion here. Although plausible, no evidence is given to support it.

To the contrary, I'm aware of some research of the last couple of decades that shows that some high-status parents, in particular doctors, have high levels of work-related stress that leads to them being more likely than average: all of which means that such families "might just have less time to spend focusing on interactions" (with their infant – and other – children), to borrow a phrase. This goes double for parents who are both in high-status occupations.
 * to abuse alcohol and other drugs,
 * to suffer marital and other adult relationship problems, and
 * to be time-poor,

Your thoughts are welcome! yoyo (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Baby talk. 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: When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070822110409/http://ohioline.osu.edu/flm02/FS08.html to http://ohioline.osu.edu/flm02/FS08.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baby talk. 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/20121101071744/http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.com/pdf/13/9780199565962_prelim.pdf to http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.com/pdf/13/9780199565962_prelim.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The Disabled and Mentally-Ill as Recipients
I think that a section on baby talk directed toward disabled and mentally-ill adults might be good to add. I don't have any research to post right now, but there are tons of stories of people who are physically and/or mentally disabled and people with mental illnesses receiving this kind of speech -- from doctors, teachers, strangers, family members, peers, you name it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.17.163.143 (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

propagandistic
I'd already begun writing this before realizing the note near the head, "2014" (by former editor Contko), aligns with my thoughts. Credit where credit's due.

As a supposed article about a supposed scientific discipline that is supposedly well-documented, I find this article a disservice to linguistics in particular and WP in general. The entire page comes across as at best defensive, more generally hyperbolic: not only is there nothing bad about adults imposing pseudoinfantile speech upon helpless children, but it is repeatedly touted as though some sort of invaluable teaching aid, to a point near the border of "WP is not a textbook, WP is not a manual."

Here's a simple check: at roughly what age does this downtalking become a hindrance to the maturing of the parent/child relationship? I find nothing; indicatively, the word years appears nowhere in the article.

This article has apparently been revised multiple times by various student gaggles. Should further blow in here, a hint: learn how to attach proper citations to your claims. I'd have failed many freshman outright for that alone.

There are no cited counterpoint views, much less criticisms — something I would expect of ANY valid discipline. This alone seems to place the behavior more squarely in the realm of religious faith (or at least philosophy) than anywhere near grounded academic study. In doing brief research on the subject, I note that articles even hinting at babytalk being merely a neutral factor will excite wild and even vitriloic attack from commenters.

Based in part on that hysteria, I could perhaps make the case that babytalk is a valid slang or argot or maybe cant or perhaps even jargon of a self-perpetuating infantilizing subculture. However, amidst all the "science" I don't see a credible overarching argument presented to the effect that it is somehow "natural," as in "common to human beings across cultures."

I have anecdotal tales from elementary teachers of how students with questionable speech skills — e.g. speaking through pursed lips, clinging to "cute" words, consonant substitutions ("widdow" for "little"), mispronunciations ("topato" for "potato"), sing-song pitch extremes — had a mother who persisted in using that speech with them despite the kid being in second or third or even fourth grade. Imagine simple spelling tasks: how do you teach a child to "sound out" a word like potato when they've heard so constantly that it's pronounced "topato"?

Though the article takes pains to separate these tics from strict speech disorders, the fact (as teachers can attest) is that these must similarly be overcome if the child is to be taught properly. For instance, whether a particular example is clinical apraxia of speech or just an environmentally imposed affectation is immaterial in regards to end-effect -- either way, the kid is difficult to understand. That makes the kid special needs, needing more attention to ensure that the lessons are properly communicated and fully comprehended.

And overreach abounds, often with sentence constructions that suggest the author is putting up a nonsupporting source, betting nobody will notice, i.e.:
 * And because it is slow, simple and easier to understand, research has proven that infants prefer CDS over normal speech.

The cited source does indeed find that infants (and apparently adults as well!!) focus better when presented with exaggerated prosody, but nowhere is the preceding clause validated. (This is a propoganda trick for which I cannot stand.) I believe it's been proven that opposite extremes from babytalk — speaking rapidly or monotonously or clipped or with an accent — are also attention-grabbing. Or consider the vapidity of
 * Infant directed speech includes features of higher pitch, exaggerated pitch changes, elongated vowels and long pauses between phonemes. This is done in order to allow infants time to process the information being conveyed to them.

How precisely is it known that the kid WANTS that? Actually, a 2015 study (RIKEN: Andrew Martin et al.) bluntly says it's amazing the victom learns language at all —
 * The fact that they are able to pick up sounds from input that is less clear than that used by adults with each other makes this accomplishment all the more remarkable.

On a reread, I note that "infant-directed speech" becomes equated to speaking directly to an infant. Therefore, as presented, it's not the raft of accreted infantilist nonsense, but the fact that the adult is willing to interact with the child in a focused manner that is important. In short, it's the interaction. Here's a few lines, edited:
 * Due to the visual cues offered by caregivers, infants are more highly motivated to engage in communication. … research indicates that infants are not only attracted to the practice itself but to people who engage in directed speech. Through interaction, infants infer who is likely to be a positive and encouraging caregiver. When infants attempt to echo what they hear, and feel reechoed, their cognitive development thrives because they are being encouraged by adults who are invested in the development of the given infants.

Here's the original, overreach and arm-waving intact:
 * Due to the visual cues used by caregivers in this method of communication, infants are more highly motivated to engage in communication. Because infants are willing to participate in this process, caregivers are able to make significant progress through the use of infant directed speech.
 * It is often assumed that infants are interested in the properties of infant directed speech and play a passive role in this interaction. However, research indicates that infants are not only attracted to the practice itself but to people who engage in infant directed speech[citation needed]. Through this practice, infants are able to determine who positive and encouraging caregivers will be in their development. When infants use infant directed speech as a determinant of acceptable caregivers their cognitive development seems to thrive because they are being encouraged by adults who are invested in the development of the given infants.

Still no supporting citation, but much more credible on the face of it.

Though I have been told (more than once) to be bold with my editing, I will exercise restraint as I prune back the unfounded claims made in this article, hoping to eventually find some strong healthy limbs on which a thorough, balanced, objective article can grow. Weeb Dingle (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Two nonsense words from roots music: honkey-tonk and hoochie-coochie. Perhaps there are others. (added later: heebie-jeebies, hocus-pocus)

If these are "baby talk," then what meaning could have possibly been intended for an infant to understand??

And if it can somehow be proven they are not "baby talk," then I say this topic is a mere subset of something larger, which AND
 * deserves its own article
 * ought to have the content of baby talk as a subsection rather than a stand-alone article. Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

 * On the basis of one statement (cited above: Infant directed speech includes features ... conveyed to them.), I have removed another: Contrary to popular belief, the intensity of speech, however, does not differ from that used in adult directed speech.[dubious – discuss]]. Neither claim cites a source, and both cannot cohabit without a really good explanation. Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Must go: repeated reliance on trash: "Research shows…" or "Research has proven…" without even an attempt to identify that "research." For hiding behind quackery, it's worse than the nimrods who think that calling something "notable" MAKES it notable. Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, some basic editing problems here. First, not only are "CDS" and "IDS" used interchangeably throughout the article, context seems to hint thyat they're somehow different. As the claim is boldly/baldly made that the pros prefer CDS, I propose changing all mentions of IDS to CDS. Be warned.

At the very head is the note
 * This article is about speech directed at babies. For speech-like sounds produced by babies, see babbling.

yet mention within is made of babies attempting to return the CDS presented to them. Now, is this CDS or is it "babbling"? Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

 * I've changed almost every instance of "infant directed speech" to "CDS," per the grounded assertion that this is the term preferred by professionals. I also not that literally ~75% of sentences (in some sections at least) contained at least one instance of "infant directed speech," suggesting either that the original writer has the attention span of a gnat and might forget what the article's about, or believes that WP readers do. Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

O god... the jargon... the jargon...: CDS may also contribute to the modulation of infant attention, assist infants in determining relevant syntactic qualities including phonetic boundaries… Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

overhaul begun
I just completed a major rework of Characteristics. It appeared that people had simply crammed in a bunch of factoids, with no attempt to group them or eliminate repetition. These (for lack of a better term) contributors also appear unfamiliar with relevant academic work, for example body language and prosody. I have NOT sought credible sources for the claims made — if it were up to me, I'd simply eliminate ALL unfounded claims outright.

That, at least, gives me a paradigm for looking at the rest of the article. Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The section Purpose and implications (near the beginning) appears to be highly redundant with Characteristics (at the end). Therefore, I am relocating the latter to immediately after the former; it doesn't need to remain there longterm, but this will make for easing some editing tasks. Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I feel as though Characteristics ought to be "how to recognize babytalk," Purpose should be "what babytalk is doing there," and Implications as "what babytalk will mean to the history of the human race." Or something like that.

Instead, each section is a hodgepodge -- ooh, another babytalk word!! -- of assertions (sometimes mutually contradictory), description, and rationalization. While P & I presently makes better use of credible sources, Characteristics is now the better organized of the two, so I'm moving it to the head of the article. I'll be trying to poke these unruly data-dumps into eventual order.

The subsequent target will likely be the overreaching claims to Universality.

Incidentally, I'm eliminating the Colwyn Trevarthen shout-out (after two years!) as irrelevant. Weeb Dingle (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I've chopped much of the "Baby talk with pets" section. It reads like something that fell out of Dog Fancy magazine. The article is Baby talk; as I addressed previously, if there's something that contains babytalk AND (ugh!) "Doggerel," then THAT is where ALL this stuff really belongs.Until then, if pet-talk is someone's hobby, then please launch a new article. Weeb Dingle (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

"This" may refer to the wrong thing in the "Children of depressed mothers" paragraph
> Infants are unable ....(1) When fathers ... are able ..., infants respond well... (2) This too can inhibit language and speech development. (3)

"This" in (3) seems to refer to the fact in (1). Maybe (2) was added later without fixing (3)? _Vi (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

articles that rely on "usually" are usually making stuff up
At the moment, "usually" appears eight times. Only once is a citation within spitting distance (and that offers questionable support).

People hate when I tag stuff like that, but usually can't be bothered to support the claims, so I might simply remove every instance as egregious OR/peacocking.

FWIW, usually gets 233,689 hits on Wikipedia. Like notable (360,925), any appearance ought to cause any credible editor to immediately ask "really?" and expect a well-documented reply. Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

spring cleaning
Seeing as it's been more than a year, and this is hardly a neglected article (multiple editors adding claims and apparent citations), and citation needed tags remain abundant, I'm simply going to start pruning. Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Experiment: I have begun by hiding a few hundred words, almost entirely stuff that's been carrying a citation needed tag since 2014 or earlier, on the assumption that since nobody's given a crap about it in five years, nobody'll miss it. Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Baby talk


text:
Cedar Creek (Indiana)

Cedar Creek (from ) is the largest tributary of the St. Joseph River, draining 174780 acres in the Eastern Corn Belt Plains of northeastern Indiana. It is 31.9 mi long, rising in northwestern DeKalb County and joining the St. Joseph just below the Cedarville Dam in Allen County.

Origins and history
Upper Cedar Creek originated as an ice-marginal channel at the western edge of the Erie Lobe of the Wisconsin Glacier and formed a single stream with the southwest-flowing Eel River which connected to the Wabash River. Lower Cedar Creek was a tributary of the ancestral Eel, carrying glacial meltwater under the ice through a tunnel valley known today as Cedar Creek Canyon. Blockage of the Eel's channel by outwash from the canyon and a decline in the volume of meltwater caused lower Cedar Creek to reverse its flow. In so doing, it captured the flow of the upper Eel, a classic example of stream piracy that shifted Cedar Creek's drainage (about 175,000 acres) from the Eel-Wabash system to that of the St. Joseph-Maumee.

Once a meandering stream, upper Cedar Creek was channelized (straightened and deepened) in the early 20th century for agricultural and urban drainage, which has increased the watershed's vulnerability to erosion and contaminated runoff. Once home to 27 species of freshwater mussel, Cedar Creek has experienced a drastic decline in mussel population since the 1980s.

Course
Cedar Creek originates at Indian Lake (41º27'51" N 85º10'11" W), northwest of Corunna, Indiana, and comes into formal existence downstream at Cedar Lake. Its DeKalb County section flows east-southeast from Indian Lake, loops around Waterloo, passes through Auburn, then angles southwest until it enters Allen County, where it is crossed by Indiana State Road 327 south of Garrett before turning back to the southeast toward Leo-Cedarville.

Lower Cedar Creek, from river mile 13.7 to its confluence with the St. Joseph, is officially designated as an "Outstanding State Resource Water" and is one of four streams in Indiana's Natural, Scenic and Recreational Rivers system.

Tributaries

 * (left) Willow Creek
 * (left) Kell Ditch
 * (left) Willow Creek Ditch
 * (left) Willow Creek Branch
 * (right) Hatch Ditch
 * (right) Krumlauf Branch
 * (left) Yant Ditch
 * White Lake
 * Wappes Ditch
 * (left) Clark Chapman Ditch
 * Fulk Lake
 * (left) Little Cedar Creek
 * (left) Black Creek
 * (left) Bilger Ditch
 * (right) Whan Ditch
 * Roudy Lake
 * Mud Lake
 * (left) Hinkley Ditch
 * (left) outflow from King Lake
 * (left) Yarde Ditch
 * (left) Sycamore Creek
 * (right) Schmadel Ditch
 * (right) Dosch Ditch
 * (left) Garrett City Ditch
 * (left) Diehl Ditch
 * (right) Peckhart Ditch
 * (left) Ober Ditch
 * (right) W Smith Ditch
 * (right) Matson Ditch
 * (left) Swartz Ditch
 * (right) Dibbling Ditch
 * Cedar Lake
 * Leins Ditch
 * (left) McCullough Ditch
 * Indian Lake

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

title: Cedar Creek (Indiana)


text:
Arabic numeral variations

There are various stylistic and typographic variations to the Arabic numeral system.

Old-style numerals
The numerals used by Western countries have two forms: lining ("in-line" or "full-height") figures as seen on a typewriter and taught in North America, and old-style figures, in which numerals 0, 1 and 2 are at x-height; numerals 6 and 8 have bowls within x-height, and ascenders; numerals 3, 5, 7 and 9 have descenders from x-height; and the numeral 4 rests along the baseline. Lining figures are generally designed all the same setting width, as this makes the printing of mathematical and trigonometrical tables simpler to do and clearer to read. Non-lining figures tend to be preferred where numbers occur within sentences, for instance when a date is given in figures in a line of text.

British presses have been partial to "old-style" numerals, even though typewriters cannot print them and they are not assigned separate Unicode values. The old-style numeral one can resemble a capital "I" reduced to x-height, and this can lead to confusion e.g. of the number 11 (when written in old-style digits) with the Roman numeral II (meaning the number two). On the other hand, with some sans serif faces, using lining figures, there can be confusion between the figure 1, lower case l (L) and upper case I (I).

Slashed zero
A distinction exists between the Danish/Norwegian letter "Ø," the Latin letter "O," and the numeral "0". Handwritten data to be typed into a computer necessitates having a distinction between the letter "O" and numeral "0". In English-speaking countries, zero was often slashed in technical writing, and was used in many computer keyboards, screens and printing methods. Some early computerized systems for managers assumed that the numeral would be entered more often than the letter, so they slashed the letter instead. In time this became a minority practice, and it is very confusing for Danish and Norwegian speaking people.

There are three ways of ticking the numeral zero to make it distinct from the letters O and Ø. A tick in the upper right corner derives from the earlier practice, a tick in the upper left corner is used to prevent confusion with all earlier practices, and the very-low-resolution typeface "Fixedsys" has an internal tick, that does not extend beyond the bowl, in both the upper right and lower left. This is the most elegant, but it would take quite a flourish to write it on hundreds of inventory tags. Scandinavian countries prefer a numeral zero with a dot in the middle, although low-resolution displays can confuse this with a numeral eight, and it takes longer to assuredly make a dot with a ballpoint pen than making a tick.

Other variations
The "Crossed Seven" is commonly used throughout Europe, but, outside of mathematics, is sporadically used in the United States, and it is not permitted to be written on some inventory tags that are optically read by computers.

There are two forms of the numeral one used in France, as seen on Citroën cowls:
 * numeral one with a long initial stroke and an underserif; and
 * numeral one with a long initial stroke that starts below the underserif and is concave upward.

Central Europe uses a 'one' that has two half-serifs so it looks somewhat like a 'Z'. The region further uses a numeral four that looks like a lightning bolt, and in some areas of Eastern Europe, as seen on Romanian tanks, there is a numeral four that does not have a closed loop, but has a Greek cross form of strokes. Usually the numeral two is not slashed, whereas the letter Z is, because the handwritten form could be confused with the numeral two.

title: Arabic numeral variations


text:
Talk:Offal

US and Canada
Changed to "USA", since there was no mention of Canada in the section.156.34.38.163 (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD
On 27 July 2004, this article was proposed for deletion. The discussion has been archived at Votes for deletion/Offal. Rossami 21:14, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is it vitamin A in polar bear livers? I thought it was D or something.203.87.90.130 11:30, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Might be. It is definently one of the fat-soluble vitamins (A,D, E, & K) ike9898 13:49, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's A. I have a fairly old(20+years) article in a book from Reader's Digest that mentions the troubles a group of explorers in Antarctica(I think) had when they ate their huskies' livers. 218.186.9.3 14:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

 * It's vitamin A. All bear liver has enough vitamin A to kill you. DO NOT EAT. See Hypervitaminosis A Shawn H Corey (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Offal/Awful
I think a IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) reference would help, as I don't think these homophones, especially outside of the U.S., and in certain U.S. regions.
 * I'm not sure what the IPA pronunciation is, but I pronounce it either off'l, or oh-f'l/oaf'l. 218.186.9.3 14:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did that edit. I wasn't claiming that they were, just that there is a merger in North America that makes them homophonous. I think this is of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Why dont you eat the internal organs of an animal? Because they taste 'offal'! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.184.238 (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Bulgogi?
The site stated:

"In Korea and Japan, offal (especially from cattle) is often served in Korean barbecue restaurants. See bulgogi (in Korea) and yakiniku (in Japan"

however, i know from personal experience (as well as can be read on the bulgogi entry of wikipedia) that the dish is made with beef sirloin or other choice cuts and NOT with any kind of Offal/entrails/leftovers. Actually, choice-cuts are important to the dish as they ensure a high degree of tenderness that is a signature of the dish. Therefore, i am deleting the Korean parts of the section and altering it so it only states Japan/yakiniku. Im not sure this is true for Japan either, but as i am not personally knowledgable about Japanese dishes, i can not in good conscience delete that part of the passage.

zzz - The most popular cut of meat in Korean bbq (Korea and Japan) is tongue. Intestine is always offered, as is raw calf liver and other parts of offal. Foreigners will always be offered cuts known to be popular with foreigners but that is a very filtered view of the cuisine.-zzz

Why is there a link to Leopold Bloom at the bottom of the artical?
 * He was known to eat offal.

Lampredotto
On the menu of my local tripestand in Florence, Italy lampredotto is described as the fourth stomach of the cow, so I have edited accordingly. Technically I know this constitutes OR, but I'm going to go with it anyway! Let me have it on my talk page if you must.Zandrous 02:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Vitamins in organ meats
From what I've read, organ meats play a vital role in the diet of arctic cultures, as they provide the vitamins that are missing from muscle meat; were it not for organ meats, the carnivorous diet would result in severe malnutrition. Anyone got any good references on this? scot 22:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I only have this from the same source mentioning the Antarctic explorers(Reader's Digest book Strange Stories Amazing Facts II. Yes, I'm also the guy who mentioned it's Vitamin A at the top of the page), but Eskimos only eat seal livers or something like that, because polar bear liver accumulates too much Vitamin A(presumably because it eats so many seals...). The ratio is such that you can probably eat one bite of polar bear liver and get the same amount of Vitamin A as an entire seal's liver. 218.186.9.3 14:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please add the article as a ref if you can. ike9898 15:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, as far as I know, there's only the hardcopy. However, there's mention on Wikipedia about the explorers, Douglas Mawson and Xavier Mertz. Also a link to them on the Liver article, where it talks about the husky livers. I admit, I really have no idea about the actual ratio of seal to polar bear liver, but I definitely heard that polar bear liver is possibly the most toxic(with the Husky livers being a close second)218.186.8.13 01:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Africa?
Does anyone have any information on African use of offal? I only know that some of the tribes who herd cows(Masai?) also drink the blood. 218.186.9.3 14:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

American Jews?
Chopped liver is not a Jewish dish, although lungen stew I have never heard of and thus cannot comment on. Specific references to the Jews of America seems dubious at best--76.21.2.109 (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Chopped liver is definitely a jewish dish, however given the US american taboo about offals it might not be an american jewish one. Its more or less a sort of selfmade sausage (and not eaten raw, as suggested by the likes of Hannibal Lector). Janna Gurs israelian cookbook contains variations at least in the german version. --Polentario (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Chopped Liver is definitely considered to be a Jewish dish in America, it will be on the menu of any "Kosher" Deli. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Afval?
Some dictionaries seem to mention this word is possibly based on the Dutch word `afval'. The Dutch word `slachtafval' has the same meaning as `offal'. 83.181.140.160 (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Schlachtabfall is the german expression - sounds quite similar. --Polentario (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
There has been a tag here since June suggesting that lou mei be merged into this article. I don't see any discussion on the matter yet. Lou mei was not mentioned in the article, and as it is a dish that is made of offal, I have added it in the Asia section. Just a sentence to introduce the dish seems sufficient, as the article on lou mei contains other information that does not belong here. If lou mei should be merged, then it appears to make more sense to merge it into Cantonese cuisine. Hope this is agreeable, and, as usual, revert if I don't know what I'm talking about! Maedin \talk 09:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Health Concerns
There is very little evidence in the scientific literature connecting dietary cholesterol intake and measured cholesterol levels in the body. The health section is phrased to imply that high amounts of cholesterol in offal may be harmful to your diet, which I think is misleading at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.222.168 (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Germany
sort of interesting that offal is derived of a German origin but german offal cuisine is not mentioned at all. Did some enhancement on that. BR --Polentario (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Middle East section
Can someone please take out Middle Eastern countries out of the Asia section, to create a separate Middle East section.

Declining consumption
I am going to remove the following unsupported content from the introduction:"In general however, rising standards of living have led to a sharp decline in consumption of offal particularly in developed countries. In Western Europe, liver and kidney dishes were commonplace everyday food a generation ago, but are no longer. The United States has a particularly strong taboo against offal." Whether this information is true or not (and I know personally that the extraordinarily strong statement about the US is not true), it is not supported by the rest of the article, which does not document a "sharp decline" in consumption of offal in developed countries or a "strong taboo" in the US.

The purpose of an article's introduction is to provide the reader a summary of the article; anything that contradicts the article's contents should not be in the introduction. If the editor who added this content can back it up with reliable sources, it should be added to the appropriate sections of the article, and only then should it be restored to the introduction.--Jim10701 (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Offal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://bikyamasr.com/53836/cow-brain-seized-at-cairo-airport-outrages-animal-rights-activists/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110217030854/http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodstandards/foodstandardscode/ to http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodstandards/foodstandardscode/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Heart does not have huge amounts of cholesterol or anything else very harmful(?)
Even if one eats 100g chicken heart every day, the % DV of cholesterol or anything else very harmful is not exceeded.

But please tell me if there is something else harmful, if a human eats (Raw) Chicken Heart every day. I buy it from pet store and it is industrially produced by a reputable pet food brand, so the manufacturer scans for any pathogens.

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/poultry-products/664/2

ee1518 (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"sundae-dish"
under Denmark: what is a "sundae-dish"?--142.163.195.153 (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Originally, this said "sunday dish" but someone for some reason "corrected" it to sundae about seven years ago. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 16:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

English (national dialect)?
Please check the last few edits. 99% of the Kitchen Knife edits are just changing from one dialectal standard to another, and introducing errors, IMO. IAmNitpicking (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeking consensus here. Kitchen Knife has just re-reverted all the errors back into the article. I would prefer to get consensus rather that have to contact an admin over this. IAmNitpicking (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Muscle?
Am I being too nitpicky? The article currently says offal excludes "muscle". In my culture, offal includes the heart, which is a muscle. Maybe "skeletal muscle"? IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

 * Yeah, that works. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Grammar
I almost forgot to start discussion on this talk page after the revert.

"Offal is the organs" isn't correct grammar in the first place. offal says "the internal organs of an animal used as food".

Offal is sometimes countable and other times uncountable. We have to clarify whether it is countable or uncountable in the lead sentence. — CrafterNova  [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 06:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

 * There is nothing wrong with "Offal is the organs". It's just an alternate way to state, "Offal is defined to mean the organs ..." Now, it may not be the ideal way to say it, but it is not incorrect. IAmNitpicking (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Then maybe really I am nitpicking. We learn new things about the English language everyday — CrafterNova  [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 08:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I am nitpicking! Read the username! IAmNitpicking (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

human meat?????
The last sentence in the first paragraph mentions offal may also refer to the byproducts of human meat. I'm not familiar with the eating traditions of every single culture around the world, but think this might need a source, or might not be accurate. 2607:FB91:1E60:143B:3858:D5FF:FE14:6E82 (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Bladder
Hi, 'fish bladder' is listed as a type but not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Here's one recipe for fish bladder chips: https://www.dn.no/smak/sjomatskolen/torsk/skrei/fisk/ny-matspalte-i-d2/2-1-722253 (item 7), made form skrei, the migratory cod caught in Lofoten, Norway. One type of offal not mentioned are dished made out of the contents of the digestive tract; fig flower petals from finch stomachs (beccafico (?) - Italy), coagulated milk from lamb (Greece?), and of course stories of polar people eating half-digested lichen from animal stomachs for its vitamin content. Oxtail is listed as a dish under Offal Dishes, but 'Tail' is not included here. T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, sry, last one is wrong; tail is listed as 'oxtail'. T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.65.62 (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Offal


text:
PCI-X

PCI-X, short for Peripheral Component Interconnect eXtended, is a computer bus and expansion card standard that enhances the 32-bit PCI local bus for higher bandwidth demanded mostly by servers and workstations. It uses a modified protocol to support higher clock speeds (up to 133 MHz), but is otherwise similar in electrical implementation. PCI-X 2.0 added speeds up to 533 MHz, with a reduction in electrical signal levels.

The slot is physically a 3.3 V PCI slot, with exactly the same size, location and pin assignments. The electrical specifications are compatible, but stricter. However, while most conventional PCI slots are the 85 mm long 32-bit version, most PCI-X devices use the 130 mm long 64-bit slot, to the point that 64-bit PCI connectors and PCI-X support are seen as synonymous.

PCI-X is in fact fully specified for both 32- and 64-bit PCI connectors, and PCI-X 2.0 added a 16-bit variant for embedded applications.

It has been replaced in modern designs by the similar-sounding PCI Express (officially abbreviated as PCIe), with a completely different physical connector and a very different electrical design, having one or more narrow but fast serial connection lanes instead of a number of slower connections in parallel.

Background and motivation
In PCI, a transaction that cannot be completed immediately is postponed by either the target or the initiator issuing retry-cycles, during which no other agents can use the PCI bus. Since PCI lacks a split-response mechanism to permit the target to return data at a later time, the bus remains occupied by the target issuing retry-cycles until the read data is ready. In PCI-X, after the master issues the request, it disconnects from the PCI bus, allowing other agents to use the bus. The split-response containing the requested data is generated only when the target is ready to return all of the requested data. Split-responses increase bus efficiency by eliminating retry-cycles, during which no data can be transferred across the bus.

PCI also suffered from the relative scarcity of unique interrupt lines. With only 4 interrupt pins (INT A/B/C/D), systems with many PCI devices require multiple functions to share an interrupt line, complicating host-side interrupt-handling. PCI-X added Message Signaled Interrupts, an interrupt system using writes to host-memory. In MSI-mode, the function's interrupt is not signaled by asserting an INTx line. Instead, the function performs a memory-write to a system-configured region in host-memory. Since the content and address are configured on a per-function basis, MSI-mode interrupts are dedicated instead of shared. A PCI-X system allows both MSI-mode interrupts and legacy INTx interrupts to be used simultaneously (though not by the same function).

The lack of registered I/Os limited PCI to a maximum frequency of 66 MHz. PCI-X I/Os are registered to the PCI clock, usually through means of a PLL to actively control I/O delay the bus pins. The improvement in setup time allows an increase in frequency to 133 MHz.

Some devices, most notably Gigabit Ethernet cards, SCSI controllers (Fibre Channel and Ultra320), and cluster interconnects could by themselves saturate the PCI bus's 133 MB/s bandwidth. Ports using a bus speed doubled to 66 MHz and a bus width doubled to 64 bits (with the pin count increased to 184 from 124), in combination or not, have been implemented. These extensions were loosely supported as optional parts of the PCI 2.x standards, but device compatibility beyond the basic 133 MB/s continued to be difficult.

Developers eventually used the combined 64-bit and 66-MHz extension as a foundation, and, anticipating future needs, established 66-MHz and 133-MHz variants with a maximum bandwidth of 532 MB/s and 1064 MB/s respectively. The joint result was submitted as PCI-X to the PCI Special Interest Group (Special Interest Group of the Association for Computing Machinery). Subsequent approval made it an open standard adoptable by all computer developers. The PCI SIG controls technical support, training, and compliance testing for PCI-X. IBM, Intel, Microelectronics, and Mylex were to develop supporting chipsets. 3Com and Adaptec were to develop compatible peripherals. To accelerate PCI-X adoption by the industry, Compaq offered PCI-X development tools at their Web site.

PCI-X 1.0
The PCI-X standard was developed jointly by IBM, HP, and Compaq and submitted for approval in 1998. It was an effort to codify proprietary server extensions to the PCI local bus to address several shortcomings in PCI, and increase performance of high bandwidth devices, such as Gigabit Ethernet, Fibre Channel, and Ultra3 SCSI cards, and allow processors to be interconnected in clusters.

Intel gave only a qualified welcome to PCI-X, stressing that the next generation bus would have to be a "fundamentally new architecture". Without Intel's support, PCI-X failed to be adopted in PCs. According to Rick Merritt of the EE Times, "A falling-out between the PCI SIG and a key Intel interconnect designer who spearheaded development on the Accelerated Graphics Port caused Intel to pull out of the initial PCI-X effort". The PCI-X interface was however briefly adopted by Apple, for the first few generations of the Power Macintosh G5.

The first PCI-X products were manufactured in 1998, such as the Adaptec AHA-3950U2B dual Ultra2 Wide SCSI controller, however at that point the PCI-X connector was merely referred to as "64-bit ready PCI" on packaging, hinting at future forward compatibility. Actual PCI-X branding only became standard later, likely coinciding with widespread availability of PCI-X equipped motherboards. When more details of PCI Express were released in August 2001, PCI SIG chairman Roger Tipley expressed his belief that "PCI-X is going to be in servers forever because it serves a certain level of functionality, and it may not be compelling to switch to 3GIO [PCI Express] for that functionality. We learned that from not being able to get rid of ISA. ISA hung around because of all of these systems that weren't high-volume parts." Tipley also announced that (at the time) the PCI SIG was planning to fold PCI Express and PCI-X 2.0 into a single work tentatively called PCI 3.0, but that name was eventually used for a relatively minor revision of conventional PCI.

PCI-X 2.0
In 2003, the PCI SIG ratified PCI-X 2.0. It adds 266-MHz and 533-MHz variants, yielding roughly 2,132 MB/s and 4,266 MB/s throughput, respectively. PCI-X 2.0 makes additional protocol revisions that are designed to help system reliability and add Error-correcting codes to the bus to avoid re-sends. To deal with one of the most common complaints of the PCI-X form factor, the 184-pin connector, 16-bit ports were developed to allow PCI-X to be used in devices with tight space constraints. Similar to PCI-Express, PtP functions were added to allow for devices on the bus to talk to each other without burdening the CPU or bus controller.

Despite the various theoretical advantages of PCI-X 2.0 and its backward compatibility with PCI-X and PCI devices, it has not been implemented on a large scale. This lack of implementation primarily is because hardware vendors have chosen to integrate PCI Express instead.

IBM was one of the (few) vendors which provided PCI-X 2.0 (266 MHz) support in their System i5 Model 515, 520 and 525; IBM advertised these slots as suitable for 10 Gigabit Ethernet adapters, which they also provided. HP offered PCI-X 2.0 in some ProLiant and Integrity servers and offered dual-port 4 Gbit/s Fibre Channel adapters, also operating at 266 MHz. AMD supported PCI-X 2.0 (266 MHz) via its 8132 Hypertransport to PCI-X 2.0 tunnel chip. ServerWorks was a vocal supporter of PCI-X 2.0 (to the detriment of the first generation PCI Express) particularly through its chief Raju Vegesna, who was however fired soon thereafter for roadmap disagreements with the Broadcom leadership.

In 2003, Dell announced it would skip PCI-X 2.0 in favor of more rapid adoption of PCI Express solutions. As reported by PC Magazine, Intel began to sideline PCI-X in their 2004 roadmap, in favor of PCI Express, arguing that the latter had substantial advantages in terms of system latency and power consumption, more dramatically stated as avoiding "the 1,000-pin apocalypse" for their Tumwater chipset.

Technical description
PCI-X revised the conventional PCI standard by doubling the maximum clock speed (from 66 MHz to 133 MHz) and hence the amount of data exchanged between the computer processor and peripherals. Conventional PCI supports up to 64 bits at 66 MHz (though anything above 32 bits at 33 MHz is seen only in high-end systems). The theoretical maximum amount of data exchanged between the processor and peripherals with PCI-X is 1.06 GB/s, compared to 133 MB/s with standard PCI. PCI-X also improves the fault tolerance of PCI, allowing, for example, faulty cards to be reinitialized or taken offline.

PCI-X is backward compatible to PCI in the sense that the entire bus falls back to PCI if any card on the bus does not support PCI-X.

The two most fundamental changes are:
 * The shortest time between a signal appearing on the PCI bus and a response to that signal occurring on the bus has been extended to 2 cycles, rather than 1. This allows much faster clock rates, but causes many protocol changes:
 * The ability of the conventional PCI bus protocol to insert wait states on any cycle based on the IRDY# and TRDY# signals has been deleted; PCI-X only allows bursts to be interrupted at 128-byte boundaries.
 * The initiator must deassert FRAME# two cycles before the end of the transaction.
 * The initiator may not insert wait states. The target may, but only before any data is transferred, and wait states for writes are limited to multiples of 2 clock cycles.
 * Likewise, the length of a burst is decided before it begins; it may not be halted on an arbitrary cycle using the FRAME# and STOP# signals.
 * Subtractive decode DEVSEL# takes place two cycles after the "slow DEVSEL#" cycle rather than on the next cycle.
 * After the address phase (and before any device has responded with DEVSEL#), there is an additional 1-cycle "attribute phase", during which 36 additional bits (both AD and C/BE# lines are used) of information about the operation are transmitted. These include 16 bits of requester identification (PCI bus, device and function number), 12 bits of burst length, 5 bits of tag (for associating split transactions), and 3 bits of additional status.

Versions

Essentially all PCI-X cards or slots have a 64-bit implementation and vary as follows:
 * Cards
 * 66 MHz (added in Rev. 1.0)
 * 100 MHz (works in 133 MHz slots by forcing a downclock of the bus to 100 MHz)
 * 133 MHz (added in Rev. 1.0)
 * 266 MHz (added in Rev. 2.0)
 * 533 MHz (added in Rev. 2.0)
 * Slots
 * 66 MHz (speed as 66 MHz 64-bit PCI, can be found on older servers)
 * 133 MHz (most common)
 * 266 MHz (rare on x86, main bus on IBM pSeries from the era)
 * 533 MHz (rare)

Mixing of 32-bit and 64-bit PCI cards in different width slots
Most 32-bit PCI cards will function properly in 64-bit PCI-X slots, but the bus speed will be limited to the clock frequency of the slowest card, an inherent limitation of PCI's shared bus topology. For example, when a PCI 2.3 66-MHz card is installed into a PCI-X bus capable of 133 MHz, the entire bus backplane will be limited to 66 MHz. To get around this limitation, many motherboards have multiple PCI/PCI-X buses, with one bus intended for use with high-speed PCI-X peripherals, and the other bus intended for general-purpose peripherals.

Many 64-bit PCI-X cards are designed to work in 32-bit mode if inserted in shorter 32-bit connectors, with some loss of speed. An example of this is the Adaptec 29160 64-bit SCSI interface card. However some 64-bit PCI-X cards do not work in standard 32-bit PCI slots. Even if it would work, installing a 64-bit PCI-X card in a 32-bit slot will leave the 64-bit portion of the card edge connector not connected and overhanging, which requires that there be no motherboard components positioned so as to mechanically obstruct the overhanging portion of the card edge connector.

Comparison with PCI-Express
PCI-X is often confused by name with similar-sounding PCI Express, commonly abbreviated as PCI-E or PCIe, although the cards themselves are totally incompatible and look different. While they are both high-speed computer buses for internal peripherals, they differ in many ways. The first is that PCI-X is a 64-bit parallel interface that is backward compatible with 32-bit PCI devices. PCIe is a serial point-to-point connection with a different physical interface that was designed to supersede both PCI and PCI-X.

PCI-X and standard PCI buses may run on a PCIe bridge, similar to the way ISA buses ran on standard PCI buses in some computers. PCIe also matches PCI-X and even PCI-X 2.0 in maximum bandwidth. PCIe 1.0 x1 offers 250 MB/s in each direction (lane), and up to 16 lanes (x16) are currently supported each direction, in full-duplex, giving a maximum of 4 GB/s bandwidth in each direction. PCI-X 2.0 offers (at its maximum 64-bit 533-MHz variant) a maximum bandwidth of 4,266 MB/s (≈4.3 GB/s), although only in half-duplex.

PCI-X has technological and economical disadvantages compared to PCI Express. The 64-bit parallel interface requires difficult trace routing, because, as with all parallel interfaces, the signals from the bus must arrive simultaneously or within a very short window, and noise from adjacent slots may cause interference. The serial interface of PCIe suffers fewer such problems and therefore does not require such complex and expensive designs. PCI-X buses, like standard PCI, are half-duplex bidirectional, whereas PCIe buses are full-duplex bidirectional. PCI-X buses run only as fast as the slowest device, whereas PCIe devices are able to independently negotiate the bus speed. Also, PCI-X slots are longer than PCIe 1x through PCIe 16x, which makes it impossible to make short cards for PCI-X. PCI-X slots take quite a bit of space on motherboards, which can be a problem for ATX and smaller form factors.

title: PCI-X


text:
Leonid Popov

Leonid Ivanovich Popov (Леони́д Ива́нович Попо́в, Леонід Іванович Попо́в; born August 31, 1945) is a former Soviet cosmonaut.

Biography
Popov was born in Oleksandriia, Kirovohrad Oblast, Ukrainian SSR. He was selected as a cosmonaut on April 27, 1970, and flew as Commander on Soyuz 35, Soyuz 40 and Soyuz T-7, logging 200 days, 14 hours, and 45 minutes in space before his retirement on June 13, 1987. Popov is married and has two children.

He was awarded: Foreign awards:
 * Twice Hero of the Soviet Union;
 * Three Orders of Lenin;
 * Medal "For Merit in Space Exploration" (Russian Federation);
 * Pilot-Cosmonaut of the USSR;
 * Honoured Master of Sport.
 * Hero of the Socialist Republic of Romania;
 * Hero of the Republic of Cuba
 * Hero of Socialist Labour (Vietnam);
 * Order of Ho Chi Minh (Vietnam).

In September 2023, as part of the national campaigns of decommunization and derusification, in Kropyvnytskyi (the regional capital of Kirovohrad Oblast) the Cosmonaut Popov Street was renamed to Independence Street.

title: Leonid Popov


text:
Anti-Secession Law

The Anti-Secession Law is a law of the People's Republic of China, passed by the 3rd Session of the 10th National People's Congress. It was ratified on March 14, 2005, and went into effect immediately. President Hu Jintao promulgated the law with Presidential Decree No. 34. Although the law, at ten articles, is relatively short, Article 8 formalized the long-standing policy of the PRC to use military means against Taiwan independence in the event peaceful means become otherwise impossible. The law does not explicitly equate "China" with the People's Republic of China (referred to in the law as "the State").

Background
Taiwan was formally incorporated into the Qing dynasty in 1683. After the First Sino-Japanese War, it was ceded by the Qing to the Empire of Japan in perpetuity in 1895. At the end of World War II, it was surrendered by Japan to the Kuomintang (KMT) administration of the Republic of China. After the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949, Taiwan and some neighboring islands continued to be controlled by the Republic of China government. In 1952, the Treaty of Taipei nullified all treaties, conventions and agreements previously concluded between China and Japan before December 9, 1941. Currently, the People's Republic of China (PRC) government considers Taiwan to be a province of China. According to the PRC, it is the sole legitimate government of China, and the government of the Republic of China ceased to hold sovereignty over China when it lost control of the Chinese mainland following the Chinese Civil War. It argues that the PRC assumed sovereignty over the entirety of China in 1949–1950, including Taiwan, although the latter remained under the administration of the Republic of China government.

The official Republic of China (ROC) view is that it did not cease to exist in 1949 and has continued to function as a sovereign political entity in Taiwan to the present day, making the relationship between the PRC and ROC similar to that between other partitioned states (such as North Korea and South Korea). Official recognition by most international organizations (such at the United Nations and World Health Organization) rests largely with the PRC. In 1992, the "One-China policy" was agreed between the governments of both sides whereby each would assert that there was only 'one China', while disagreeing about which side was the legitimate government of it. However, some advocates of Taiwan independence oppose both the PRC's and the ROC's claim to Taiwan and the legality of the Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.

Multiple opinion polls conducted in Taiwan have indicated that there is very little support for immediate unification on the PRC's terms or for an immediate declaration of independence. Polls have also consistently shown that a large majority of Taiwanese would support discussion of unification only if the economic and political systems of the two sides were comparable. A majority of Taiwan residents appear to support the "status quo" but there are different opinions in Taiwanese society, within the PRC, and within the international community, over what the status quo is. A full 74 percent of the Taiwanese public agree that "Taiwan is an independent sovereign country"

The re-election of Chen Shui-bian to the ROC Presidency, led many to conclude that there has been an increase in Taiwan independence sentiment and that a new Taiwanese identity is emerging on the island which is opposed to identification with China. During the 2004 ROC Legislative Election, the strategy of the pan-Green coalition was to try to capitalize on this trend to win a majority in the Legislative Yuan of Taiwan. Among some Taiwanese Independence supporters, it is believed that a pan-green majority could force a crucial referendum for constitutional reform and, perhaps, to further move the island toward de jure independence. Many Taiwanese independence supporters, including former President Lee Teng-Hui, argued that Taiwan should declare independence before 2008 on the theory that international pressure over the Beijing Olympics would prevent the PRC from using force against Taiwan.

These events in late 2004 caused a great deal of alarm in Beijing. Observers indicated that many in Beijing believed that its policies toward Taiwan had failed both because it did not have sufficient incentives to gain Taiwanese public support for unification and at the same time, it seemed that many in Taiwan did not take Beijing's stated threats of force seriously. The ROC government had defined the status quo in such a way that a de jure declaration of independence could be argued to not represent a change in the status quo. Some Chinese believe these events led to the formulation in 2003 and 2004 of the Anti-Secession Law.

In early 2004 a similar proposed law had been tabled. Titled the National Unification Promotion Law of the People's Republic of China, it was authored by a Chinese academic Yu Yuanzhou (余元洲), a professor from Jianghan University in Wuhan who did not hold any formal governmental position, as a suggestion to create a formal legal basis for the People's Republic of China's unification with Taiwan. Although no formal legislative action was taken on the document, the heavy debate surrounding it, and the suggestion that some sort of anti-secession law would be passed, was viewed by many in Taiwan as evidence of hostile intent by the PRC government towards Taiwan independence supporters.

In the December 2004 ROC Legislative elections, although the ruling DPP party increased its share of votes in the legislature and remained the largest single party there, the pan-blue coalition gained a razor-thin majority, which surprised many. However, this result may have been less a reflection of popular sentiment than a testament to the effectiveness of the KMT's more frugal nomination of candidates (116) compared with the DPP's over-nomination of candidates (122) and the KMT's rigid party rules for allotment of votes to its candidates within individual districts. This election result ended most prospects of an immediate declaration of independence and also called into question whether there really had been an increase in Taiwanese independence sentiment. Despite this, the PRC proceeded with the drafting of the anti-secession law. The main reasons given to foreign interlocutors were that the PRC leadership believed that its Taiwan policy in the past had been reactive rather than proactive and that it was necessary for the PRC to show initiative. Furthermore, Beijing expressed a residual distrust of Chen Shui-bian. Many foreign experts have argued that the PRC's decision-making system was rigid and that plans put into place to deal with a pan-green victory had simply developed too much momentum to be shut down.

In announcing the drafting of the law in December 2004, the Head of the Legal Affairs Committee of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress mentioned explicitly that the law was not intended to be applied to Hong Kong and Macau.

Development
In December 2004, the PRC state news agency Xinhua reported that the National People's Congress in its upcoming session would enact an 'anti-secession law', without specifying further details.

In a rare moment of agreement, politicians in Taiwan from both the Pan-green coalition and Pan-blue coalition reacted negatively towards this development. Some politicians have proposed that the ROC enact an 'anti-annexation law' to counter the proposed PRC law. Various opinion polls have revealed that 80% of Taiwan residents oppose such an 'anti-secession law' and a majority agree that a defensive referendum should be held in the advance of such a law to protect the status quo.

President Chen Shui-bian commented on the 'anti-secession law' during his 2005 new year speech: "Such actions will not only unilaterally change the status quo of peace in the Taiwan Strait, but will also pose the greatest threat to regional stability and world peace." Whereas the PRC Paramount leader Hu Jintao said "We will definitely not allow anyone to separate Taiwan from China by any means," in his New Year's Eve speech.

Although the PRC's official English translation of the law is the Anti-Secession Law, the Mainland Affairs Council in Taiwan has consistently translated it as Anti-Separation Law as secession implies that Taiwan is a part of the PRC. The Mainland Affairs Council and the ROC government has argued that the relationship across the Taiwan Strait is not analogous to the situation during the American Civil War since Taiwan was never part of the PRC.

Early reaction
Beijing claims that this bill is the PRC's most sincere attempt at resolving the Taiwan issue peacefully (see Political status of Taiwan). However, Taipei points to Article 8 as cause for concern. Shortly after the bill was passed, President Chen Shui-bian called for a National Security meeting in Taipei to discuss the issue.

One major topic of controversy between Beijing and Taipei is to what degree the law changes the status quo in the Taiwan Straits. Beijing has maintained that the law preserves the status quo and creates no new conditions for the use of force. In contrast, Taipei has argued that the law does change the status quo and gives the People's Liberation Army a "blank check" to attack Taiwan.

Prior to the passage of the bill, a statement from Taipei's Mainland Affairs Council and a resolution overwhelmingly passed by the ROC legislature stated that the status quo is that the Republic of China is sovereign and independent. The statement and resolution were carefully worded to avoid disagreements between the pan-blue and pan-green coalition over whether the Republic of China has any residual sovereignty over Mainland China.

After the law was passed, a Mainland Affairs Council official referred to Beijing's definition of "one China" in the PRC law as fiction.

Reaction in mainland China
Reaction within the PRC was mostly consistent. State media and the Beijing leadership all stood firmly behind the new law and vowed never to allow anyone, using any means, to "separate Taiwan from China", in any name. The National People's Congress voted unanimously in favor of the law, with two abstentions. In the run-up to the law's ratification, state media in the PRC accused those in Taiwan in favour of Taiwan independence of creating hostility to the new law and of confusing the Taiwanese into thinking that the law had hostile intent. Prior to passing the law, Chinese Communist Party (CCP) general secretary Hu Jintao in a speech outlined a four-point guideline to resolving the issue.

Reaction in Hong Kong
At the time the unification law was proposed by legal scholar Yu Yuanzhou, the press in Hong Kong expressed concern that it would lead to legislation by stealth of the anti-treason or anti-secession provision of the Basic Law Article 23 legislation in 2003. These concerns were addressed when a mainland China official stated explicitly the law would not be added to Annex III of the Basic Law, which means that it would not be applicable to Hong Kong. After the passage of the law in March 2005, there was very little reaction in Hong Kong and news of the law was far overshadowed by the resignation of Hong Kong's chief executive, Tung Chee-Hwa. In the 15 years since the law was passed, it has cast a long shadow over Hong Kong.

Reaction in Taiwan

In Taiwan, the passage of the law was condemned by officials and politicians from both the Pan-Green Coalition and the Pan-Blue Coalition, although there were differences in the content of their criticism. Supporters of the Pan-Green Coalition tended to react angrily to the spirit and content of the law as an infringement of what they saw as Taiwanese sovereignty. By contrast, supporters of the Pan-Blue Coalition, while stating that they opposed the law and the threat of force against Taiwan, called for more dialogue with the PRC and pointed to parts of the law in which Beijing showed hitherto unseen flexibility.

Opinion polls indicated widespread opposition to the law among the general public. Some questioned whether Beijing had the authority to enact such a law as they claim that Taiwan is not under the PRC jurisdiction (See Political status of Taiwan). The Pan-Green Coalition, in particular, reacted with distaste and there have been calls for an "anti-annexation law" to be passed by the legislature. Premier Frank Hsieh pointed out that the PRC law had already infringed on ROC sovereignty and thus met the criteria for initiating a "defensive referendum" under the ROC constitution. However, he added that whether a defensive referendum would be invoked is at the discretion of the ROC president.

A protest march against the PRC law took place on March 26 and it was widely reported that one million Taiwanese participated in the protest. Both the former President Lee Teng-hui and President Chen Shui-bian joined the march. However, Chen Shui-bian announced in advance that he would only attend the march and wouldn't be giving a speech. Most politicians from the Pan-Blue Coalition did not participate in any protest march, although they claimed that they would not dissuade their supporters from attending if they wished. The turnout of the march became a subject of political debate in Taiwan, with the mayor of Taipei city, Ma Ying-jeou, downplaying the participant number to around 270,000, while the march organizers claimed that the goal of one million participants was reached.

On March 25, 2008, DPP legislators tabled a bill titled the "Anti-Annexation Peace Law" at the procedural committee level in the legislature, which would have stated that "Taiwan and China are not subordinate to each other"; that "Taiwan is a sovereign state"; and that "the relationship between Taiwan and China is one between two states". It would have expressed hope that the Taiwan issue be resolved peacefully, but that if the status quo of the Taiwan Strait should change, the President would have the power to deal non-peacefully with "China's annexation". The bill was rejected at the procedural committee level by a vote of 11:2 and was not presented to the legislature.

International responses
United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice commented that the law was "not necessary", while White House spokesman Scott McClellan called its adoption "unfortunate", adding "It does not serve the purpose of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait". In speaking about the law, the United States repeated that it remained supportive of the One China policy as the US defines it, that it did not support Taiwan independence, and opposed any unilateral action to change the status quo. The United States House of Representatives approved a resolution criticizing the PRC for the approval of the PRC law in Beijing. The resolution expressed grave concern about the law and said the PRC law provides a legal justification for PRC to use force against Taiwan, in its words, altering the status quo in the region.

In response to the enactment of the PRC law, the European Union issued a statement urging "all sides to avoid any unilateral action that could stoke tensions," and recalled the "constant principles that guide its policy, namely its commitment to the principle of one China and the peaceful resolution of dispute...and its opposition to any use of force." Later, on 14 April 2005, the European Parliament adopted an own-initiative report by Elmar Brok MEP, with paragraph 33 stating:
 * [The European Parliament expresses] its deepest concern at the large number of missiles in southern China aimed across the Taiwan Straits and at the so-called "anti-secession law" of the People's Republic of China that in an unjustified way aggravates the situation across the Straits; calls on the People's Republic of China and on the R.O.C. in Taiwan to resume political talks on the basis of mutual understanding and recognition in order to promote stability, democracy, human rights and the rule of law in east Asia.

The EU also decided to continue with the arms embargo, which had been imposed upon the PRC after the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre and which had been set to expire in 2005.

Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer stated that if war were to occur in the Taiwan Straits, Australia would be required under the ANZUS treaty to consult with the United States but depending on the situation that it would not necessarily commit Australia to war. He said that "we don't think that the PRC should resolve the Taiwan status question militarily, that it has got to be done through negotiations with Taiwan". Downer further commented that Australia would have preferred it had China not passed the anti-secession law.

title: Anti-Secession Law


text:
British M-class submarine

The British Royal Navy M-class submarines were a small class of diesel-electric submarines built during World War I. The unique feature of the class design was a 12-inch (305 mm) gun mounted in a casemate forward of the conning tower.

Due to the limitations imposed on submarine armament by the Washington Naval Conference, M2 and M3 had their guns removed. M2 was converted to carry a small seaplane and M3 was made into a minelayer.

Background
They were ordered in place of the last four of the first group of steam-propelled K-class fleet submarines, K17 - K21, the original orders being cancelled.

They were initially intended as coastal bombardment vessels, submarine monitors, but their role had been changed before detailed design begun. The intention was that merchant ships could be engaged at periscope depth or on the surface using the gun, rather than torpedoes. At that time torpedoes were considered ineffective against moving warships at more than 1,000 yards (900 m). A 12-inch gun fired at relatively short range would have a flat trajectory simplifying aiming, and few ships would be expected to survive a single hit.

Design
The guns were 12-inch (305 mm) 40 calibre Mark IX guns from spares for the Formidable-class battleships. The mounting allowed them to elevate by 20 degrees, depress 5 degrees and train 15 degrees in either direction from the centre line. The weapon was normally fired from periscope depth using a simple bead sight on the end of the gun aligned with the target through the periscope at a range of around 1200 metres. The exposure time of the gun above the surface was around 75 seconds. The submarine had to surface to reload the gun, which would take about 3 minutes. In practice the concept was not very successful and only three of the four M-class boats ordered were completed, all between 1917 and 1918. M-class submarines are sometimes called submarine monitors.

M1 and M2 also had four 18-inch (450-mm) torpedo tubes whilst M3 and M4 had 21-inch (533 mm) diameter tubes and were 3 metres longer to accommodate them.

Service
M1 was the only one to enter service before the end of World War I but did not see action. She was captained during her sea trials by experienced submariner Commander Max Horton after his return from the Baltic, and was later lost with all hands while on exercise in the English Channel near Start Point in Devon after a collision with a Swedish collier, SS Vidar, on 12 November 1925. The wreck of M1 was discovered by a diving team led by Innes McCartney in 1999 at a depth of 73 metres. Later that year the wreck was visited again by Richard Larn and a BBC TV documentary crew, and the resulting film was aired in March 2000.

M2 was converted to a seaplane carrier in 1925, a hangar replacing the gun turret. She was lost off Chesil Beach, Dorset, on 26 January 1932. It is thought that the hangar door was opened prematurely. M2 lies in shallow water, 32 metres deep with the top of the conning tower only 20 metres below the surface at low tide. She is a popular attraction for local scuba divers with as many as six boats anchored above her on busy days.

M3 was converted to a minelayer in 1927 with stowage for 100 mines, primarily to test the mine-handling equipment of the Grampus class. The mines were carried on a conveyor belt which ran along her upper deck and was covered by an enlarged casing. The mines were laid through a door at the stern. She was scrapped in 1932 after the trials had been completed.

M4 was broken up before completion.

In 1924 all three completed members of the class were used to test hull camouflage to reduce the visibility of submarines to aircraft; M1 was painted grey-green, M2 dark grey and M3 was painted dark blue.

title: British M-class submarine